The bear was moving down the street past the school and now he is at the park. He is not able to go in it and is just moving around at the park.
As long as everybody stays in the park while they are at the park, the fences will keep them safe.
If they go to the parking lot while they and the bear are at the park they will be in difficulty because bears see cars as gift boxes with treats inside them.
That is not to say that Russian is the same as English in this regard. Or that the common blurring of the distinction between in in and at in the English language is an acceptable practice when answering Duo's specific request for a non blurry answer.
I disagree. I'm a native English speaker and "in the park" sounds very natural to me.
A few years ago, in the UK, there were annual music concerts called Party in the Park, not Party at the Park.
If I say "I'm at the park", I feel as though I'd be saying that I'd just arrived there, maybe waiting at the entrance.
If I say "I'm in the park", to me that means I'm within the confines of the park.
To be fair, the differences are so subtle, they're almost non-existent.
@D_Rennie_J Now that you mention it, I would say "the swing is at the park" too. In fact if the bear was in a pen as an attraction I would probably say it's at the park. If it's running around loose (which is how I normally think of bears in parks) then I'd say it's in the park. Maybe this is regional - I thought it might be British but then the Yellowstone examples would argue against that.
@D_Rennie_J - I'm a native speaker and I don't agree. You say it sounds unnatural to use "in" with an outdoor area, but I bet you'd say "in the forest" rather than "at the forest". I'd agree with solarbotanist - I say "at the park" if I'm there enjoying the attractions, but "in the park" if I'm talking about something being located there. For example I'd definitely say that Old Faithful is "in" Yellowstone National Park, not "at" it, and Wikipedia, FWIW, agrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Faithful
Regarding the concert - I'm not really into this kind of music, but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_in_the_Park
P.S. lda13jls, according to his profile, is Jack Archer from Sheffield - I'd assume he's also a native speaker.
@ Theron126 Must be a regional discrepency.. at least on the East Coast, I can say for certain it's typical to say "at" the park (regardless of what you're "doing" there.. it's location we're talking about here, not actions.)
update: My girlfriend (a native speaker from Iowa) just woke up and confirmed. She says "The swing is AT the park." The swing certainly can't be "enjoying the attractions." (I swear I didn't "lead" her in the legal sense.. this is just the obvious word to use for us.)
Again, I only brought this up in the first place because "at" wasn't accepted in someone's answer. Even if I concede that "in" is ok to use in this situation, the word "at" is still essentially equivalent here. As "knowingisgrowing" correctly stated above: "in English the words in and at are used interchangeably." Obviously when translating back to Russian, I would use в, not на, but there's nothing unacceptable about the use of "at" here at all. All this talk about "at" sounding like the bear is going down a slide is really bizarre to me. I've been speaking English for 28 years and never heard of any such distinction. What difference does it make WHAT you're doing.. the question here is LOCATION. Both "in" and "at" should be accepted. Period.
Have a few quotes from an English Grammar website forum to support this:
"It's worth adding that 'in the park' would rarely be used in an urban setting, per Kevin's answer. If I were at a park, in a city, and someone called me, I would always say 'I'm at the park.' So while this answer is technically true, I think it's a fine point that could be misleading to a beginner. For the majority of practical use, 'at' is correct and 'in' is, if not 'wrong' then at least awkward." – Jonah Nov 27 '14 at 2:30
then again, this guy from NZ writes:
"@Jonah that may be a regionalism (sounds like USA English to me). In NZ, I would definitely say 'I'm in the park', even if the park was in the city." – Blorgbeard Nov 28 '14 at 2:34
Here is a simple and concise analysis that most accurately reflects my own understanding (before I got into this discussion) :
"I would use 'at' the park if I were home and someone asked where the kids were. I would use 'in' the park if standing outside the park when asked the same question.
I think a very subtle change in meaning here. " - gnaisum, Feb 15, 2011
Obviously when only provided with "в парке медведь," there's no context given on the speaker's proximity to the park.
Probably a lot of this comes down to regional preferences. I really don't believe there's a difference in MEANING, and "at" certainly isn't INCORRECT.
That's probably because you're not a native English speaker.. We say "at" the park. I've never heard anyone say "in" the park. After all, a park is an outdoor area, and in this case it sounds unnatural to me to use the word "in." All that being said, I typed "in" the first time because of the word "в," and because I know how nitpicky some of these lessons can be.. For example, "In the park is a bear." seems like a completely acceptable answer to me but that sentence construction was consistently rejected by this site in the past. Essentially, I just want to emphasize that in English (or at least in America,) for any person, animal, object, or event "in" the park.. the normal word to use is "at."
"I am at the park." - sounds normal.
"I am in the park." - would make me think you are a foreigner.
"There's a concert at the park" - normal.
"There's a concert in the park" - meh. not really.
I can't speak for other English speaking countries, but at least in the US, "in" here would sound pretty strange.
Where are you?
I am at the burning nuclear reactor site. The whole thing is up in flames.
Are you in it?
No. Do you think I'm crazy? Why do you think I would be in it?
When you are in something you are always at it. But you may not be in something even though you are at it.
Just because you can replace a word with another word sometimes there is no reason to assume they are completely interchangeable.
Yet another reason to ignore Google Translate for anything more than the sound of a word.
The translation of this sentence, according to Duolingo, is that the bear is in the park. Due to the definition which I posted previously, you can see that that can mean in. Thus, at and in are both accurate translations here. I never said the words are completely interchangeable, just that they are.
I am losing the thread here. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The task is "В парке медведь" (i.e. the answer to the question "Что в парке?"/"What is in the park?"). "В парке" here means "inside the park", so the only correct answer is "in the park".
However, if the task would be "Медведь — в парке" (i.e. the answer to the question "Где медведь?"/"Where is the bear?") then you can use both prepositions, "at" or "in", depending of your location and knowledge about the exact position of the bear (inside the park or somewhere in the location of the park).
Because Russian doesn't have articles, the distinction is there, but subtle. As it stands, it equates to "In the park (there) is A BEAR." But if you say "Медведь в парке," it is more likely translated as "THE BEAR is in the park." Putting the bear first makes it seem we know THE bear of which we speak. Putting it at the end makes it simply "A BEAR" because we're focused on the park and what may be happening there.
I'd disagree.. For some reason, the comma seems awkward/unnecessary without the word "there." Either
"In the park is a bear." or
"In the park, there is a bear."
I think it's because "Is a bear" isn't a sentence on its own, but "There is a bear." is a complete sentence.. sort of a complete clause that can be seperated with a comma.
Both can mean the same depending on intonation and context, but in general, their usage is different:
There is a bear in the park. Let's come and look at him.
В парке (есть) медведь. Пойдём посмотрим на него.
Where is the bear? The bear is in the park.
Где (тот) медведь? Медведь в парке.
You are correct. The absence of articles in the Russian example means the articles must be supplied in the English translation. The most natural ones to supply without any context is that there is a bear in a particular park.
Any other choice would be reflected in the Russian statement.
Down voters please take note.
In the Russian course, the first letter will be Capitalized and there will be ending punctuation for sentences only. Other courses don't pay attention to that, but this one does, because the verb "to be" does not appear in the Russian sentence, but it should in the English sentence.
In Russian, new information is at the end of the sentence. DL's sentence is informing someone that there is A bear in the park. (Why is everyone screaming? - There is a bear in the park!)
In your sentence, you already know a bear exists and you're informing about its whereabouts (Where is the bear? The bear is in the park). In Russian it would correspond to "Медведь в парке."
The construction is perfectly natural (though unusual in content) in English. For example, I am teaching a child vocabulary with a Berenstein picture book, and want the child, who is having trouble, to find a picture of a bear or practice the word IN, I would show a page with a lot of animals and various parks....
The mistake wasn't using "a park", but not having a verb in the translation (a bear IS in a park). A bear is in a park is indeed perfectly fine grammatically (I could imagine it being start of a joke - "A bear is in a park - a man walks up to him and asks...". In terms of everyday use, though, you would have to use a definite article - "There is a bear in the park" "The bear is in a park" "The bear is in the park".
No, "in the bear's park" would be "в медве́жьем па́рке". If you want to say that you and a bear are in the same park, this would be "я в парке, где медведь" = "I am in the park where the bear is", or "я в парке с медведем" but the last one has a double meaning 1) that you are in the park where the bear is; 2) you and a bear are strolling in a park together =) The meaning depend on the context.
It would take a pretty massive fence to stop the kind of bears we have around here.
Also some parks in this region are large enough for their designated purpose which focuses on allowing bears to move around freely which includes leaving and entering the park. It is the bear's park. Any fences, and there aren't any, would be to keep people out which is easier to do than stopping bears.
Парке is in the prepositional case, which adds the ending -е for nearly all nouns. Prepositional usually relates to location, a place where something is rather than where something is heading. It is used with в and на when they refer to a location and it is also used with о/об/обо which are all versions of the same word.