- Forum >
- Topic: Russian >
- "В парке медведь."
149 Comments
I thought you couldn't start sentences with a preposition like и, but I guess in Russia you can.
Couldn't you say the bear is AT the park, instead of in it? I answered "The bear is at the park" it was counted wrong...
It's wrong; "the bear is at the park" would be "медведь у парка" which would be grammatically incorrect.
In the phrase "медведь в парке" the "в" specifically means "in."
But in English the words in and at are used interchangeably so the bear is at the park should be accepted as an English translation of "Медведь в парке".
I would say that in and at would not be interchangable in this case. "There is a bear in the park" implies the bear is wandering around. "The bear is at the park" makes me think of a bear on a swing or going down a slide.
I agree, "the bear is at the park" makes it sound as if the bear has decided to have a day out with his family at the park
1150
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.
Who knew things could be so complicated? :-)
Anyway, I think we can agree that both "in" and "at" should be accepted.
@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.
@ Theron126 You're right, it would argue against that. I kinda forgot, too, that New Yorkers will always say "in Central Park." Guess there's more uncertainty to the choice of preposition than I realized before.
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.
Solarbotanist and ida13jls are you native English speakers? Because, I am, and even if that's what it "sounds like" (to you), that doesn't mean that's what it 'is'.
If you google the definition of "at", you get this: 'expressing location or arrival in a particular place or position.'
'expressing location IN a place'. So, why ever would it not be interchangeable with IN, if its definition includes IN?
- 1150
BooMasterUK
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.
northernguy
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.
- 1790
The sentence "Медведь у парка" is absolutely correct in Russian. It means "There is a bear near the park".
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).
- 1790
You are not wrong. You have thoroughly considered all the options of this task and I totally agree with you.
- 1790
You answered correctly. This answer is just not added yet. Next time click - report a problem -> my answer should be accepted.
This is wrong. Learn English first :) at means something at top( I mean yeah you can visualise) wheeeas in means within boundary. Good luck
Как носитель языка, смешно. Впрочем, грамматически правильно по-английски. Мне кажется, что лучше сказать или "There's a bear in the park," или "The bear is in the park."
"In the park is a bear" would look much better with a comma, I think. "In the park, is a bear?"
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.
Quick question about word order.. would "медведь в парке" be an equivalent expression, and perfectly grammatical? Or would it sound weird to a native Russian speaker?
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.
This partially answers the question I was going to post. Conversely, if I had typed "The bear is in the park" as the translation to this sentence, would it have been correct?
A bear is in a park. wrong.
I must say "a bear is in the park" to finish the lesson.
There isn't a bear in most parks, so there must be a specific park with a bear in it.
- 1150
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.
Since there is no verb "to be", why is it wrong to translate this into English as "a bear in the park"?
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.
Maybe because that's not a complete sentence. It could be a book's title, but not a complete sentence. I suppose Duolingo tends to use as many complete sentences as they can.
- 106
Is is correct "the bear is in the park"? Its marked as incorrect, so I'm guessing that there must be some accusative or nominative rule I'm missing
I wrote "the bear is in the park" and DL marked it as incorrect and indicated that "a bear is in the park" is the correct answer. I don't get it.
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."
- 296
Great answer! I'd translated it as “The bear is in the park” and it was marked as wrong. You explained why very well.
- 1790
Yes. "В парке есть медведь". This sentence focuses on the existence of the object of conversation.
What about an expression for "there is," as in the German "es gibt" or French "il y'a" -? Это means "this is" so it's not quite the same thing...
- 1790
The letter "ь" doesn't have its own sound. It just makes softer a consonant before it.
So literally it directly translates to "In park bear"? Gah, as a native English speaker, it's so weird seeing so many words omitted compared to English.
- 520
Maybe that works for Slavic languages, for Romance languages the difference is pretty small.
I agree...If I were trying to express this to someone I would probably at least throw in a "there is", if such exists.
- 1150
Because Duo wants to emphasize this example represents something important in Russian. The verb to be is understood here. It is a complete sentence. You have to get used to seeing Russian, complete sentences without an apparent verb.
i wonder why it is "в городе ЕСТЬ змеи" - it gave incorrect to "в породе змеи" but "в парке медведь". Anyone???
I may have skipped the answer among all the discussion about in and at, so sorry if it has already been answered. I suggested THE bear is in the park (in !!! = inside...so don't get in ! lol !)...why isn't THE accepted here ???
I think - The bear is in the park- should be a correct answer for в парке медведь.
When the speaker says медведь, it sounds weird to me. Does anyone agree or have i learned the pronunciation incorrectly? I thought it was медве́дь (second "е" stressed). The speaker sounds otherwise.
- 303
The ь softens the preceding letter we are told, but I didn't expect such a drastic change.
- 1790
Actually the meaning of the Russian sentence is - "there is some bear in some park". This is an abstract sentence (in Russian) and it doesn't refer to any particular bear or park. Thus, it doesn't need the article "the", I think. Try to report next time.
- 330
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".
- 1790
I meant "a bear is in a park", as far as I know it is not correct English, but this choice is ok in Russian (I mean logic of the language)
Can it also mean "in the bears park" as answer to the question "where are you?"?
- 1790
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.
Getting used to the direct translation actually makes learning Russian seem way easier than learning English. "In the park is a bear" easy.
- 1150
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.
- 467
i don't know what i did wrong but i spelled it the same as it says the correct spelling is and it is still marked wrong
- 1150
Nothing like copy and paste to make it easier for us to provide assistance when you refer to an example such as yours. Otherwise what can anybody possibly say in response?
hey guys, I'm from brazil and I have a question; I searched and in the inglesh translation "медведь" means bear, but in the translate of the word bear (urso) in portuguese to russian is нести. Is that right? If yes, why does this difference exist?
I used Microsoft Translate to translate urso from Portuguese to Russian and it returned медведь. I tried Russian to English нести and it returned "carry."
This ahould translate as: The bear is in the park. Also, my Russian fiancee points our that no one in Russia would use this syntax.
Hey, does "The bear is in the park." translate is correct? I think yes, but please tell me.
- 625
Actually it isn't. "The bear is in the park" would be "Медведь в парке". Here the bear is the main theme of the sentence and the park is somewhere, where it is. In the "В парке медведь" on the other hand the park is the main theme and the bear is something that is in it.
Why парке and not парк? What is the grammar rule governing the declension?
- 520
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.
The male voice makes it sound like в парке медуриц. I think it is wrong. The female voice does the correct pronunciation.
Could "The park has a bear" be a translation for this, or would that require «есть»?
I'm on mobile, this sounds like 'medovich'/медович instead of 'medved'/медведь. Anyone else?
The audio in this (for those who listened this) is ending with itch or similar, definidely not дь...
Can someone tell me if the audio on this lesson isn't good or if that is really how quickly в is said in a sentence? Because with this audio it's almost indistinguishable, save for seeing the sentence she's saying.
There is a legend of a St. Cyrill inventing Russian. But the more I advance in the lessons the more I feel that either the monk was drunk or it was Tarzan the one who invented this language. Such a primitive sintax...
Completely normal thing in Russia. I can't help but think of a video clip of one man leading a bear on a leash. Caption "Things you only see in Russia"
