1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Russian
  4. >
  5. "There is a fly on the stone."

"There is a fly on the stone."

Translation:На камне муха.

November 4, 2015



Could муха на камне be a correct answer as well?


This would rather mean "The fly is on the stone".


Would муха на камень там make sense? Duo didnt allow it anyhow


No, it doesn't make sense. There's no need to include "там" – it can't be used to translate "there is". Also, you need the locative case ("камне") after "на" here in order to express location.


Thank you Olimo and Raspberry-shake. That's very helpful. I guess Russian doesn't have an equivalent for "there is/are" (es gibt auf Deutsch and Hay en Español). Have a Lingot!


Indeed, there is no such equivalent. The difference between "X is somewhere" and "There is X somewhere" is conveyed with the word order.


Russian equivalent of "There is/are" = есть and " There is not/are not" is нет. "есть муха на камне" wold probably be more accurate.


"Есть муха на камне" sounds like a reply in an argument:

  • На камне муха. (There's a fly on the stone.)
  • Нет там мухи. (No, there isn't any fly there.)
  • Есть! (Yes, there is!)
  • Да нет мухи на камне! (Come on, there's no fly on the stone!)
  • Есть муха на камне!! (Yes there is a fly on the stone!!)

The most neutral way to say "There is X [somewhere]" in Russian is to say "[somewhere] X".


In many other "there is/are" sentences we've looked at, есть has been required in declaratory sentences, so I'm kind of surprised есть is not required here.

(I wish there was an easy way to access my comment history, as used to be the case with Duo with our now long-gone personal pages, or the search engine was a lot better, so I could locate the sentences I'm talking about.)

Example from a Duo exercise I found using the search engine:

"There is an apple on the table."
Есть яблоко на этом столе.

Besides the infuriating use of "the" to translate этом (I've been marked wrong numerous times for doing that), the example makes it likely that I'd write:
есть муха на камне

Your comment makes it seem that the actual "correct" answer (without any context, there seems to be more than one) to the "apple/table" sentence is:
на этом столе яблоко
or maybe
на этом столе — яблоко.


"есть" ? Is it correct?


I am a native speaker муха на камне is right too


Why is "На камне есть муха." not correct. I wrote so and lost a heart.


I had the same question because I speak english and Polish. Russian has different grammar


OMG same!!! I keep trying to apply Polish grammar rules (especially for plurals/masculine/feminine endings)
And then I'm like..but it sounds the same...)


"На камне есть муха" not accepted. Why? I thought leaving есть out was optional?


I'd like to know that too. Extremely confused about the use (or lack thereof) of "есть" here.


I'd recommend using есть for "there is" in general situations. When you want to say "There is [something] [somewhere]," the construction Duo is teaching here is the best, most neutral, and natural...[Locative/ prepositional case of place] [the thing which is, in nominative]. For instance: На столе тарелка. This is best rendered in English as "There is a plate on the table." An example of when you'd want есть would be when you want to stress the existence of something (Я верю, что добро есть...I believe that there is good.) Or when you are just generally saying "there is" with no location: "Ходите в свете, пока есть свет" (Walk In the Light While There Is Light...title of a Tolstoy novella). Even the second example is stressing the existence of the light. Hope that helps :)


Thank you very much for that, BenCostell3. So don't use "есть" when you're saying that there is something in a particular location, but it's acceptable at other times. I'm a lot less confused about this now. Thanks again, and have a Lingot for your troubles! :-)


No "есть" in this sentence?


Yeah, why no "есть" in this sentence but it's needed in "there are snakes in the city"?


Also needed есть when there is a bear in the park, but entirely not allowed when there is a fly on a rock. I seem to always get it wrong either way, and I need a good explanation for when есть, when not есть.


I'm trying to make sense of why the prepositional case form is "камне". I found a rule that said that in masculine nouns ending in "ь", that last letter is replaced by "е". Can it also be explained why the "е" in "камень" disappears so that we get "камне" and not "камене"?


The "e" is a fill vowel, which disappears in declension except for the accusative singular (same as the nominative singular). In the same way, to break up consonant clusters at the end of words, many neuter and feminine nouns add such fill vowels in the genitive plural.


Could it be, "На камне есть муха,"?


не знаю, ребята, как там в английском, нь по-русски что на камне муха, что муха на камне - одно и то же...


"Муха на камне" -- ответ верный. Вы уж поверьте мне, как носителю языка. )


Why is "Это муха на камне" incorrect?


That would mean something more like "This is a fly on the stone". I don't think you can use "Это" to mean "there is", but I'm open to correction on that.


Is "есть муха на камне" correct?


Sounds really weird.


на камне есть муха is fine though? Thank you for the help.


It sounds more natural without "есть".


But is it incorrect? I'm still not sure what the rule is for when you need есть and when you don't


What are the prepositional and genitive form of Камень?


The prepositional form is the one used in this sentence: "камне". In the genitive it's "камня".


"Муха на камне"- что не так? Мы, русские, именно так и скажем!


Why is "на камне есть муха" wrong? In the sentence "в городе есть змеи" the word "есть" was necessary.


My russian friend told me муха на камне was correct but DuoLingo didn't accept it :(


With neutral intonation, Муха на камне tells us where the fly is (The fly is on the stone), whereas На камне муха tells us what is on the stone (There is a fly on the stone).


Mnemonic for камне = stone : How COMe NEver moves? Because it STONE! COM+NE = KAMNE = STONE


I am confused. Isn't stone kamen en not kamne?


The nominative form is "камень", yes, but in this sentence the noun is in the prepositional case, and thus "камне" must be used.


I know flies are small creatures, but providing the fly was still alive and had not been swatted or sprayed could one say - На камне стоит муха.


In English, we would say that flies sit on things; they don't stand on them, do they? It's the same in Russian: you'd have to use "сидеть", not "стоять".


Муха не стоит. Она или летает или сидит. Муха стоит так не говорят.


why does the fly come after the stone? Ha means on, right? so on the stone, there is a fly? but where does the "there is" come from? I'm confused.


It comes from an English speaker's need for the sentence to sound sensible.

Otherwise, it is not there. Duo wants to know if you understand the sentence so it expects something closer to English than just a simple word by word translation. If you were translating the Russian into a language that didn't require the verb to be in an ordinary sentence, you wouldn't have to include it.


Муха на камне = На камне муха.


Добавьте "Муха на камне"!!!


Could you say "там муха на камне" as well?


No. Там is "there" in the locational sense (as opposed to "here.") Там муха на камне is "A fly is on a stone [over] there."


Should have accepted "На камне есть муха," because of "There is." This translation means "A fly is" or "The fly is."


Why камне but don't камень?


It is locative case following "B" (indicating where something is located).


"На камне есть муха"?


why we do not say "есть муха" instead just "муха"


Муха на камне или на камне муха-одно и тоже!!!!! А мне засчитало как ошибку


Both of these are possible in English as well, with slightly differing emphasis: "On the stone is a fly" stresses what's happening on the stone. "The fly is on the stone" suggests that we're interested in the fly and it's current whereabouts. What Russian lacks is the distinction between the definite and indefinite articles, since it has neither. In English "A fly is on the stone" gives the general state of things, where neither the fly nor the stone is of particular importance; whereas "The fly is on the stone" means we're already aware there's a fly and we're reporting on it's current situation.


Why камне and not камень?


It's locative case: where something is located (in, on, at, etc.)


Why "на камне есть муха" is wrong ?


Whats the difference?


Находится муха на камне Why is it wrong?


The difference is nuanced. This emphasizes the fly's location, as though we already know of the fly and are inquiring where to find it. "The fly is located (finds itself) on the stone."

The exercise question presents the existence of a fly as new information, or perhaps answers the question, "What's on the stone?"


Находится миха на камне. Why is it wrong?


It's the equivalent of "A fly is located on the stone." Or "A fly finds itself on the stone." The truth of the fact is the same, but that's not typically how one would say it in either language.

Learn Russian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.