Am I the only one who can not or barely hear that there is a в on the front of this?
Uh, funny story, when в precedes another word, for the pronunciation you have to pretend they're one word, and soften the в (v) to more of an ф (f). Basically, while it is WRITTEN as "в тарелке" you PRONOUNCE it like "фтарелке." It's such a fleeting sound, my Russian teacher often reminds me not to drag it out too long.
I hope I made sense and that clears everything up :)
You are not the only one. I could not hear the в on normal speed, while on slow it sounded like someone sniffing!
I think I have reported it before - or certainly several examples like it. The 'в' is often there in the normal-speed audio, but seems to get cut off in the slow version. I cannot replay this one on demand, so don't know if it's one where this is true.
I don't think Duolingo actually produce the audio, but use a third party, so they have no direct editing facility. Last time I reported one like this, all they could do was disable the audio exercise, so it only ever comes up as a written translation. They couldn't re-record, or insert the missing 'в'.
I am getting better at realising when it should be there, even if I can't hear it. But it's still not ideal for beginners, if you have to use your skill and judgement to detect missing words! "Type what you hear" should be exactly that, not: "Type what you've worked out you should hear".
completely agreed with you. this is a bad part of Duolingo. And just talking about what i think is bad in the russian course is that... in the portuguese and italian course you can open a table where you can see all the pronouns and conjugations for that verb. why not to do the same in the Russian course? And they don´t explain anything to understand many things. I find it without an order so far. They start with negatives, questions, then adjectives, animals, when you are not in the animals section, and they use excersises that has nothing to do with the topic. for example here, this is the "where is it" lesson... and one excersise says " эта кошка ест... this cat eats.... what the hell is this sentence doing here?
Recently, Duolingo started mixing in random exercises from what you studied before to let you refresh your memory.
Even before, thematic lessons were a really bad idea because language is not made up of isolated words.
I learned some Ukrainian before I started with Russian and it seems like it skips things I already have learned like the alphabet?)
Dutch doesn't have conjugation tables, either, that I know of. In fact, because I'm only studying Dutch and Russian, I didn't know any language did!
yes Tina, the latin languages have them... and yes, they are there before Russian and Dutch. Actually, now I´ve started the Spanish course, I am from México, so my native language is Spanish... and as i have seen native speakers in the same own language, i decided to start my language so i can help people in their doubts and questions...and also to meet foreign people who want to study my language.
And i found that the Spanish one still has the fist way of how Duolingo worked. The bar of answers already replied, were some squares to be filled, so you could know how many more excersises you needed to finish the lesson, and we had 3 red hearts ...and every time you had an excersise wrong you lose one heart, and if you lose them all, you fail the lesson.... and if you finish with one heart, you receive one red stone... (I forgot what precious stone you win when you finish a level for example)...and if you had finished it with the whole hearts... mmmm you used to win ....i don´t remember what. hehehe.
There weren´t the bonus levels, like the flirting one, or christmas one, yet. so the Spanish one, must be the first or second language made here.
Only in-house languages have them. In the past, only Duolingo staff created courses—but a long time passed since then.
Ah, thank you, I didn't even know there were in-house and subcontracted courses! I think Dutch and Russian are both relatively new, in the scale of things (I know Russian is, and I think Dutch was still in beta when I started), so they are probably both from the new era when not everything is done in-house anymore. Just coincidence that I've picked two newer courses. I had no idea earlier courses were any different.
Ik ben een appel. Ik ben geen bannan. Goedendag, sap. THE SCHILDPADS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD.
It is clearly heard in normal speed audio (if you were talking about that).
I BT'ed the audio (normal speed) from my tablet to my receiver amp to enhance the volume and only there do I hear what it is: it's either a hiss (sneeze?) or a sniff as BampaOwl said. Normally, though, it's really, really difficult to hear (maybe it also depends on what device you listen from).
There is a different approach to that. Have you tried pronouncing that yourself? What do you expect to hear in place of what is actually there? A lot of Russian speakers claim that in English "dogs" and "ducks" are hard to distinguish, and "it" is pronounced as if it were "its".
Here is my recording of that combination in different sentences.
Try it on your laptop or desktop computer? I have no trouble hearing it as a "ff" in front of тарелке from my laptop, which I normally use. On slow, it sounds like an elongated "f" as well for me. It may very well be the audio capabilities of the device causing the issue.
I have the opposite experience in dictation: if you try to do the "f" or "sf" sound, Duo marks you wrong. So far, I've only been able to get exercise right when there's a B in it by sounding it as a fairly strong "vee" sound.
Seems to me that that should be allowed. I actually don't understand why есть is elided here.
We do not use есть to say where objects are or what exactly is found in a certain place. In the latter case, есть is exclusively used when you say that there is some even though one might expect there to be none. For example, "В кастрюле есть суп" (There is some soup in the pot) is something you would say to inform you have some soup, but never when asked what is in the pot.
Grammatically, of course, you can have all sorts of things.
Actually "Water is on the plate." is accepted and according to me, thus, "The water is on the plate." is OK too.
"Water is on the plate" accepted 28 Apr 2018. I agree with Duo that use of the definite article is wrong here, because it's too specific.
literal translation is "in plate water" shouldn't the correct answer be "there is water IN the plate" not ON the plate? To say water is ON the plate wouldn't you say "на тарелке вода"?
Hm. So, you can definitely say "in the plate" in English? I thought it was uncommon. In Russian both are possible (there are deeper and more flat plates, you know...)
Your thought was right. "In the plate" is not correct in this case. It would only be used for discussing the material of the plate such as "there's an imperfection in the plate".
Hi, thank you for your reply. Yes it makes more sense to say "water on the plate" Maybe I am approaching this the wrong way, I will keep this in mind, thanks.
As a native English speaker, "in the plate" to my mind would imply that I am talking about the material the plate is composed of. Is there gold in the plate I need to know about and extract from it somehow? :-D
I thought the same - especially as one of the hints uses: "contains water". It seems inconsistent to me, to say that: "The plate contains water" is an acceptable translation, but: "There is water in the plate" isn't! If "contains water" would be OK, then surely it can't be wrong to say there is water in it? They mean the same. Perhaps it is the hint that is slightly off.
I believe the sentence is saying that there is water ON the plate, just in this instance the noun 'plate' requires the preposition в rather than на to signify this.
It is not technically incorrect, I believe, as this construction can be seen in poetry and dramatic writing at times, but you would not use this in normal conversation in this manner. "There is water on the plate" or "On the plate, there is water" would definitely be the smoother translation in this case.
Word order would be the other way around, I'm thinking. Right now, it says "in/on plate (there is) water". If you want to switch it around, you'd have to use "in/on water (there is) plate." I'm still iffy on the cases, so I'm not sure if that would or wouldn't translate to "В воду тарелко" or not, but that'd be the order as far as I can tell.
You have the right idea. Locative case of "вода" is "воде", and it's "тарелка" in the nominative, so "В воде тарелка".
Cool! Thanks for the correction. :)
( celebrates in a corner Russian! I'm starting to get it! /\o/ )
If the plate was 'in' water, that would be imply that the water was underneath the plate and/or submerging it. For instance, if you had a sink full of water and the plate was in the sink, it would be in the water.
One letter--a schwa at that (the vowel at the end of тарелке--wrong and the whole answer is wrong, instead of being graded as a typo?
Probably because your typo created another possible form of the word which would be incorrect here.
Ah, okay--thanks! I have such a hard time with inflected languages. I'm trying to apply my French experience to help me, but with limited success. And the Russian vowels are killing me. Anyway, спасибо!
From listening, how can you tell the difference between тарелке and тарелки. At first I thought "there is water in the plates"? So also, how does the sentence structure change, between 'в тарелке вода' and 'в тарелки вода'?
Тарелке and тарелки are not considered distinguishable in modern Russian.
When talking about location, в and на take the Prepositional case: в тарелке / на тарелке. There are that many endings that nouns take in the Prepositional:
- а/я-ending nouns: е (в школе, в книге, на земле, о сестре, о тёте)
- but ия-ending nouns take и (в Германии, в России, о Марии)
- consonant-ending masculine nouns: е (на столе, о брате)
- but ий-ending nouns take и (в планетарии, в солярии)
- о/е-ending neuter nouns: е (на окне, в яйце, в море)
- but ие-ending nouns take и (в созвездии, в выражении, о проклятии)
- nouns like имя and время become имени, времени
- ь-ending feminine nouns: и (на кровати, при боли, на панели, о мыши)
(the Prepositional is only used with на, в, о, при; it is also used in formal language with по in "upon X" structure)
Тарелки may be interpreted as Accusative plural. Then в тарелки вода, admittedly very telegraphic, requires additional information to make sense of ("into plates, water"? surely you need some verb to explain what makes water take that direction.).
In a previous comment it was stated that, "The water is on the plate" is «Вода в талелке.» However "Water is on the plate." is listed as an alternate correct answer.
I do not really understand why "the water" is unacceptable, but "water" is. Could someone clarify for me please.
It would be incorrect English to say, "On the plate water" as there must be a verb. In Russian it is implied, which is apparently allowed.
Could this accept “bowl” as well? “Deep plates”, e.g. these ones, are called the plate-word in a lot of languages (at least in Swedish and Italian, that I know of; would they be covered under тарелки in Russian?), but are more usually called bowls in English; and this sentence seems to suggest that kind of item, rather than what’s usually meant in English by a plate.
I think the consensus in this discussion is that it definitely means the flat type (the usual meaning of "тарелка"), and that is why the given translation Is: "on the plate", not in it. If it was a bowl, or other deep vessel, the word would not be "тарелка", and "on" should be: "in"
This sentence doesn't seem to make any sense in English, unless I'm missing something. Does Тарелке only refer to a flat plate or can it mean a bowl or anything else like that as well? Because the "correct translation" it gave me was "The plate contains water", and nothing we refer to as a plate in English could contain water. If you wanted to say the plate had water on it, you'd generally say "the plate is wet", not that it contains water.
"On the plate there's water" is not correct, while "there is water on the plate" is? Ok, but I am confused