- Forum >
- Topic: Russian >
- "Do we have rice or tea here?"
"Do we have rice or tea here?"
Translation:Здесь у нас рис или чай?
24 Comments
Is the position of здесь so important here? I put У нас еcть рис или чай здесь but it's wrong.
Your translation sounds unnatural. Here are some versions I can think of as a native speaker:
- Здесь у нас рис или чай?
- У нас здесь рис или чай?
- У нас рис или чай здесь?
"Есть" is omitted because it is obvious that we HAVE something here. The focus is on WHAT we actually have here.
1663
Is the inclusion of есть an error? Duo says so, but obviously, it's technically not wrong, since it's understood but elided. Are there any rules for inclusion/exclusion, or is it just something we have to pick up on as we learn more?
I'm assuming that Duo began with есть present in the у....есть... format so we would get familiar with it, but is now dropping it to show what actual Russian conversation is like.
Three ideas from https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/15225/when-can-i-omit-the-word-есть:
-
When English would use a definite article, omit есть (and vice versa).
-
Keep есть for a statement/ an admission; omit it for a notification/warning. eg у меня есть пистолет and у меня пистолет! Can anyone offer more examples?
-
"With numerals the word ectb is generally omitted."
But if the first point were true, we should omit есть here, because we aren't talking about a particular tea/ rice :(
Based on olimo's explanation, the only way I can make sense of the omission is by interpreting the sentence to imply, "We have some (indefinite) food." and to state "But do we have this kind of food (determined rice)?"
The literal translation of the phrase in the sentence would exactly feature the word "есть", i.e. "у нас здесь есть рис или чай?". However, the conveyed meaning of the English sentence is a bit different, and the Russian translation fixates it.
Why can't I say У нас тут рис или чай ? I thought they were more or less interchangeable. What's the difference?
It is not incorrect, but "здесь" is the basic word for "here" in Russian, whereas "тут" is indeed a bit more informal. Besides, in the more literal sense "здесь" means "here" as in this area, and "тут" is more like in this particular spot, but that does not mean that you can't use either in both meanings.
honestly, that sounds right to me... but i suppose "tut" is less formal.
I disagree about your last point; while your interpretation (of the English) is possible, there is another interpretation of asking whether we have either of them without caring about which.
У нас есть рис или чай здесь? is actually right. But здесь есть рис или чай? without sounds better.
Regarding the position of adverbs in a sentence, my PONS cheatsheet for Russian says tgat, generally,
-
Adverbs for determining when and where (time and place) are positioned at the beginning of a sentence.
-
Adverbs elaborating on how a verb is carried out (manner) are positioned in front of that verb.
These usage patterns are particular to adverbs. More generally, words that you want to emphasize are put at the end(!) of a sentence.
So I think that if we didn't follow tge general rule of thumb for adverbs, instead pkacing здесь at the end of the sentence, then we'd thus emphasize the the rice is here, rather than elsewhere.
So how would the meaning change if we stuck здесь in the middle of the sentence, eg in front of the verb?
It's a question, so i personally think есть should be added... in all my years of speaking Russian in Russia i never heard such a question without есть... it's weird
- 1000
Because the existence of those objects is not the main idea in the sentence. You don't want to know if you have them, you want to know if you have them THERE (that's why здесь goes first)
Such narrow definitions are confusing to learners. Putting the word "есть" would make for a proper translation of the phrase. In Russian, there is no such strict distinction as you mentioned.
i know! I'm a native russian speaker and I'm pretty sure you can change the position of the word "zdes'"!!!! i put it at the end and it marked it wrong, although there really is no fault in grammar
