So does Russian lack a progressive aspect, just like German? I don't understand why people have a hard time wrapping their minds around a lacking progressive aspect, so it's not a problem for me if it does. I just want to make sure.
Yes, it does not have it. Be careful around the verbs of motion, though, because a repeated/multidirectional action and a progressive one-way action use different verbs.
Okay, so while it doesn't have a progressive aspect, it does have an iterative aspect? That seems straight forward enough. Thanks. =) Though can you give me an example of a "multidirectional action", please?
Он плывёт = he is swimming (right now).
Он плавает — this can mean both "he is swimming (right now)" and "he swims (every day)"
To be more exact, плывёт means motion in one direction, which mostly gets useful for actions in progress.
Плавает means motion in more than one direction. It may be used for:
- repeated, habitual motion (these usually imply that you come back, then start it all over again)
- round trips, especially when "I went to the park (and returned)" is close in meaning to "I was in the park"
- motion without a goal. This can be progressive or habitual.
- the name of the action itself: the ability to perform such action. For example, if someone cannot swim, it os «не умеет плавать».
Other verbs of motion behave like this, too. One verb for one-way motion, another for multidirectional motion.
есть = to eat
есть = am/is/are (but only used in Russian in some cases like "У меня есть")
These words are homonymic.
"У меня есть" Here's the importance of the 'spirit' within the Russian culture originally..
All other Slavs use it, but more in old epic songs rather than in everyday speech, or in some very specific cases. Russians just like to speak "Epicly" in everyday speech I suppose ;-) . Even saying hello, means "Be Well and Prosper!" :D
That's exactly what I thought! perhaps in another context but I tend to believe there are French features of prolixity and verboseness acquired in the literature and arts during the 17th century,
Why does не in this sentence sound like English "knee"? Shouldn't it be "neh" or "nyeh"?
More like "i" in "lid". It is somewhere between the Russian Э and И, closer to И.
The TTS sounds OK, pretty much the same as it would sound in speech. Russian vowels have quite a lot of variation: it is no wonder that an И-like sound between the palatalized Н and the Й of «ест» sounds as an almost perfect replica of И.
I tried analyzing a few different unstressed variations of И, and the one you hear in such environment is usually phonetically indistinguishable from a stressed И (if not for its reduced duration and power).
OK, then I'm justified in saying that vowels with variation are a pain. :-) While we're talking about stress, are there any general rules as to where the stress is in a word?
It should not because «не» is almost never stressed (except не был, не было, не были).
Yes, I heard они ест. I was only able to tell it's он не, because the other sentence is ungrammatical.
I get that е in не is not stressed, as the whole word is not stressed and therefore it is pronounced like the i in lid. But I was taught that in a one syllable verb the vowel is automatically stressed. Is that then simply not true? or is it like a rule as LucianoArthur suggested that both can't be stressed because the two е clash?
thank you in advance for the help!
Some words tend not to be stressed, among them prepositions and particles like не, ни, же, то, ведь, ли.
There are some preposition-noun combinations where the stress moves from the noun to the preposition (Он упал на́ пол) —some of these are historical, some are coined by analogy with historical stress patterns. The particle не gets stress in не́ был, не́ было, не́ были (but not не была́)
ok thank you very much for the explanation. so the same hold true for здесь then as well right? it simply is not stressed
Because in the sentence "Я здесь." the audio pronounces the е unstressed. So I thought it might be the same :)
Tip: don't forget the '.' 'He dose not eat' is wrong. 'He dose not eat.' Is the answer what they wanted.
That essentially depends on whether "He doesn't eat" and "He won't eat" mean the same.
The sentence in the title means that a person is not eating now (or maybe, does not eat in general in the time period we understand we are in).
No. He won't eat means Он не будет есть (in the future) He doesn't eat - он не есть (right now or he doesn't eat smth at all)
She doesn't dance -она не танцует she won't dance -она не будет танцевать (in the future)
When we have two 'e's in sequences, in different words, as in this phrase, are they always pronounced as "ee ye" like here?
How come it is not "he is not eating?" Wouldn't that be correct? If it is, why is it like that?
No, because that is about the past. The Russian sentence is about the present.
It is они (in modern Russian). What is so strange about basing "he", "she", "it" and "they" on the same word?
Old East Slavic did not have any third person pronouns. The modern он (она, оно) began as a repurposed demonstrative pronoun ("that"). This explains it, I think.
I'm confused, ем and ест both mean 'eating', right? But how do I differentiate which to use in a situation?
It is about the same as differentiating between "am", "is", and "are", or "eats" and "eat. The difference is, Russian has forms for each combination of person and number.
The conjugation itself is irregular (есть is one of the few such verbs), so do not pay much attention to the endings, except maybe the second column.
- you'll have to memorise them in the end because they are unique for есть "eat" and дать "give" (OK, also создать). The rest of the verbs go люблю-любишь-любит or читаю-читаешь-читает in the singular.
This sentence shows us that the russian people are the laziest people in the world, because some sentences can be spelled just with one word. Noice.
Sometimes I hear my Russian/Ukrainian friends say "Кущать" instead of "Ест". Is this a sort of slang word or just an alternative word for "Eat"?
According to this philologist кушать can only be appropriately used by women, about children. http://www.aif.ru/society/education/kushat_ili_est_kak_pravilno Apparently to use it about oneself gives one's speech "a strange tinge of self-deprecation...and solemn worship of self"! However the fact that a grammarian is writing on the topic suggests that, in practice, some people do use this word in ways she does not approve of...