"The cat has my butter."
Translation:Моё масло у кошки.
You don't say "есть" when someone has "the thing" rather than "a thing".
У кошки есть масло = The cat has butter (some butter, any butter)
Моё масло у кошки = The cat has my butter (the butter)
You put the "known" thing in the beginning and the new information in the end. In the first example the "known" thing is the cat, and the "new" is that it has butter. In the second example, the "known" thing is "my butter", and the "new" information is that the cat has it.
Sorry, still I don't get why "У кошки есть мое масло" is not acceptable. I think both are possible.
What does the cat have? or Whose butter does the cat have? - The cat has MY BUTTER. (New info is "my" or "my butter")
-> У кошки есть мое масло.
Where is my butter? or Who has my butter? - My butter is WITH THE CAT (The sentence sounds awkward to me though) or THE CAT has my butter. (New info is "be with the cat" or "the cat has")
-> Мое масло у кошки.
Thus, given the English sentence "The cat has my butter" without audio or additional context, it can be translated in both way. Am I missing something?
Hi Olga, I'm not a native speaker, but as far as I read over the internet I made up in my mind that the explanation of есть is mainly "the possession of the object" not "the butter or some butter". In this case I think we can skip it cause butter is actually mine and the cat is not the owner, but he keeps the butter temporary. Does it make sense? Thank you in advance