- Forum >
- Topic: Russian >
- "Кого вы видите?"
77 Comments
"Who do you see?" correct English is "WHOM do you see?". Might as well accept "You and me just don't agree." Tisk, tisk, duoLingo! Besides that you're going good! Keep up the good work!!
Depending on where you go to speak English, people might not say "whom" at all. It's proper English, but especially in the US I rarely hear it.
You must admit however, that your provided example (you and me...) at least has a rhyme to it, which is one reason for its existence.
I say "you and me" all the time because I always felt like "you and I" sounded too formal. I know it is wrong, but I still think my way sounds better. I'm an ignorant sounding rebel now.
It depends on the sentence.. you only use "... and I" in sentences where you would use "I". Example: "My friends and I are going to the store" (because "I'm going to the store). Other than that, it's always ".. and me", as in "Please take a picture of my friends and me".
I heard some American people use who instead of whom in these cases, but is that grammatically correct? I mean, is there any kind of educational standard of English in America? And the usage is in the standard? I want to know that because sometimes 'usually used' doesn't mean correct. There are a lot of these cases in my language, Japanese, as well so I only want to know if it's really correct in US educational standard.
tomo351370 'Whom' is the right usage in American English too, that's what they teach in school (or at least, what they are supposed to teach). I am a little surprised by all the comments that it is never used. It is actually not too uncommon in professional/academic settings.
774
It depends what you mean by "educational." Certainly if you were taking a basic grammar test and were asked which is correct, they'd expect you to answer "whom." But if you were actually being graded on university-level writing that wasn't meant for academic publication (say, a journalism class), you may well get a note that "whom" in any but the most formal contexts sounds stiff and unnatural.
There are exceptions, such as "to whom" where "to who" just sounds wrong even colloquially. But they are few.
People often confuse pedantic/academic English with correct English; it's a common failing
English used to have all the cool stuff (like thou, conjugations, whom, hither, thither) that russian seems to have kept even today. I was pissed about english for that reason and I’m glad russian didn’t choose to go that same way.
"Whom" still exists in English. It's used as an object. The way "who" declines is:
Nom.: Who Gen.: Whose (you could technically also place "of whom" here) Dat.: Whom Acc.: Whom Abl.: Whom
It keeps the same forms in the plural.
This didn't space the way I wanted it to. I'm sorry that it looks convoluted.
- 613
Oh Yes, that is why it is quite difficult (especially for non natives), to learn other languages with English. I'm missing the old words all the time, while learning Russian, Hungarian, Italian and Hindi.
no, "good" is better than "well". the well known claim that "good" isn't an adverb is a fallacy. but careful who you tell. some people aren't terribly receptive to the good news!
"good vs. well: Adverbial good has been under attack from the schoolroom since the 19th century. Insistence on well rather than good has resulted in a split in connotation: well is standard, neutral, and colorless, while good is emotionally charged and emphatic. This makes good the adverb of choice in sports."
Non-colloquially, "Doing good" is what superheroes do, doing well is doing something successfully.
Im not a native speaker and i always appreciate it if doulingo is not strict af. Im praying that this beautiful wrong way stays accepted
Both is possible in English. Depends if you follow older grammatical rules or more contemporary grammar.
- 623
Sorry, friend Vortarulo, but "both" is a plural word and ought to be followed by a plural verb (even in "contemporary grammar.")
Thanks. I guess it was interference from my native German (where "beide" can be singular in this sentence).
Hm... it seems to me that there are some instances where you can say "Both is", but I can't think of examples on the spot. I do remember however, that whether or not you state what nouns "both" is referring to, that can change some words you use later. (Like if you say "both of us" or "both of them")
It is "is both", as in "this picture is both red and blue". You cannot, in general, write "both is". The way to think about this is that one thing is both two things, but that two things are both the same (things).
I am German and I can tell you that "beide" always uses plural. What you probably mean is "beides". That uses singular.
I agree with you. But I think we would say 'with whom were you working?', or (more likely) 'who were you working with ?'
"With whom" suggests collaboration. "For whom" suggests subordinate status
See is a verb that is not used in progressive tenses, it is also called "stative verb", unless it is in its "dynamic sense", what does not seem to.
Take a look at here: http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/stative-verbs.html
You can use the present continuous with see. Just imagine you're on the phone and you're describing to the person you're talking to "seeing" someone or something at that same exact time.
There are other possibilities (be seeing a doctor, on a regular basis, for instance).
Does видеть cover that usage?
I'm seeing a movie later. (watching)
I'm seeing a girl. (dating)
I'm seeing if I can afford that ruby. (checking)
I'm seeing the fun in commenting. (realizing)
I'm seeing a mansion on this acreage. (imagining)
...yeah, André got it right, IMHO. Good job, bro.
Your examples are like I said, dynamic sense of the verb. But in the stative sense, it can't be used in progressive tenses.
Could "who are you looking at?" also be translated? Or "who are you watching?"
"На кого вы смотрите". In this particular case Russian and English closely match, i.e. you use "look at" and "смотреть на".
We use смотреть without на with television, photos, videos etc or for browsing stuff to find something of interest. You can, in principle, use it with persons if you mean their show, youtube channel or something like that.
I'm having trouble understanding when I am expected to pronounce г like "g" or "v". Is there a standard pattern, or is it something to be picked up on as the language is acquired?
The г is only pronounced as /v/ in genitive endings, which are always -его and -ого, which are then pronounced as if they were -ево and -ово. Another word where this is the case, is сегодня 'today', pronounced севодня, because the first part of the word used to be a genitive (lit. "this's day").
- 623
I’ve found an easy way to know when to pronounce the Russian “г” as a “в” without worrying about whether you are dealing with a current or past genitive case, is as follows: When you encounter the letter combination of “его” or “oгo”, AND the emphasis IS NOT on the first letter of that combination (as in сегодня), then it is pronounced as a “в”. Otherwise, it remains a “г”. I read this somewhere, and it has held true for me, so far.
- 135
Unfortunately, this rule doesn't work. All these words are pronounced with г: Егор Переговоры Ежегодно Категория Негодяй Негодование Перегородка / Перегородить Береговой Категорически / Категория Перегонять / Перегнать / Перегон Егоза / Егозить Реголит
Late reply, just in case somebody else is wondering the same.
Кого is accusative. It's the object of the sentence, not the subject/related to the subject. For example: "who are you?" is nominative - кто ты/вы?; in "who do you see?", you is the subject, «вы видите», who is referring to the object, so it's accusative: «кого».
Your English is grammatically wrong: in English it should be "WHOM do you see" as WHOM is accusative of WHO!
So if I got it right Вы видите кого = You see who in the accusative + motion (even if it is not clear why when you see someone there is motion, but that's how russians think haha: you send some kind of thing to the object you're looking at I guess).
"Кого" is simply "кто" in the accusative (as well as genitive) case, and is used here not because there is some kind of motion, but simply because "whom" is the direct object of the verb, and accusative case by itself marks direct objects.
"Actually, whenever a verb, like "read", "cut" or "want" acts directly on some noun, the latter is a direct object. Such nouns take the Accusative case." So it is a direct object because it acts on the noun? I don't know where i read something about motion being required to use accusative then... I must be confused.
You may have read about motion in some explanation about the В preposition. Я иду в школу (motion, accusative). Я учусь в школе (no motion, prepositional).
Wowwww, whatttttt? I didn't even think that you had accusative after a preposition, I thought it would always be prepositionnal... This is slowly getting complicated! But I will slowly get it too... :p
LOL
You can have prepositions with any case except for nominative. The prepositional case, however, is NEVER used without a preposition.
I will have to reread the details of Prepositional case. I think it is used only with в and на and maybe one more preposition or something + depending on some things... I just learned it recently. I'm sure I will get all the 6 cases at some point haha, but it's like with German: You know when to use each case, but what is difficult is to remember all the endings and specificities of each one of them...
No, the direct object is the noun acted on by the verb.
"I see the cat." I is the subject, because it performs the action. the cat is the direct object because it is being acted on.
The direct object of a transitive verb is generally in the accusative case (though sometimes in the genitive if the verb itself is negated), never in the nominative.
However, it's worth noting that for inanimate objects of either the masculine or neuter gender, or in the plural, the accusative case resembles the nominative case exactly. It's not the nominative case, though, it's just rendered the same way.
So that's what I didn't think of! It's true that the accusative behaves sometimes like nominative, even if it is still in the accusative!
Actually, formal English retains exactly this distinction. "Who?" = Nominative, "Whose?" = Possessive/sort of Genitive, "Whom?" = Accusative (Direct Object, in English), and "To/[whatever other preposition] whom?" = every case I haven't mentioned.
But we've nearly lost "whom"/"to whom" in everyday usage, so it's not something we're used to thinking about. In fact, I literally did not understand what the purpose of "whom" was until I studied German for the first time.
"In fact, I literally did not understand what the purpose of "whom" was until I studied German for the first time."
This was my exact situation as well. It's amazing what you can learn about your own language by studying another.
Eons ago, my English teacher made us diagram sentences - subject, predicate, direct object, indirect object, prepositional phrase, etc. That made it very easy to understand. I still wince when I hear, "Who did you ask?" Nevertheless, it is common to drop the word "whom" and substitute "who."
I may be old fashioned, but "Whom do you see" is correct. Who do you see (there) is more commonly used, though. To whom do I have the pleasure of speaking? ;-)
Can someone help me with the difference between "kto" and "кого" as well the difference between who and whom?
- 203
Could you say 'Кто' even if it is not grammatically correct? Similar to American English using 'who' even when 'whom' should be used? Would you be understood?
