"Кого вы видите?"
Translation:Who do you see?
97 Comments
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 15
- 13
- 9
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 2
"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!!
- 13
- 9
- 2
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.
- 10
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.
- 18
- 5
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.
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 15
- 13
- 9
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 2
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.
- 25
- 19
- 14
- 9
I am disheartened to see Internet-style incivility begin to infect Duolingo. Surely it's possible to disagree about whether there is such a thing as correct usage without resorting to vulgarity.
- 19
- 8
- 7
- 7
- 2
When the Russian course was still in beta, the discussions were all about linguistics, give or take a few (intelligent and funny) jokes here and there. Then the masses arrived and so did their 'look at my crazy comment, how cool am I' nonsense, and now these talks are almost as annoying as Youtube comments or the attention seeking of so many other forums. They should have locked these conversations when going live, all that needed to be said was already said anyway.
- 7
- 2
- 2
- 2
Well, then why aren't you correcting anyone? All I see is you vulgarly insulting people for correct English usage.
- 25
- 19
- 14
- 9
But of course And eftsoons I plan to read that arcane classic "For Who the Bell Tolls."
- 13
- 13
- 11
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 8
- 7
Both is possible in English. Depends if you follow older grammatical rules or more contemporary grammar.
- 24
- 17
- 16
Sorry, friend Vortarulo, but "both" is a plural word and ought to be followed by a plural verb (even in "contemporary grammar.")
- 13
- 13
- 11
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 8
- 7
Thanks. I guess it was interference from my native German (where "beide" can be singular in this sentence).
- 12
- 6
- 2
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")
- 25
- 24
- 18
- 18
- 18
- 13
- 9
- 8
I agree with you. But I think we would say 'with whom were you working?', or (more likely) 'who were you working with ?'
- 14
- 13
- 9
- 8
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 2
- 2
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
- 22
- 15
- 14
- 13
- 11
- 9
- 8
- 7
- 6
- 6
- 2
- 2
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?
- 22
- 19
- 17
- 16
- 16
- 14
- 14
- 14
- 12
- 11
- 10
- 9
- 9
- 8
- 8
- 7
- 7
- 7
- 7
- 7
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 2
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.
- 14
- 13
- 9
- 8
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 2
- 2
Your examples are like I said, dynamic sense of the verb. But in the stative sense, it can't be used in progressive tenses.
- 12
- 6
- 2
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.
- 20
- 12
- 12
- 4
- 3
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?
- 13
- 13
- 11
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 8
- 7
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").
- 24
- 17
- 16
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.
- 18
- 5
Ya, if you wanted to say, "Who are you seeing?" you would ask, "Who do you see?" instead.
- 20
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 3
- 18
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».
- 18
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
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).
- 13
- 11
- 7
"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.
- 18
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
"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.
- 22
- 22
- 20
- 19
- 10
- 10
- 9
- 8
- 7
- 5
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).
- 18
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
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
- 22
- 22
- 20
- 19
- 10
- 10
- 9
- 8
- 7
- 5
LOL
You can have prepositions with any case except for nominative. The prepositional case, however, is NEVER used without a preposition.
- 18
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
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...
- 9
- 8
- 8
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.
- 13
- 11
- 7
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.
- 18
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
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!
- 14
- 9
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.
- 11
- 7
- 5
- 5
"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.
I was raised in the USA; if you ever say "whom," you don't sound like a native. That's archaic English in my state.
- 24
- 22
- 20
- 13
- 12
- 12
- 9
- 8
- 5
- 4
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 2
Yeah, it sounds extremely formal. I think it's the sort of thing I expect to read in a legal brief, not hear in everyday casual speech.
- 20
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 3
- 18
I've just replied to a similar question from a year ago, had I seen yours first...
Кто would be fine in questions such as "who are you?", "кто ты/вы?", where the pronoun is related to the subject.
In this example, instead, "who" is the object of the sentence, therefore it requires the accusative case.
More in detail, in "who do you see?", you is the subject, «вы видите»; who is referring to the object, so it's accusative, «кого».
- 25
- 20
- 20
- 234
I think this whole "whom v who" debate has got out of hand. But the reason 'whom' should be used is that it shows that the correct form is required in Russian. There are many horrible usages commonly heard in English such as "I seen him" or I have went there". But they are hopeless for learning a foreign language. And Duo should also use the gramatically correct forms, not the commonly heard colloquialisms. I had the same argument with Kdo v Koho in Czech.
- 20
- 12
- 10
- 8
- 7
- 1125
Wow? Who is correct English, but accusative case makes it whom in Russian.
- 13
- 13
- 11
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 8
- 7
Well, whom is correct English, too. So that's the suggested translation. But yeah, the colloquial who should also be accepted. I hope it is.
- 24
- 17
- 16
To this pedantic ass, it is sad but true that "who" seems to be considered acceptable in direct and indirect object applications, when only "whom" is grammatically correct. Surely, entropy in action!!!
- 13
- 13
- 11
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 8
- 7
Dear pedantic ass. Let me quote you: "when only "whom" is grammatically correct" — you're wrong on this point. You're contradicting yourself. Do you want me to point you to a contemporary reference grammar of the English language?
- 25
- 19
- 14
- 9
Yet another pedantic ass here. Languages evolve for a variety of reasons such as new technology, new slang, and adoption of "foreign" words. Linguists don't care about the reason for change, they love linguistic evolution unconditionally because it's the reason their discipline exists. But we pedantic asses stubbornly cling to the notion that some linguistic changes happen because too many people don't care about learning—or simply don't want to follow—established standards of usage. We don't consider such changes to be evolution but rather entropy, a verbal example of Gresham's Law, and we do our best to defend those standards. But we ask those of you who view us with disdain to reserve just a smidgen of sympathy, because we always lose. And always will.
- 24
- 17
- 16
It would appear, Friend Vortarulo, that you view English from the “descriptivist” perspective, that is, one that assigns “correctness” of usage by counting heads. The most popular usage is deemed the correct usage. And from that position, you are absolutely correct. And there are many descriptivist grammarians who will support you. But back in the antediluvian days in which I was “schooled,” we were taught that there are rules and standards of English usage, and some forms of usage were to be preferred over others. We were taught that “proper” usage promoted clarity of thought and aided critical thinking. That is the “prescriptivist” view of grammar, which is my position, and which, I fear, is a moribund one. I still cringe when I hear (what I consider to be) linguistic attrocities such as “who” used as an object, or “imply” and “infer used as synonyms, to name but two. In my case, it would appear that the old adage that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, holds true. With apologies to Mr. Dylan Thomas, I will not “...go gentle into that good night,...[because] old age should burn and rave at close of day; [and] rage, rage against the dying of the light.” In my not-so-humble opinion, the barbarians are no longer at the gate; they have breached the walls and are running amok, corrupting our mother tongue. Surely, entropy in action. My apologies for the rant.
- 13
- 13
- 11
- 11
- 8
- 8
- 8
- 7
stanmann: Yes exactly, you're right. Being a linguist by profession, I'm naturally a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist. That's nothing new and was this way also before you and I were born. When you cringe at modern language usage, I cringe at artificial and/or obsolete rules about not ending sentences in prepositions or claims about the non-existence of gender-neutral "they" and similar made-up principles. I usually use "whom" myself, because that's how I learned English, but I'm fully aware that it's not used by everyone and that its use isn't correlated with education, social status, or intelect. It's more a question of style nowadays, than of grammar.
It's a common myth being reiterated since at least Aristotle (or was it Platon?), that our language (be it Greek, English, German, Russian, Tamil) is deteriorating and that it becomes less clear and less beautiful. Of course that is nonsense. Natural language change doesn't cause more miscomprehension, language always repairs itself if something like this happens. If a distinction vanishes, it just means it's not useful enough anymore; language hence becomes more economic in this part of the grammar.
But since you know the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism so well, I'm sure you're aware of that.
- 13
- 12
- 11
- 9
- 9
- 9
- 8
- 6
- 2
- 2
Native English speaker here ! We never use "Whom" in such as sentence as "Who do you see ?" Those of you who are saying "whom" is used, you must be joking.
- 25
- 19
- 14
- 9
Out of curiosity, which English-speaking country whose dialect lacks the word "whom" is your native land?
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 15
- 13
- 9
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 2
In my experience "whom" generally isn't even used by people that are fussy about grammar. (In any corner of the Anglosphere) I point to duolingo. Fussy about using "you and me" as a subject. Doesn't give a rip about "whom". People ultra fussy use it though. Such is life. American here.
- 25
- 19
- 14
- 9
It seems to me that the entropic process of linguistic devolution is best described as survival of the witless, so color me ultra fussy.
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 15
- 13
- 9
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 2
You can be ultra fussy. Everybody's got their thing. Ain't nobody putting you down!
Well, there is always some resistance from people with a more of a prescriptivist midset. We accept such options, though our main translations rarely ever use them. Just to let you know, people studying English as a second language are normally taught the more popular "Who did you talk to?" and "It's me".
Do not worry, Russians also have a few of these "rules"; a person not really strong with the force probably makes myriads of other mistakes that actually impede understanding—but knows that кофе is masculine and звонит has its last syllable stressed.
- 25
- 19
- 14
- 9
I'm very sorry to hear your rationale, but I suppose Duolingo must cater to the largest possible market. Pity, that.
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 15
- 13
- 9
- 6
- 6
- 4
- 2
They're quiet serious. They're not unlike D&D players when it comes to grammar!
