"A chicken is a bird."

Translation:Курица - это птица.

November 8, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Is the это necessary?

[deactivated user]

    No, but the sentence sounds more natural with it.


    How so? It sounds redundant, like "A chicken is a is a bird." Is it just a rule that we must accept?

    [deactivated user]

      Since the Russian language dropped the verb 'to be' in most cases, sentences like «X is Y» became easily confusable with appositions «X-Y». So, «Курица — птица» 'A chicken [is] a bird' can be confused with «курица-птица» 'a chicken bird, a bird of a chicken'.

      If you think this is not someone would say, you should check Russian folklore: it has lots of things like «Сирин-птица» (a bird Sirin). Well, you don't find many traditional poetic texts about chicken, alas! But still, the construction is ambiguous.

      So, to distinguish these two usages, Russian has introduced a pronoun 'э́то' in the construction «X is Y»: «Ку́рица — это пти́ца» (literally "Hen, it [is a] bird"). It might seem redundant from the English point of view, but in Russian э́то serves a purpose. And while you still can say «Ку́рица — пти́ца», it's not what Russian speaker would usually say, it would sound unnatural.


      I am a native speaker of Russian, have lived in Russia all my life, but to me «Курица — птица» doesn't sound unnatural at all as a sentence (in fact, I've chosen it as an answer). As long as you say it with a proper intonation, it will not sound as an apposition, so это IS redundant after all. It's true that это is widely used in giving definitions, but it doesn't make it a mandatory thing.


      is there a difference between ето , ета , етот ?


      @JanetGidle: You'd answer, "Это - курица". You may also add, "Курица - это такая птица. У птиц есть крылья и клюв".


      Awesome. As usual! So if a kid says whats that thing? You could say either one, yes?


      Thanks for both your answers. (A) I'll put in это to start with, because there are already enough challenges to someone hearing my Russian (B) Could DL accept both options? I'll report.


      I'm confused, if there is "курица-птица" there must be "курица-не птица" - "курица-животное" perhaps? :-)


      «Курица не птица» doesn’t literally mean what it says. It is part of the old Soviet saying «курица не птица, Болгария не заграница», which means “just like a chicken is not good enough to be considered a real bird (it can’t fly far and high), Bulgaria is not sufficiently different from the Soviet Union to be considered a foreign country”.


      I just answer утка - птица and my answer was accepted and I checked the comments just to be sure, it is acceptable and in use. So why is the same word construction not accepted for курица?


      Think of it more like saying a chicken- this is a bird. Instead of chicken - bird.


      No, it is NOT necessary "курица - птица" is a correct translation


      Isn't курица a hen rather than a chicken? I would suggest цыплёнок could be accepted as well.


      In Russian, курица rather than цыплёнок is used as a generic word for the species. Also, when it refers to food, chicken is more often translated with курица than with цыпленок. A hen is not just курица, but наседка (i.e. a bird hatching eggs).


      But anyway, "цыплёнок" and "курица" is not the same. So if I do not know what is a context of the frase "A chicken is a bird" I translate it as "Цыплёнок - это птица".


      Russians don’t ever say that, because it would be like saying, “A puppy is an animal”. Курица — птица. Цыплёнок — птенец курицы. Цыплёнок sometimes means “a chick”.


      "A puppy is an animal" - is correct, because a puppy is not a bird, for example. So, "цыплёнок - птица" is correct too, because it is not a fish (for example).


      Курца не птнца! ;)


      This question came right after "a duck is a bird" where это was not required. Now with "a chicken is a bird" not selecting это is incorrect. Imo thats a flaw in either the first or the later.


      Ive heard and read on a couple of occasions that during Soviet times some Russians would say

      курица не птица, Польша не заграница


      "курица не птица, а баба не человек", ну и классическое "курица не птица, польша не заграница"


      курица это птица. What id wrong?


      You just need a dash between курица and это


      Why это and not эта? Are they not all feminine?


      The make voice sounds like "курица – это пицца"


      I just listened again. It really does!


      So should "Курица птица" be accepted or not


      «Курица — птица» should be accepted, but it makes every Russians smile because we have a proverb «Курица не птица». It used when people (often unreasonably) ridicule a certain thing as unable to meet their expectations.


      I was recently taught the phrase "Курица не птица, баба не человек"


      This male chauvinist motto can be said sarcastically by a woman. I can’t imagine any man in his right mind saying it in public.


      Is the dash "-" necessary?


      Yes, it is as it replaces the missing copula ‘есть’ (it is usually omitted in Russian sentences stating a general truth or the present state of things).


      How do you say "a chicken ain't nothin' but a bird"


      «Курица — это не что иное, как птица». The register of this sentence, though, is not as low as that of your sentence with “ain’t nothing”. The Russian sentence is rather formal. In an informal conversation one would say, «Конечно, курица — птица. Если не птица, то кто же?» (Of course, a chicken is a bird. If not, what is it?).


      Почему я не могу перевести это предложение как цыпленок - это птица? В чем ошибка?


      В отличие от слова chicken «цыплёнок» — не название вида, а детёныш курицы, поэтому фраза эта звучит так же нелепо, как и фраза «ребёнок относится к классу млекопитающих».

      Learn Russian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.