1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Russian
  4. >
  5. "У меня нет очков."

"У меня нет очков."

Translation:I do not have glasses.

November 12, 2015



Is очков in the genitive plural here?

[deactivated user]

    Right. Just like the English glasses, the word «очки́» is a pluralia tantum noun, they don't have a singular form (well, they do, but it means something completely different).


    Just for trivia's sake, what does the singular mean?

    [deactivated user]

      Most commonly, it's 'point' (e.g. in games, hit points = очки́ жи́зни 'points of life'). See other meanings here.

      This word also has less polite meanings, see Wiktionary (note that I don't think I've ever encountered the meaning 6; but 5 and 7 are pretty common).


      In American English, there's a vulgar expression, "pie-hole", which refers to one's mouth, down which you ingest pie.

      Seems like очко and пирог could be combined somehow to express this big of slang.


      Is "очки́" Masculine? I ask, because since the singular ends in "о", it's Neuter, but here: http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/nouns_genitive.php ................the "ов" ending tells me it's Masculine, and therefore the singular would have to be "очк" or "очкй"

      [deactivated user]

        No, очко is neuter.

        While the rules yu've linked to are certainly useful, they don't cover all the cases, очки is an exception.


        So "очко" simply follows the rules for pluralizing a Masculine word?

        [deactivated user]

          Well, you might say so. Also cf. я́блоко — я́блоки 'apples'.


          Очки (las gafas) en ruso usa solo en plural( nunca en singular)


          I've observed that Genitive is sometimes used to express "some [quantity of a thing]". In English, when using the negative, we'd more often say "I don't have any glasses" rather than "I don't have glasses".

          Does casting objects of нет in genitive also entail this idea of "any" (which is the negative of "some" in negative phrases)? That is, should "I don't have any glasses" be a an alternative, valid translation here?


          У меня нет никаких очков. - I don't have any glasses.


          Why is it genitive? Isnt it Nominative?


          Нет requires genitive. (Nominative would be очки, but that would be incorrect in this sentence.)


          This word has to be a exception to standard grammar.
          очков as a genitive plural is a masculine word, according to my declension table. Just based on the table, the singular would be очк, but that doesn't seem to be a Russian word - and it wouldn't mean anything in English either, since the word "(eye)glasses" is always plural.

          szeraja_zhaba provides a link to different meanings for an ostensibly singular version of оцков, but that word is очко, which is neuter, not masculine, suggesting that it's not really related to очков except it shares some letters.

          This is appears to be a weird word, deserving it's own grammatical niche of "weird words".

          [deactivated user]

            Other meanings of очко́ also have the gen. pl. of очко́в. E.g. «я набра́л недоста́точно очко́в в игре» ‘I didn’t get enough points in the game’.

            Also, besides the same form (plural of очко́ ‘point’ and очки́ ‘eye-glasses’ sound 100% identical), there’s a noticeable semantic connection. Очко is a diminutive of о́ко ‘eye’, i.e. ‘small eye’, so it’s used for differen eye-like things, such as holes or dots/points.

            (О́ко is an old word for ‘eye’. The modern Russian uses глаз. Ironically, it’s related to the English ‘glass’. It used to mean ‘a glass bead/ball’ in the past.)


            According to the declension tables I've seen, -ов is not a genitive plural for any neuter endings, which simply reaffirms in my mind the notion that очко/очков is some kind of exception to the normal rules - something to be memorized.

            PS: In English, there is a slang word for glasses, usually a bit insulting, when we refer to someone as "four eyes". Очков = "glasses" seems to have the same basic idea, without the slang/pejorative connotation.


            I've got bad news for you: Russian grammar has some exceptions. And when I say some, I mean plenty. And the gentitive in particular has even more, becaus once there was another case, but over the years it got lost and became part of the genitive.


            I believe that the translation "I don't have the glasses" should be fine. I could be talking about "the glasses you are searching for" (I guess this wasn't implied, but it was my first thought). Should I report it?


            Yes. You are correct.


            what is the affirmative of this sentense?

            [deactivated user]

              «У меня́ есть очки́».


              This is a weird word, since there does not seem to be any singular masculine form for it. But since the genitive plural очков is masculine, it figures that the nominative plural would also be masculine (with the Russian Spelling Rules changing -ы to -и after к).


              There's no gender in the plural. I understand thinking of -ов as the masculine ending for the genitive plural since it follows a hard consonant, but I would avoid thinking of the plural in terms of gender and instead think of очки as an irregular word without a singular form and therefore without gender.


              очки́ (očkí, "eyeglasses") comes from о́чи (óči), plural of archaic о́ко (óko, “eye”), which is cognate with English eye, Latin oculus, Lithuanian akìs and Sanskrit अक्षि (ákṣi), all meaning "eye".

              Source: Wiktionary.


              "I don't have the glasses" ¿Why wrong?


              if очки is the nominative plural, why is the genitive plural not очкев? I thought if the nominative plural ended in -ы, gen. pl. was -ов, and if the nom. pl. ended in -и, gen. pl. was -ев. спасибо


              The reasoning is that it is only written as -и in the plural because it is after a velar consonant (К). Usually it is a hard consonant. So, in the genitive plural, it's written as -ов.

              The three velar consonants are funny, actually. There are only soft before и and е. Otherwise they're always hard.

              Кя, кю, гя, гю, хя, and хю aren't really acceptable in Russian, they never pop up. Basically, the velars are only soft if the grammar forces them to be (followed by И or E in plural, prepositional, or adjectival endings.)


              By the way, it isn't -ев if the last consonant is soft - it's -ей. This is also only for masculine and neuter nouns.


              If you isolate -ов in a declension table, it appears in only two places under masculine words without any ending (-)
              ................................................ s/pl
              Nominative: ....................... -/ы
              Accusative (inanimate): . -/ы
              Accusative (animate): ... а/ов
              Genitive: ........................... а/ов

              -ов is thus the accusative (animate) & genitive plural for masculine words with a "zero" ending only, whose nominative plural form is -ы, except that under the Russian Spelling Rules, you change -ы to -и when it comes right after К.

              This is difficult to look up because there's no masculine singular form of очки/ов. There is a neuter word очко, but it has nothing to do with glasses. It's very strange. The usual rules don't seem to apply.

              Note: you change -ы to -и after Г, К, Х ,Ш, Ж, Щ, & Ч under the Spelling Rules.

              [deactivated user]


                Such tables list the most common patterns, they are not exhaustive.


                Could this sentence mean I don't wear glasses? Or that I don't have my glasses with me at the moment?


                I don't wear glasses. - Я не ношу очков (очки). I don't have my glasses with me at the moment. - У меня сейчас нет с собой очков.


                Их просто нет, а уж почему - это не важно.


                I don't pay any attention to answer written in Russian only. This is a class for non-Russian speakers, so I imagine I'm not alone. If you want people to read what you have to say, try using English, except when referring to relevant Russian words contained in the exercise. I'd like to hear your input, but....


                It also bothers me that duolingo doesn't let you copy any word, so it makes it even worse, as it's hard to memorize words I've never seen, to translate one by one


                The glasses are simply absent. It doesn't matter why. - This is what he said.


                May I say I don't have points


                Yes if you want to say that you hadn't earned scores. It will be absolutelly the same sentence with the different meaning (different from the meaning of the sentence in the task). In Russian "points" (/"scores") and "glasses" translate the same word "очки".


                You are also lucky you don't have multiples of some of the other things that очко means, see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%BE

                The two words - очко & очки = "glasses" - don't seem to be related, at least not in meaning or definition.

                [deactivated user]

                  Is it wrong to say "I have not glasses"? Duo always says wrong. I remember old lessons telling the contrary.

                  [deactivated user]

                    I'm not a native speaker, but I believe the default way of saying this in modern English is 'I don't have glasses', while 'I have not glasses' is old-fashioned or dialectal.

                    The sentences and translations are added by the team manually, and sometimes they might overlook less common variants (but might add them in other sentences).

                    If you want to test the beta and find inconsistences, feel free to report them here (and also using the Report function). But if you just want to learn Russian, the best option is probably to stick to most common, modern English.


                    I am a native English speaker and can confirm that "I don't have glasses" is the most common, "I do not have glasses" is fine (more formal/emphatic) but "I have not glasses" sounds very unnatural.

                    [deactivated user]

                      Thank you both. It was just to improve my English. I love this new approach more regular. I would love modern english could remove the useless "s" from verbs in the third singular person (I already do it so often... ehehehe) .

                      I understand Duo management difficulties, and I think that details should be for discussion section only, while going deeper.


                      I would suggest that in written English, 'do not' is quite normal and not necessarily formal.


                      What is the gender of "очки"?

                      [deactivated user]

                        If it means 'glasses', it's a pluralia tantum noun: it has no singular form, just plural. Since Russian doesn't distinguish gender of plural nouns, it has no gender, really.

                        If it means 'points', then очко́ is neuter.


                        Except for the fact that genitive plural form очков is masculine.

                        [deactivated user]

                          It’s not masculine, it just has an non-standard gen. pl. form. This gen. pl. form occurs for diminutive neuter nouns that have a -к- suffix:

                          • очко́ ‘point, hole’ — gen. pl. очко́в (originally diminutive of о́ко ‘eye’),
                          • колёсико ‘castor wheel, small wheel’ — gen. pl. колёсиков (diminutive of колесо́ ‘wheel’),
                          • ли́чико ‘small face’ — gen. pl. ли́чиков (diminutive of лицо́ ‘face’),
                          • дре́вко́ ‘shaft, pole’ — gen. pl. дре́вко́в (originally ‘small tree’, diminutive of дре́во ‘tree’; both stress places are correct),
                          • пле́чико ‘small shoulder’, pl. пле́чики ‘coat-hanger; shoulderpads’ — gen. pl. пле́чиков (diminutive of плечо́),
                          • брюшко́ ‘small/cute belly’ — gen. pl. брюшко́в (diminutive of брю́хо ‘abdomen, belly’),
                          • озерко́ ‘small lake’ — gen. pl. озерко́в (diminutive of о́зеро; rare, a more common form is озерцо́).

                          Some words that have this ending are not diminutives:

                          • о́блако ‘cloud’ — gen. pl. облако́в (it used to be masculine, облок, but it became neuter in modern Russian),
                          • су́дно ‘ship, vessel’, irregular nom. pl. суда́ — gen. pl. судо́в,
                          • остриё ‘cutting edge; spike, sharp tip’ — gen. pl. остриёв.

                          (And there’s also де́ло, which normally has gen. pl. of дел, but it has a gen. pl. of дело́в in a set expressions дело́в-то ‘big deal!’).


                          What is the difference between очков and очки?


                          "Очки" is in nominative case (имени́тельный паде́ж) and "очков" is in genitive (роди́тельный):



                          Очки = очков

                          Девочки = девочков? Мальчики = мальчиков?


                          Девочка (singular) = девочки (singular genitive)

                          девочки (plural nominative) = девочек (plural genitive)



                          Alright. Thanks a lot


                          So after all would somebody clarify what is the exact meaning of this sentence? Is this "I do not have my glasses." or else, is this rather " I do not wear glasses." ?


                          I don't have any points. - This should be accepted but marked wrong. Reported.


                          "I have no glasses" is perfectly correct. Why is this not accepted?


                          Очков from an archaic Slavic word for eye "око", from Proto-Indo-European "hekw", from which Latin gives to English "ocular".


                          Is there any possibility that this sentence could mean "I do not have my glasses"? Or is that too much of a stretch.


                          "I dont have my glasses" wasn't accepted


                          There was nothing to translate


                          Why does очки go to очков? I thought only masculine words in genitive that were plural had the ов ending like мальчиков or столов.


                          The plural genitive is unpredictable. There are some patterns but they are "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" :)

                          Sometimes even the native speakers are not sure what is the correct form in the genitive plural. There are a lot of exceptions and irregularities. In this case it's easier to just memorize it.


                          Is the pronunciation correct - the "v" is silent?

                          [deactivated user]

                            It's not silent — I can hear it. :/ Maybe there's some playback problem with your computer?

                            Note that it should be voiceless, [ɐtɕ'kof], because word-final consonants are devoiced.


                            The computer is fine - it must be may ancient ears again. The problem is that the Russian is spoken so incredibly quickly, and I can never make out the words. The slow version operates only in a dictation exercise, so I can hear it then - but I have no idea what those sounds represent. It would be such a help if a slow version were available all the time.


                            "i haven`t got ..." why "got"?


                            It's an English idiom. "I've got" = "I have" = у меня есть. "I haven't got" = "I don't have" = у меня нет. Note that in the version with "got," "have" is the auxiliary verb, and "get-got-got" is the main verb. In the version without "got," "do" is the auxiliary verb, and "have" is the main verb. Our system of 13 auxiliary verbs ("be," "have," "do" + 10 modal auxiliary verbs, including "can") is basic to English structure. It can be confusing because "be," "have," and "do" can be either auxiliary verbs or main verbs (with different meanings) and because the system is seldom taught explicitly. Students are usually left to figure it out on their own.


                            "got" is a kind of low-grade English. It's much better to say "I don't have" rather than "I haven't got" - except for emphatics, like "I have got to go!" "I haven't got a chance!" or in very colloquial speech.


                            Not low-grade in British English at all.


                            what happened to stakan? Is there no plural for stakan and thus ochkov is used?


                            NVM, stakan is a drinking glass and ochkov are glasses you wear.


                            Почему нельзя I have not glasses???


                            I wrote "I don't have glasses" and Duo said it was wrong...


                            I have no points.....

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