Me too. Second time I've been marked wrong. Why is "не нада" an admonition or command and not simply a pleasantry such as, "No need to stand here; I'll call your name when you're order is ready"? Or "No need to stand here; I'll bring the food to your table"? And, if I were working the counter at a diner in Moscow, would the sentence be an insult? As in, "Don't stand here; you're getting on my nerves."
"Не надо тут стоять" is not a pleasantry. In fact it sounds very rude. "Don't stand here; you're getting on my nerves." describes it very accurately.
You see, "надо" or "не надо" if used without the pronoun is more of a demand rather then a simple statment of necessity. It's just very impersonal and sounds callous.
However if you say "Вам не надо здесь стоять" it would sound better, because it stresses the recipient's needs as opposed to some abstract "надо". Still, if said with the wrong intonation it can come off as rather impolite as well.
A more polite version of "no need to stand here" would be "нет необходимости тут стоять". Still some would add the pronoun to soften it.
Quick followup: "(вам) не надо тут стоять" could come off as meaning "don't stand here" for two reasons I can think of:
Because it means something like "there's no need to stand here" but said in such a way that it reveals the speaker thinks you shouldn't stand there (like in "there's no need to be so insensitive!");
Because it means "you need to not stand here"
In English, only option 2 would really warrant the imperative as a translation. Option 1 implicates or communicates an imperatival state of mind in some contexts ('pragmatically'), but semantically it's just saying something isn't needed. So an imperative would be a pretty bad candidate for the interpretation even if it got the 'force' right for some contexts.
So that makes me think option 2 must be the right one, but that's a fair bit more surprising, grammatically. It would mean "надо" acts like English "want", where "I don't want x" pretty much always means "I want not to have x" ("I want [not-x]"). There the "not" grammatically modifies "want" but is used to modify the object ("x").
Any thoughts? Is "надо" like "want", or is the translation bad semantically but decent pragmatically?
Thanks again for the helpful response!
Sorry, I can't edit my first comment on the app. To address the second part,I don't think "want" is a good translation for надо. "Need" is really a better English cognate overall, or without the pronoun, as in this example, even "must."
However, in researching for this answer, it would seem I made a mistake in my example above: нужен should take the dative form of the pronoun, not the nominative: Вам/тебе не нужно тут стоять. In remembering that нужно needs to match its subject in gender and number, I forgot that the object is the item needed, and the person doing the needing, so to speak, must also be in dative. Sorry about that. :)
Getting slightly off topic from this particular usage of надо, but: in researching for this answer, I ran across conflicting reports about whether надо can be used with simple nouns, or only with verbs and clauses, so I'm now a bit confused about that. If someone could look at the last sentence/example here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/12866931$comment_id=12867871
and compare it to the numerous examples in which надо is used with simple noun sentences in the following example: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/11730437$comment_id=14241245
And explain to me which one is correct, or at least, the different nuances between the two, I would very much appreciate it! The first gives me the impression that надо can only be used with verbs and clauses, but the second would seem to refute that. Thank you!
Also, if my understanding is correct, for Louis' first "followup" example above, "you do not need to stand here" could also be expressed with the correct form of нужно, which is not quite so strong: Вы не нужны тут стоять. Of course, in this case you need the pronoun as well (the informal form would be ты не нужен/нужна). In short, Надо is stronger than нужно, and надо without a personal pronoun is even stronger yet; it's like a command.
If I am wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me. :)
I got this right, but I was trying to say that you don't have to stand there, you can sit down in a chair. But it sounds like the correct interpretation is something more like: "go away".
Английский вариант говорит "не стой здесь", а твой верный, если именно "не надо..." или "не нужно..." Так что я отправил отчёт.
As a natural speaker I think the closest translation would be "You should not stand here". "No need to stand here" is fine, but that is a less used meaning.
Those two translations are very different. "Should not" means it is a bad idea, maybe forbidden. "No need" (= you don't need to) means you can if you want, but it is not necessary; there is no obligation to do so.
I would think so, along with "It's not necessary to stand here," which I just wrote and reported. Report yours too and see what happens.
how does this mean "do not stand here"? I thought there was a different form of saying "X not allowed here" which I can't remember right now. I thought the sentence would translate into "standing here is not needed".
> I thought there was a different form of saying "X not allowed here" which I can't remember right now.
Maybe you thought of нельзя? (Тут нельзя стоять - Standing here is not allowed).
> I thought the sentence would translate into "standing here is not needed".
Literally, "No need to stand here", but it is typically directed to someone (unlike нельзя), so it's better translated as "Do not stand here".
How do Russians say "you are not obliged to stand here" or "you don't have to stand here", but without the "you shouldn't stand here" meaning?
"Do not stand here" = Не стой здесь. "No need to stand here" = Не надо стоять здесь.
I translated "It does not have to stand here" which was wrong, but how do I know the sentence is about a person?
If this sentece is about things, that would be in Russian "не надо тут ста́вить"
What's the difference between this and Не тут стой?
"Не надо тут стоять" means in Russian "here is a place where standing is prohibited" or "one don't need to be here". This choice may or may not mean "standing". The main thing here is "не надо" = "do not", you can add any verb after it:
"Не надо /бегать/опаздывать/стоять etc
"Не тут стой" translates as "stand not here". In Russian it requires that one have to stand (because it has "стой"), but at anorther place. Another way to say it "wrong place". The main thing here is "не тут" = "not here" / "not at this place". You can add any word after it as well:
"Не тут /бегать/стоять/шуметь etc
The word order in "не тут стой" is wrong. It should be either "стой не тут" (a bit weird, but acceptable) or "не стой тут" (most correct one, though it slightly shifts the meaning to "don't stand here" by putting more accent on the verb, not the place). Works the same with the other verbs.
"It is not necessary to stand here." was marked wrong. What is the nuance that I am evidently missing?
From the comments it seems best to consider it as "You need to not stand here".
Не надо was defined in another exercise as "one shouldn't" which seems more appropriate given that this is not the negative imperative of "to stand"
I think "you shouldn't stand here" is an acceptable translation. I'll report it.
I always get so thrown by these sentences missing pronouns. What is the deal? In what cases are pronouns unnecessary?
I не надо usually translated as "Don't, you don't have to" like if someone is trying to help or "Don't do that!" As in stop it? Or both?
what about the impersonal : "one can't stand here" (from a non native English speaker)? In other exercises I've noticed that "one + verb" was often used for "надо/не надо" without the pronoun. ..
After reading all the comments about this, I was left with the reminder that translation is an art-form not a science.
Maybe I'm just overly callous but I always interpreted Не надо тут стоять as a demand more than a request. More of a "Do not stand there!" So this made sense to me, however after reading some of the other explanations I realize that it might not be the best phrase for most situations.