To remember the word for "bridge," think about the fact that MOST rivers have a BRIDGE over them
For some reason, I think of the word moat, and that you would have a bridge over a moat. But yours is more of the same sounding word. Different strokes for different folks : )
Мост ‧ Mast ‧ cognates ‧ [ mast, pole, stick, aggregate of timbers/boards ] ‧ ‧ en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mostъ ‧ ‧ en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mast#English ‧ ‧ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corduroy_road
1792 ‧ bridges we everywhere met ‧ across creeks (very small rivers) or swamps ‧ corduroy bridge ‧ corduroy road ‧ a stretch of road made passable by a surface of transversely placed logs ‧ dchp.ca/DCHP-1/Entries/view/corduroy%20bridge ‧ ‧ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corduroy_road ‧ ‧ www.alamy.com/stock-photo/corduroy-bridge.html ‧ ‧ dchp.ca/DCHP-1/entries/view/log%20crossway
Or just think about the Bosnian city of Mostar/мостар, known not only for the terrible atrocities in the war but also, of course, for its bridge. Now that's not really Russian but not far away, the south Slavic language that we still should call Yugoslav.
MOST in slavic, PONT in latin languages, both starting with a labial consonant, both ending with dental consonant, and the vowel O as a bridge between the lips and the teeth.
It depens solely on what you mean. If you rather mean "The forest has a bridge somwhere inside", you use есть here, which is a likely situation—and this is our main translation.
If you point at the fact that there's bridge, so this is why we can cross the river, you can omit есть. In such situation the identitiy of the object "bridge" is very important for your message (it might have been a shallow place, or a ferry, or a long tree across the river).
You can imagine other situations where you clarify what kind of object is inside the forest while downplaying the fact of its existence.
Thank you!! Appreciate all the work you do on this course and your fast replies!
I'm wondering why we don't use the prepositional case here (i.e. в лесе). Can anyone shed some light on this?
Лес belongs to a special class of masculine nouns—such nouns have a stressed -у as an ending used with в/на in the meaning of place (-е is used with о and при, and when в/на are not used to denote place).
Ok, so all one can do is remember what those masculine nouns are, correct? Thanks for the quick reply :)
Exactly. Most such nouns have only one syllable, except берег, ветер and аэропорт, the latter included in the class in the 20th century by analogy with порт (which had been there already).
The exact circumstances where such forms are use are yet to be explained properly: some of these nouns only use the non-standard form with one of the prepositions (eg., на свету).
Why does Duo not accept the definite article here? (i.e. The bridge is in the forest.)
Simply because the sentence does not mean "The bridge is in the forest", which is supported by есть.
To explain what Shady said, есть is stating the existence of the bridge. So anyone you would say this to would just now be learning about this bridge, otherwise you wouldn't need to state it's existence. The article "the" doesn't make sense in this context, because "the" assumes your audience has prior knowledge about a certain bridge.
"A" bridge is in the forest might work but it seems like a random statement. It doesn't connect to anything very well.
this would require some form of это in the Russian sentence. I'm not sure exactly which because the locative thing is confusing me, I'm not sure whether locative nouns can be modified by adjectives and if they can what form the adjectives would take.
There in the forest is a bridge. (?) Да или нет?
I had written "In the forest is a bridge," but then remembered that Duo prefers "...there is..."
Why can't I say "There is a bridge in a forest"? Why does it have to be THE forest?
Is there a reason for introducing these side-issues like -у instead of -e in certain masculine nouns for which even Russians are uncertain about the reasons for the exception, all while we're still trying to learn the basics?
The -у thing is the locative case. The prepositional case still exists for those words. But your point is of course a good one.
As stated previously on this comments page.....The Russian sentence is indicating the existence of a bridge in the forest which was hitherto unknown to the audience. The bridge indicates you are talking about the location of a particular bridge which is the subject of interest in the conversation.
A brief search and it seems that locative nouns are modified by determiners/adjectives in the prepositional case rather than having a special locative conjugation. That's disappointing, I'm so used to precise Russian agreement between words that this feels very out of place. I wonder if there's an archaic locative declension for adjectives that allowed for better agreement.