1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Russian
  4. >
  5. "There are bears and ducks he…

"There are bears and ducks here."

Translation:Здесь медведи и утки.

November 21, 2015



Why isnt "меадведи и утки здесь" accepted?


Based on previous lessons, I'm thinking "здесь медведи и утки" means "here there are bears and ducks", while "медведи и утки здесь" is closer to "the bears and the ducks are here".


You are right, the emphasis is on the position and not on the animals


As a native speaker of English, I do not follow your distinction. The problem with this and similar exercises is that there is a valid distinction in Russian, but the English translations do not reflect these distinctions, since intonation is not indicated (unless one uses italics) in English -- yet that is what is being tested. It is really irritating to know what the Russian means and still get marked wrong because of someone's rigid idea of what the English word order should be to reflect the original Russian meaning.


It's not about word order in English. The distinction (in English) is between indefinite and definite references.

There is a difference between "a bear" and "the bear" and likewise a difference between "there are bears here" and "the bears are here". In English, as is shown in the above example, the difference is shown primarily with articles.

Since Russian doesn't have articles, the distinction between definite and indefinite is shown via word order. The distinction is equally valid in both languages, just manifested differently.


So does that mean i can use "вот"also?


Not in this case, from my understanding.

To say "вот медведи и утки" is more like "here (I'm handing you) bears and ducks" while здесь медведи и утки" is "here (in this place) there are bears and ducks"


I don't know if you speak French, but "вот" is like "voilà".


Oh, that could help, thanks


Of course, same sentence!


"Здесь есть медведи и утки." was accepted.


Could be because you wrote "меАдведи " rather than "медведи".


Can you say "здесь есть медведи и утка"?


I want to know this, too. This is originally what I wrote but the given answer takes out the есть ...


Should be ok since there is no limiting context. Apparently accepted now. The use of "есть" here emphasises the existence aspect or supports the location aspect "there ARE bears and ducks here" or "bears and ducks ARE HERE". Consider the sentence "a telephone is here" as pure indicative statement "телефон здесь" versus a question in an emergency "is there a telephone here? (a telephone at all, is one HERE) "Здесь ЕСТЬ телефон?" It emphasises the existence and the location. Technically it is probably never absolutely wrong as such, I yield to the specialists, but not really necessary in normal speech unless there is a reason to add the concept of existence (presence, place, unusualness). Just my two kopeks.


I'm from Russia, so the grammar has been used differently. When you say "Здесь медведи и утки" it most likely mean here is the bears and ducks are there. That sums it up right, because "Здесь" means here. And it's used both ways to start and end the sentence.


Hmm, I thought здесь есть would be used instead of just здесь for the English there are/is...here. If both of them can be used, is there a difference in the meaning conveyed? For instance:

  • Здесь есть женщина = The existence of the woman is the main information being conveyed here.
  • Здесь женщина = There's a woman but there's less emphasis on the existence.

Is this interpretation correct?


I imgine Yoda speaking and he says "here be bears and ducks". Yoda makes learning Russian easier.


I wonder what Yoda sounds like in the Russian releases of the Star Wars films. Can Russian handle that level of twisting?


Well it probably can, but Yoda's style of speech might not be easily translated into Russian. English's word order is much more rigid, so twisting the word order is much more apparent for the native English speaker's ear, while Russian has a much more fluid word order so twisted sentences may sound a bit strange, but they wouldn't stand out like sore thumb. What I'm getting at is that the joke might not work as well in Russian as in English, so the translators might have dropped it altogether.


so the translators might have dropped it altogether.

They didn't. Yoda still uses an unusual syntax in Russian, which is known and recognized by Russians as Yoda style. Of course sometimes his speech pattern sounds more poetic rather than broken, but not always. It is possible to have a wrong word order in Russian, despite its general flexibility.


wow I missed your reply by about 15 mins. Thank you. BTW do you have a link to the russian translations? I would love to read them.


interesting question. Was The Empire Strikes Back released in Russia? I have not found a sub site that provides Russian subtitles. On the other hand Russian versions of TV series seem to overdub, at least online available ones. Anyone know if the original Star Wars series was released in Russian? If not, that is an amazing opportunity for fan translation. And yes I have no doubts that mangling word order can occur in Russian and be understood Yoda style as long as the mangler understands essential aspects of the language, the words hold grammatical properties in themselves without positional necessity for meaning and do not lose syntax precision if rearranged. If not then, at least for emphasis, it could be arranged poetically by assigning a single strict word order always used like a secondary student in a foreign language class and hence a stylism - all of the time not at will - even to the most colloquial sentences.


The original trilogy was released with a full dub in 2010.

Most TV shows understandably do not get a dub—overdubbing is a much faster/cheaper alternative. High-profile series like Stranger Things may be dubbed, though there are still ways to cut corners (e.g., one actor voicing two or three notable characters).


Oh, sorry. I was talkling about multiple-voice voice over. I am not sure what the exact term is.

Basically, it is a way of recording the voice track when a small number of actors read their lines over the original, with the voices of the original actors still heard.

It is cheaper because you do not have to record a lot of takes or match the lip movements. Plus you do not need a large cast, especially if your actors are experienced enough to slightly change their delivery between different characters.


Why is overdubbing faster/cheaper than dubbing?


Eww that seems terrible. Subtitles would be so much better. Being Dutch i grew up with subtitles and hearing the original voices and languages. Sooooo much nicer than dubbing. Am in Canada since 1983 and dubbing: please not! Netflix otheter languages with subtitles is soooo nice!


Why is it not здесь есть медведи и утки?


It seems like the Russian language wants to use the least amount of words to get the thought across. It probably came from the Huns shouting on horseback, semi-simillar to German.


Why is здесь at the beginning of the sentence and not the end


Why not Там медведи и утки здись?


Makes no sense, as if you have not decided whether the bears are here or there.

The first "there" in the English sentence does not really mean "over there" as in "Put the umbrella there". It is just required by English grammar to express existence.

A more bookish way is a structure like "A sheet of paper was on the desk" or "Bears and ducks are there" (with an emphasis on the first part of the sentence). An even more bookish way tpo express it would be "In the forest there lived bears and ducks"—I do not think such wording is accepted in most Duolingo courses (it will definitely be rejected in a course for people learning English).


You're sentence would probably translate to something like, "There are bears there and the ducks are here." In English, "there" can have more than one meaning, and they aren't translated the same way. We can use "there" to indicate a location, and we can use "there is/are" to say that something exists. If you say "the bird is there", you're talking about the bird's location. If you say "there is a bird that moos like a cow", you're not using "there" to talk about the bird's location; you're saying that a bird exists (and that it moos like a cow). The "there" we use for location is "там" in Russian. The phrase "there is/are" that we use to express the existence of something is "есть" in Russian, but apparently it's optional in this exercise. I'm sure you've already figured this out since you posted your question, but hopefully this will help someone else.


I accidentally wrote птицы instead of утки. It was marked wrong. And previously, Duolingo said: 'Ducks are birds.' Hmm.


The fact that ducks are birds doesn't make birds a synonym of ducks. Or any type of birds a synonym of ducks. Maybe is it taught in high-level philosophy courses.


Idea: Have correct and incorrect answers as per usual but also have a category of 'obscure' responses that are marked as technically accurate but tell you what the most common (best) ways of saying a phrase is and maybe even some description why. In this case "Есть медведи и утки здесь", would be marked as technically correct but would say that the word 'Есть' is not necessary for common parlance. "медведи и утки здесь", would also be marked as correct but would say that it really means "The bears and ducks are here" whereas putting 'здесь' first would make it mean "There are bears and ducks here".


the necessity for this word order over "медведи и утки здесь" still throws me. Could a general rule of thumb be - state the where then the what?


For "there is/are" sentence you usually start with "where". When telling where something is, you first say "what".


Why can I not say "там есть медведи и утки"?


Там is "there". In this sentence, you need "here", which is здесь or тут.

(the English translation starts with "there" but the word does not actually mean anything)


thank you ... спасибо ... for a German native speaker it is sometimes really confusing to first translate from English to German and then back to Russian ;-)


Are there snakes in the city? есть is required.

There are bears and ducks here. есть is not required?


From what I've seen, есть is always required in questions.


If you are asking about the existence of an object then you need to use есть (=is/to be), but for example if you already know that an object exists and you just want to learn the qualities of it (i.e.: What color are his eyes? What are you drinking?) you don't need to use есть because you already know that said person has eyes or has a drink.


In those two examples, the entire structure of the sentence is different anyway.

I'm pretty sure the confusion is more about sentences like the two examples Magic_Tom specifically quoted, where the existence is in fact the point of the sentence. He asked why you do need есть for "Are there snakes (do snakes exist) in the city?" but not for "There are bears and ducks (bears and ducks exist) here." My response wasn't literally about every single question in existence, just questions in this topic.


I wrote это медведи и утки тут and it was marked wrong.


Can someone please clarify "есть" issue? What is the difference between sentence with and without it?


If you want to stress the existence of an object in a sentence (existence in general, existence in someone's possession or in a place etc.) be it positive, negative or a question you need to use есть.

If the stress is not on the existence of the object, (because you already know that it exists) but rather i.e. on it's qualities, you don't need to use есть.


Why not using "вот"?


Вот is like "here it is" while pointing to something or handing someone something. Здесь is like "the weather is nice here" meaning a general location or environment.


Why can it not be вот медведи и утки?


That is more like "here are the bears and ducks"


18/6/20 Здесь есть медведи и утки is accepted I was just checking to see if there was a medvedev joke but it's interesting learning that здесь медведи... was orginally the proper answer


What is the difference between там and здесь?


"Там" is "there", "здесь" is "here".


Whe we cant say вот instead of здесь?


Why can't you use там for There are?


там doesn't mean "there" in that way, but instead is used for situations like "A lion is over there". It gets confusing because both kinds of "there" tend to get used in the same sentence, but in a sentence like "there is a lion over there", you only use там for the second. The first is (to my understanding) either just ignored or represented by есть, depending on the sentence


Тут instead of здесь would be acceptable?


Would "Там медведи и утки" be correct too? I understand the difference between "Вот" и "Здесь" but I'm not to sure about "Там"


"Там" means "there", not "here". You were probably thinking about "тут", which means "here" and would be correct here. "Тут" is interchangeable with "здесь" (if slightly more colloquial).


The voice pronounces и in утки as "ye" rather than as "ee". Is this correct? How would native speakers pronounce it?


Native speakers don't pay much attention to unstressed vowels. Those get reduced to a sort of schwa sound, so two different letters can end up sounding vaguely similar.


Why isn't there a есть after здесь?


Where is the verb "есть"


The word "есть" should be in this exercise.


Why is "там медведи и утки" wrong?


Why can't we say "здесь ЭТО медведи и утки" ? Thanks


Im seeing the animals as new info. Here, (are) bears and ducks. Answers Whats here?

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