"There are bears and ducks here."
Translation:Здесь медведи и утки.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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".
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.
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.
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