- Forum >
- Topic: Russian >
- "Я приеду в Киев в феврале."
45 Comments
The hardest thing for me to figure out in pronouncing Russian at conversational speed is not so much how to pronounce certain sounds as which sounds not to pronounce at all, or to barely say.
The same thing happens in English. The area of the US I was brought up in (near Baltimore, Maryland) drops sounds with alarming frequency, but people still understand each other:
"dJeet?" = "Did you eat?"
"Nah. dJu?" = "No, did you?"
"Nah. 'squeet" = "No, let's go eat."
A "paramour" is what you cut your grass with. (power-mower).
I have worked on my elocution and diction for decades, but people can still occasionally detect a bit of "Mare-lan" in my speech.
In britain "do you know what i mean?" is sometimes pronounced just "nar-mee?" And "at the end of the day" - "yen-glottal stop-day"
119
Shouldn't "I arrive in Kiev in February" be accepted as well? It is still future tense, we just skip the "will" sometimes in English.
And we do this in Russian as well. That is, for planned or expected events in the future we use Present tense, just like English. The only nuance is that English tends to use Present Continuous rather than Present Simple for events planned with my (or the subject's) participation, so I believe in slightly better English this would be "I am arriving in Kiev in February". On the other hand, "preordained" events use Present Simple: "my flight leaves tomorrow at 5" or "the World Cup starts in June".
- 119
Yes, good point: "am arriving" also works. Thanks for the response, but I'm not completely sure if you're saying that this should be accepted or not...
Are "I arrive" and "I am arriving" suitable translations of "я приеду" in this sentence? I think I reported because "I arrive" was not accepted.
Also, to address what you said, I believe that my arrival in Kiev is preordained enough to allow the use of the simple present here. It certainly sounds natural.
Are "I arrive" and "I am arriving" suitable translations of "я приеду" in this sentence? I think I reported because "I arrive" was not accepted.
You should definitely try reporting it, but I am not sure the creators/contributors will agree: given that both Russian and English can use both Future and Present tenses here (with similar connotations), they might opt for literal translation.
"am arriving" - is OK, I suppose, although it's not really future tense in English. People use it to express future intent to arrive or even the announcement of a future action (which is more correctly "will arrive"). Not wrong, not exactly right, but used so much, it should be accepted.
"I arrive" at a future date is incorrect English. I know that's what the Russian allows, but it's just not correct English.
"I am going to arrive" - I have a hard time with this one, because in essence it is a present statement of intent to do something in the future. Spanish allows this "phrasal future" (to go + infinitive) as a valid future tense, and it's used in English a lot, so it has to be allowed, but it's not really future tense, which is present announcement of a future event - not the same as the present expression of present intent to to something in the future (going to...).
- 2224
I don't know that I understand why you think "I arrive in ..." to indicate the future in English should be considered wrong. Take for example the following conversation occurring in January:
A: "When do you arrive in Kiev?"
B: "I arrive in Kiev in February."
At least for me (Midwest American English native speaker), that is completely grammatical and understandable. One could, of course, respond with
B2: "I will arrive in Kiev in February."
B3: "I am arriving in Kiev in February."
B4: "I am going to arrive in Kiev in February."
which are all fine as far as I know in English. As you say, "intent" or I would claim how certain you are the event will occur varies depending on each of these answers (sometimes rather subtly), but they all unambiguously talk about a future state.
For some more analysis (by linguists) of "will" and present/future you can look at http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=897 as well as http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005471.html
The Smiths are having a party this Friday - good English. The Smiths have a party this Friday - sloppy English at best.
On the other hand, "We have a test on Friday", not "we are having a test on Friday". (At least if you a student.)
The difference is that in the first case the event is planned by the subjects of the sentence whereas the second case it is "preordained".
Unless you are going to argue that my arrival somewhere is preordained by some external circumstances (which is not impossible, but unlikely), it should be "I am arriving...", not "I arrive ..."
- 1393
It's the difference between "leaving" and "entering". In this case, you're specifically arriving to Kiev, you've effectively already "gone".
Я поеду в киев в феврале, would be what you have written. The difference between «по» and «при».
It's accusative, and the accusative form of masculine inanimate nouns is the same as nominative.
That very much depends on how willing you are to please local nationalists. It is Kiev in English: https://www.britannica.com/place/Kiev
And? English "Florence" is identical to French "Florence" and not that close to Italian "Firenze". No one seems to be making any fuss about it. I see no reasons to treat "Kiev" any differently.
I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. How do they spell Kiev in Kiev? Maybe more importantly, how do they pronounce it?
That was exactly my point. In English, does it really matter how Italians spell or pronounce Florence? It is Florence in English, while its is Firenze in Italian. Likewise, it is Kiev in English, while it is Київ in Ukranian. I see absolutely no reasons to change English to match their favoured transliteration, or else we'll have to do it for half the cities on this planet.
And lest you suspect me of Russian nationalism, let me assure you I detest any kind of nationalism (particularly now, when I see what it is doing to the world). It is precisely because of that, that I am opposed to the wave of Bombays → Mumbais and Kievs → Kyivs, just as I would oppose any attempts by Russian nationalists to change English "Moscow" to "Moskva". (And as little as I think of Russian nationalists, they don't seem to get involved in this particular kind of stupidity.) Let's keep English above that nonsense.
We've gone so far down this thread I can't reply to your replies, so I'm replying out of order, here.
hannichan: Thanks!
zirkul: I respect your opinion now that I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree. At least, I think there must be somewhere that a line must be drawn. Sure, in English we can call things whatever we want because it's its own language, but at some point maybe we're just being jerks. There are probably better examples, but what about continuing to refer to native Americans as Indians? Or, to a lesser extent (but more relevantly), referring to Ukraine as "The Ukraine"? When I was in Kolkata recently I tried to pronounce it properly the way the locals do, rather than insisting that it's still Calcutta. Maybe this has something to do with my feelings about colonialism... In any case, it's a somewhat complicated issue, and I'd rather be more informed than less.
- 496
I think the closest English version to what it is in the original language should be used, just because otherwise it gets very confusing if you're there and hearing things in the language spoken there. You can end up dividing a place into two different concepts. For instance, I speak both Chinese and English, but there's no way I would have made the connection between, say, Peking and Beijing without being told. I just thought they were two different places.
- 547
There maybe has to be a line somewhere, but in any case it is arbitrary. Why not Calcutta, if Moscow, Vienna, The Hague, Cardiff and Dublin are ok?
There is no any difference, but I prefer old good Kiev.
Как говорится "Ты меня хоть горшком назови, только, в печь не кидай" :)
Why does приеду is translated to "will arive"? How come is it in future tense? Shouldn't it be in present tense?
- 2224
We are using the perfective verb приехать (the imperfective form is приезжать). The conjugation of a perfective verb in the "normal" way is actually the future tense. In fact, there is no conjugation for a perfective verb in the present tense. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C for the full conjugation table.
- 119
That's just how it works in English: months are always "in".
If you are curious about the reason, my guess is that it is because a month is a much larger timespan than a day, so an event is more likely to happen within a month, but more likely to fill a whole day. This is just a guess as to the origin of this rule, however. These days it is just a rule that English-speakers use without thinking about it.
Why was I will arrive to Kiev in February not accepted. Arrive to kiev seems more correct in English then arrive in Kiev imho
Arrive to kiev seems more correct in English then arrive in Kiev imho
Well, it isn't. "To arrive" is used only with prepositions at, in and on: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/arrive?q=arrive
Check the examples accompanying the first meaning. Why is that the case - I cannot tell you, but that's how this particular verb is used.
- 2224
As others have commented below and above (I am a Midwest US English native speaker) "arrive to Kiev" sounds very odd. I can't speak for other dialects, but certainly in the USA "arrive to" sounds strange. You can "arrive at" or "arrive in" places [or perhaps "arrive on" in some circumstances (like "arrive on the shore")], but "arrive to" is basically never used [at least where I'm from].
"I will arrive to Kiev in February" was not accepted. In English the term is "arrive to" not "arrive in"
Not really, at least not in American English (and none of the international English speakers I've interacted with have said it thus). In American English, we say "arrived at" for specific locations, such as a building, but "arrived in" for general locations, such as a city, state, provence, or country.
