I'm not sure it's complete coincidence. A Russian animal (living thing) is: животное, so clearly some connection between "живот" and living. Indeed, "life" is "жизнь", so same root, presumably. To me, it's not completely illogical that the stomach should be linked with life. In fact, this has helped me learn the word! If it IS a complete coincidence, it's a lucky one, because somehow the connection has always made sense to me.
Wiktionary is your friend. Apparently they all come from the same Proto-Slavic root. In East Slavic languages it became stomach, and in South and West Slavic it became life, except for Sorbian (NOT Serbian) in which it is also stomach. And furthermore it's apparently connected to Latin vita and Greek bio-.
In polish "żywot" means life (a little bit archaic, but still used in some cases), but historically it also meant belly or womb. For example in the prayer to Mary we say "błogosławiony owoc żywota Twojego, Jezus". I always thought that the two words are connected, because we are all born from woman's womb and it starts our life.
In czech the same - život (живот) means life. And žaludek (жадудэк) means stomach. This is wierd for me becouse: (animal) животное / живот - ное We say in czech mostly zvíře but also we often say živočich(живочих) Život - čich
So animal goes from život(живот) here and in russia it seems the same way for the first time but well - stomach ok.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I'd been saying a really odd thing for years, and nobody had corrected me. But the language we use is in turn derived from what we hear in common usage. I'm sure I wouldn't have got to 49, and not noticed I say something differently to everyone else. It's common in the UK. I have no way of knowing about the rest of the English-speaking world.
I found it odd as well, and I'm Canadian. So I asked my wife and she spelled it as one word. OK, that is the fun of Canadian English. We are politely flexible. I did see this explanation on line.
Stomachache, like headache, is a countable noun in American English. In American English we almost always use a determiner (article, demonstrative pronoun, possessive pronoun) before count nouns such as these two words. ... In British English, it is spelled 'stomach ache' and is a mass noun.
In American English, one has "a stomach ache", "an ache in the back (or elsewhere)" - but can also have "stomach pain" or "back pain". There is something about the word "ache" - it is more specific and more localized than "pain", which is more general. Because of it's specificity, it becomes a "thing" which requires an article in American English.
Also, British English seems to dispense with articles in ways that American English doesn't. We go to the hospital, not to hospital, for example.
Those are just differences in a common language. No value judgement to them at all.
Yes. American English and British English have had centuries to diverge from their common roots. Neither is wrong, and neither is better than the other. They are merely different, and they may well eventually evolve into separate languages, as, for example, Latin evolved into the Romance language family.
Thinking about it in more depth (not that this seems a particularly fruitful line of thought), I don't think I'd say: "I have", either, but rather: "I've got".
So: "Are you OK today?" "No, I've got backache!"
I don't think that sounds odd or foreign at all, and I wouldn't think it odd or foreign coming from anybody else.
I notice I instinctively wrote it as one word, here. It's hard to tell how you would write something, when it's far more common to say it than to write it.
But I genuinely get backache quite a lot (ha, still not a backache), so it's a phrase I use quite commonly.
The classic sicknote people give to their employers typically just says: "backache" (as a generic condition), just as you might write: "bronchitis", not that they have a backache.
I can't say "I know" the answer to this question, but I can attempt a rough guess...болит is the 3rd person singular conjugation of the verb "болеть" meaning "to ache". (Note that there is another conjugation set for this verb (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/болеть) that means "to be sick", they aren't the same verb, there are actually two for which the infinitive is spelt exactly the same.) Now because Russian uses the case system to denote the subject and object of a verb (the direct object is placed in the accusative case), in your sentence above, there is nothing to suggest that "my stomach" is the object of the verb "болеть" as well as the subject. (Russian normally uses reflexive verbs in such circumstances, but that wouldn't feel right in this case as it would translate kind of like "My stomach aches itself" which seems weird to me anyway.) So I think that's why. It could also have something to do with this word (as discussed above if I remember rightly) being derived from an early related Slavic language, and this construction may have carried through the "ages" as it were.
And that's the best explanation I have for you! Hopefully someone will come along and prove me completely wrong, and/or improve on my explanation!
Sorry Brits, Duo almost exclusively prefers the U.S. dialect. "I have stomache ache," will instantly peg you as a foreigner. Perhaps, someday there'll be an American English for Brits course, and then, vice versa. ("Two great nations separated by a common language!" - W. Churchill)
Unless anyone here is a great Slavic linguistics scholar, we can guess why, but thats just how Russian expresses the idea of pain in the body. (Here's a guess, culturally, -- we Russians aren't wimps! Its not me; it's just the stomache that hurts!)
I used to sing in a Русский народный хор. Ill never forget this lyric that tells us that, at least in the past, heavy drinking was a major part of the national culture:
Perhaps that is a better translation, but since "у меня болит живот" can't translate perfectly into English, "I have a sore stomach" is still the closest translation — certainly closer than "my stomach hurts", which is a completely different sentence structure.
"I have a sore stomach" and "I have a stomach ache" should both be accepted.
This is a weird sentence. When I looked up the conjugation of the verb болеть: "to hurt, to ache", several different sources said that 3rd person singular was болеет:
However, another source listed a very different present-tense conjugation for болеть http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/morph.cgi?flags=endnnnnp&root=config&word=%E1%EE%EB%E8%F2 in which 3rd person singular is spelled болит.
Болит does not appear to be a noun, adjective, or any part of speech other than a verb, so literally it does mean "I have a stomach (which) hurts/aches".
Still, your translation is reflexive, which the verb болит is not. And the English idiom - which is very common - is "stomach ache".
So, I'd say that your translation is too far from the Idiom - but it's based on the actual literal meaning of what appears to be a somewhat obscure conjugation of the verb болеть.
I wonder why Duo has presented this sentence, because it is so hard to figure out, even with extremely good resource materials available.
There's a difference in the two phrases. 'Stomachache' is generally reserved for saying that it's the organ that's hurting. 'Sore stomach' would more usually refer more generically to one's abdomen in general; it could mean a bruise or a pulled muscle or such, not necessarily that the organ itself is sore. Not sure how this distinction would be made in Russian.
болит appears to be the 3rd person singular present tense of an alternative conjugation to the verb болеть (to ache, to hurt), while the more common conjugation is болеет.
Do any native-speakers or moderators have any information on this word, болит? As a verb, it appears to cause the sentence to mean something like "I have a stomach which aches".
My abdomen hurts. Should be accepted. That's what i as a doctor would say. Живот = abdomen, stomach. My point is that Ithink it is technically correct. The dictionary definition is "abdomen". It is like saying "doggy" is correct but "dog" is wrong. As pointed out above, низ живота= lower abdomen in DL answer
You yourself are a doctor, you say? That may explain why you don't seem to use the terminology most lay people would, when describing where they have a pain. I think "my abdomen hurts" is completely unnatural (for a non-doctor), and wonder how many of your patients would ever say it that way. It would be like saying: "my cranium hurts" instead of: "I have a headache". It might be anatomically correct, but not something one in a thousand people would say.