"Мне всегда не хватает времени."
Translation:I never have enough time.
In Russian we more often speak: мне никогда не хватает времени than мне всегда не хватает времени
Thanks, I already wondered why никогда was missing in this negated sentence.
That's what I was thinking. In English, you woudn't say I always don't have enough time
That's a good point. Не хватать is a staple combination to express that you lack something or do not have enough. Also, "always"/"never" are fairly open to interpretation.
Usually what happens when you have consistent negation (in Russian) is that you replace English any-words with Russian ни-words. I think this is why the choice of всегда/никогда is not automatic for negative sentences. Sometimes you can use both, like in this sentence (всегда sounds a bit stronger).
- you can, by the way, use постоянно ("constantly, always") and avoid this problem altogether.
- if you have other "variables" you should decide whether you use the positive or negative sentence structure. It will either be "Никому никогда не хватает времени" or "Всем всегда не хватает времени".
In this particular situation "lack" is a singular, established meaning. Statistically, всегда is about two or three times more common with не хватает and не хватало. Both are possible, though. Now, what happens if you use this substitution in "I never eat them"?
- Я никогда их не ем. = I never eat them. (neutral and fairly generic)
- Я всегда их не ем. = I always do not eat them (like, literally every single moment—or you are habitually presented with the choice and make the decision to not eat them every time).
I wonder how flexible English is in this regard. Are "Do you always have no visitors?" and "Do you never have visitors?" both possible?
Thank you for this extensive detail. I would "almost never" :) say "Do you always have no visitors?" Also, "Do you never have visitors?" has a subtle connotation of surprise, predicated on some other part of the conversation, whereas something like "Do you ever have visitors?" is more agnostic and more clearly implies that i don't know.
There's a big difference between "don't always" and "always don't". Не in this sentence applies to хватает, not всегда.
That's true, I got confused. I understand why it's the Dative Case but cannot explain it
You can say "У меня никогда нет времени" (or use всегда or even вечно instead of никогда), but adding достаточно (-го as well) makes it sound very weird.
No, you should also add a particle indicating refusal.
Мне никогда не достаточно времени.
So, I see хватать is imperfective, and схватить is perfective ---- if we wanted to say, "to seize, grasp." And then there's the second use of хватать (imperfective), with its perfective, of хватить, which has the meaning we're using here, "to suffice, to be enough."
So do I have usage correct if I said, Я хватаю эту книгу, to mean, I am grabbing this book (regular subject / verb / accusative), and Мне хватает этой книги (dative / verb / genitive), to mean, This book is enough for me?
And also ---- in these "sufficient" phrasings with the dative, хватать will always take the impersonal хватает form, no matter what number or person the sufficient thing is, right? So would it be, Мне хватает тебя (and not мне хватаешь тебя for, you are sufficient for me), and Мне хватает книг и диванов (and not мне хватают книг и диванов for, books and couches are sufficient for me), correct?
So, всегда не is an idiomatic way of saying "never" in Russian?
No. Here is not the almost correct translation.
"Мне всегда́ не хвата́ет вре́мени" translates as "I always don't have enough time" or if you translate it literally "мне всегда́ недоста́точно вре́мени".
And "I never have enough time" tranlates as "я никогда́ не име́ю доста́точно вре́мени" or "у меня́ никогда́ не быва́ет доста́точно вре́мени" (it means the same)
Click report next time. I think this choice above has to be changed.
Would this be the same as translating it as "I always have insufficient time"?
хватать in the meaning of "suffice" always has an "experiencer" in the Dative.
The one who experiences a state or emotion.
I do not think you should have known this term. Its name is self-explanatory but its use in linguistics and syntax is not.
No. Хватать is used impersonally (without a subject) to say that something is sufficient. Хватает: it is enough. Мне хватает: it is enough for me. The thing that there is enough of goes in the genitive. Мне хватает времени: there is enough (of) time for me. Я хватаю means 'I grasp/grab'.