"Shchi is a soup."
Translation:Щи — это суп.
«Это» is not necessary but still widely used in sentences providing a "definition" or other type of classification to clear up what the thing is:
- Лошадь — это животное. = The horse is an animal.
- Кошка — это не собака. Она любит независимость. = A cat is not a dog. It likes independence.
- Книга — это то, что нам нужно. = A book is what we need.
- Анна — это наш главный программист. = Anna is our lead programmer.
It is not used in strictly bookish speech this way but otherwise it is quite popular.
I noticed that all 3 of the following are accepted as correct: "Щи — это суп", "Щи — суп" and "Щи это суп". As I understand it, in strict written russian it would be "Щи — суп", and in spoken russian it would commonly be "Щи — это суп" and so i presume that "Щи это суп" is the same but just not written correctly?
In Russian, Щ represents a longer and more hissy sound than the English "sh"; a Ш is a less hissy sound. Shch only reflects the historical pronunciation, still used in some remote villages but not much anywhere else (also, sh + ch is the letter's standard pronunciation in Ukrainian).
So, the English sound is not really a good model for either because it sounds like something inbetween. However, when all you want is transliteration into English, "shch" is better than nothing.
Your tongue in Щ is raised high up, and the consonant itself is longer. For Ш, think of an R in American English, and spoon your tongue back somewhat (not much, really).
Because native speakers do not speak like that. Есть in "A is B" sentences is characteristic of extremely formal bookish language, which is not the style teach here (not in every sentence, anyway). In normal speech and writing "to be" in this meaning is not overtly expressed by any word in the present tense.
It is acceptable (grammatically) just rarely ever used. It also depends on how you define "correct" and what the temporal boundariesof the language you consider the same are. In modern Russian using есть under such circumstances is old-fashioned to the point it is essentially analogous to an English speaker switching to something Jane Austen or Charles Dickens would write in an analytical epistle. Stylistically one might expect to encounter such language in a philosophical work—where opaque loquaciousness of yestercentury was never an issue.
- Но если уничтожение фракций есть фраза, то сближение основных течений в двух главных фракциях есть факт.
- Каждый живой организм в биосфере - природный объект - есть живое природное тело. Живое вещество биосферы есть совокупность живых организмов, в ней живущих.