"Shchi is a soup."
Translation:Щи — это суп.
It accepted "Щи — суп" as correct, is there a significant difference in meaning or is the это not really necessary?
«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?
I believe that Duolingo as a whole simply ignores punctuation, like the Russian dash.
... as long as you put a space in there! I got "almost" for Щи--суп. It wanted Щи --суп.
Actually, a dash has spaces on each side in Russian (Щи — [это] суп).
Commas and full stops work as usual. An ellipsis does not have spaces inside in Russian:
- Даже не знаю, что сказать...
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.
I am interested to know that this is correct in some formal circumstances. I assumed that the translators who made Groot say "Я есть Грут" in 'Guardians of the Galaxy' were misusing the language in order to have the same number of words/syllables as "I am Groot".
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.
Can anyone tell me if the pronunciation of щ is like the English "sh", and if ш is different? Is "shchi" a reflection of the pronunciation?
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).
Really good of you to go to the trouble of providing examples. Maybe I can just detect the difference! This is like the French trying to tell the difference between "ship" and "sheep"!
Peterviuz I agree with you! I have been studying Russian for 5yrs and I still cannot detect the difference between those two Russian consonants. But I keep listening because I think that I just need to listen to more Russians speaking to finally, actually hear it.