"Возле площади две автобусные остановки."
Translation:There are two bus stops near the square.
Am I right to that five bus stops would be "пять автобусные остановок"? That the adjective does not change?
It does. It should be «пять авто́бусных остано́вок».
Thank you. But why is it автобусные in "две автобусные остановки" using nominative plural and not автобусной? остановки is genitive singular because of две correct?
That is not really logical... After 2, 3, 4 (but not 12, 13, 14), we use:
- when noun is feminine, the noun is in genitive singular (две остано́вки), the adjective is in nominative plural (две авто́бусные остано́вки),
- when the noun is masculine or neuter, the noun is in genitive singular (два авто́буса '2 buses'), adjective is in genitive plural (два больши́х авто́буса '2 big buses').
To further complicate the case, when the adjective precedes such a noun, it's always in nominative plural, even for masculine nouns (после́дние две остано́вки 'last 2 stops', но́вые два авто́буса '2 new buses').
This mess is not really logical. In the past, Russian used to have 3 numbers (singular, plural and dual). Dual disappeared, but after numerals it was used so often that people didn't just drop it, they replaced it with forms that sounded similar to old dual forms. For nouns, this was the singular genitive form; for adjectives, this was the nominative plural form.
However, this is really illogical in modern Russian, so this created a tendency to unify all the forms of adjectives. So, people started using «два больши́х авто́буса» (and not *«два больши́е авто́буса») because it seemed logical to use the same forms of adjectives after all the numbers.
Why this hasn't happened for feminine nouns? It could have happened, it was a living process, but then the literary language was created, and it froze the changes in the language. In colloquial language, *«две автобусных остановки» sounds OK, I'm pretty sure I speak like this myself. But in writing, we imitate the old examples. And so in literary Russian, this would be considered a mistake.
Большое спасибо. I appreciate you giving the historical explanation as well.
Please look for confirmation/further explanation from native speakers on this.
Близко and рядом are adverbs, whereas около and возле are prepositions.
My understanding is that you can say for example, он рядом or школа рядом by itself, to mean "he is near[by]" or "the school is near[by]". But with около and возле and, I think, близко, you have to include a comparative ~object [I'm not sure if "object" is the correct gramatical description?]: "the school is near [to what?]". So школа находится около музея means "the school is near the museum", but you can't just say школа около or школа возле to mean "the school is nearby". Similarly -- школа близко к центру ["the school is close to the centre"]. You can also use рядом in this way: школа рядом с центром.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, especially with regards to nuances in meaning between the words. And I'm a little less sure with regards to близко and рядом.
Also, it may be worthwhile to note that, where in English we would say "near [to]", недалеко [от]", or literally "not far [from]", seems to be more popular in Russian. E.g. "The shop is near my house." --> Магазин недалеко от моего дома.
Блин, ну не говорят "две автобусных остановки". Остановки, какие? - автобусные. Вы еще скажите что "ихних" нормально звучит. Да и зачем писать, что это выглядит не логично, сами же даете правильную историческую справку.
То, что вы не говорите, не значит, что «не говорят» вообще.
А «ихний», конечно, тоже нормально звучит. Когда ситуация не требует литературного языка, я его использую (чаще в устной речи, но, например, и в чатах оно тоже вполне уместно).
No, not really, I don't think. I think that would be "На площади", maybe?
Возле, около, рядом all mean near or next to but not actually on, at or in.
I briefly tried my hand at Swedish ages ago but wasn't very good. Still, maybe "nära" (Возле, около, рядом) instead of "på" ("На" or sometimes "В")is the difference here? But I never got deep enough for subtleties so I could be very wrong.
On a side note, and I apologize and will withdraw if you don't want feedback on English (but I'll also admit I'm curious). The "suddenly" isn't quite right. It's always a problem, there are 15 different definitions for words.
If you like, if you provide the word in your language I can try to help find the right one in English.
Oh, OK. I have not really though that there‘s any difference between ‘at’ and ‘near’, but I suppose you‘re right.
Oh, I suppose you must have seen my Swedish/Russian flag. ;) Yes, I live in Sweden and speak Swedish. You‘re right, but – as in English – there is an ambiguity between ‘on/in’ and ‘at’. I think ‘on the square’ is to be ‘på torget’, but ‘at the square’ would be ‘vid torget’. There‘s probably a difference between ‘near’ and ‘at’.
Regarding the use of the adverb ‘suddently’, I don‘t see what you’re getting at, but I kind of understand. Of course, you couldn‘t have seen it from my perspective. I mixed some sentences up and though it read на полщади. I remembered a sentence where both ‘on the square’ and ‘at the square’ were both accepted and thus thought ‘So, “at the square” was accepted before in this context, but not now?’ --- ‘So, suddenly “at the square” isn‘t accepted?’. In Swedish, that would be ‘plötsligt’: ”Så, plötsligt är inte ’vid torget’ godkännt?”
Anyway, thank you for the help. Спасибо большое за помощь, an_alias! Vielen Dank für die Hilfe! Tack så mycket för hjälpen, min vän! Bedankt!
Oh, I suppose you must have seen my Swedish/Russian flag. ;) [...] in English – there is an ambiguity between ‘on/in’ and ‘at’. I think ‘on the square’ is to be ‘på torget’, but ‘at the square’ would be ‘vid torget’.
Yes, sorry about that. I try to be aware of where questions are coming from, for better or worse.
And yes, there is definitely ambiguity in English between "on" and "at" but you're also right that there's a difference between "near" and "at" and I think that's exactly what's happening here. I wish I could find the very helpful reply shady gave me on the difference between Возле and около.
As for the "suddenly", yes I didn't see it from your perspective. I felt like I came in to the middle of a conversation you were already having. :-D
Anyway, thank you for the help. Спасибо большоте за помощь, an_alias! Vielen Dank für die Hilfe! Tack så mycket för hjälpen, min vän! Bedankt!
You shame me. I cannot reply in kind in those numerous languages except to say пожалуйста.
You have to type a blank in between the text you want to write and the ’greater than’ sign (>). :)
> TextTextTextTextText will apeare like: