"Which restaurant was it?" "It was the restaurant near a sea. I can't remember where it was." It could work…
It would not often be said. Clearly the usual context for this sort of expression would involve either a restaurant or the restaurant by a specific sea.
One can make up stories where the other possibilities occur but we are looking for typical sentences. (Unless they are about multi-lingual bears, or such matters ...)
I can't hear what it's pronouncing in isolation (I guess you only hear this in an excercise), but I think it might mispronounce моря. Мо́ря is the genitive singular, 'of sea', while моря́ is the nominative/accusative plural, 'seas'. When pronouncing words in isolation, TTS might not have enough context to place the stress correctly.
Why on earth is there no explanation of stress shift anywhere so far? This is one of the hardest aspects to get used to in Russian and yet nothing is written here about it, let alone declension paradigms appearing in the dictionary like with verbs in the first five courses.
According to Zaliznyak, Russian nouns have 12 different stress patters, of which 6 are commonly used, and another 6 are only encountered in ~40 words. The common 6 patterns are assigned letters from a to f.
Each stress pattern is determined by the place of stress in
- singular forms,
- nominative plural forms (for inanimate nouns, also in accusative plural),
- genitive, dative, instrumental and prepositional plural forms (for animate nouns, also in accusative plural).
For each of these, the stress can be placed at the stem or at the ending, and the models are described like this:
- a: fixed stress on the stem,
- b: fixed stress on the ending,
- c: stress on stem in singular, on ending in plural,
- d: stress on ending in singular, on stem in plural,
- e: stress on stem in singular and in nominative plural, stress on ending in plural in oblique cases,
- f: stress on stem in nominative plural, on ending elsewhere.
Here's the same thing as the table from «Ударение в современном русском склонении»:
And here are the some examples:
As you can see by «стол», when the word is expected to have stress on the ending, but the word has no ending, the ending shifts to the last syllable of the stem («губˊ» → «гу́б», «столˊ» → «стóл»). The same is true for gen. pl. forms that can take zero ending too («зеркалˊ» → «зерка́л»).
Also, when the stress is on the stem, it can be on different syllables of the stem. Obviously, you need to know not only the stress pattern, but also the syllable of the stem.
You can see the stress patten in the Wiktionary. In English Wiktionary, it's marked in the 'declension' box header like this: «Declension of мо́ре (inan neut-form soft-stem accent-c)». 'Accent-c' is what we need. In Russian Wiktionary, it's marked like this: «2-е склонение (тип склонения 2c по классификации А. А. Зализняка)». 2c is what we need, c is the stress pattern.
For verbal accents, you can get some information here: http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/accent.html
Hope that helps.
Sorry, I don’t have the PDF with me right now... I’ll try to find where I got those tables from and re-add them this week ^^'
Well... The rest of the Zaliznyak's work is dedicated to this, but complete description takes 11 pages of text. :D
Basically, he divides all nominal words into several groups:
- group 1: declinable masculine nouns with zero ending, ending -ь or -й
- group 2: neuter or masculine nouns ending in -о, -е, -ё; or neuter nouns in -я
- group 3: feminine and masculine nouns in -а or -я
- group 4: feminine nouns in -ь
- group 5: pluralia tantum nouns
- words of adjectival declension (слова адъективного склонения): adjectives, nouns declined like adjectives (столо́вая 'canteen', рабо́чий 'worker') and ordinal numerals
- words of pronominal declension (слова местоимения склонения): pronouns,
- numerals (except ordinal)
And here's a table of possible stress patterns in each group (you might want to open the table in separate window if it's too narrow in Duolingo):
Boldface means that more than 100 words in this group belong to this stress pattern. Italics show that 100 but 10 words belong to this pattern. Brackets mean that only isolated words from this group belong to this stress pattern.
Probably a typo.
Sometimes grave accent is used for secondary stress, and in pre-revolutionary publications grave accent was used on last syllable to imitate Ancient Greek diacritics. However, I see no reason why it's used in this very case.
I'm not certain, but I suspect the clues would be in the punctuation. Here there is none so it's clearly not a sentence.
If there were at least a full stop/period with a possible em-dash between ресторан and возле? I would read it as a sentence.
I'm terrible at Russian punctuation and I'm guessing.
Ok so Возле takes genitive case? I need to revise prep and gen cases yes again. https://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/prepgen.html
Are you serious? I find it hard to believe that someone might not know the difference between a sea and an ocean, but then I'm not a native English speaker.
Okay. The continuous body of salted water that covers three fourths of the Earth's surface is known as the World Ocean. It is conventionally divided into oceans (Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and (sometimes) Southern), with the divisions following continents and oceanic rifts. Seas are also bodies of salted water, but they are partially or (sometimes) fully enclosed by land. A sea is usually a part of an ocean. They are also smaller, and there are only 5 oceans anyway, so anything that's not on the list is not an ocean.
Though now that I look at it, the distinction might seem blurry, and if this particular sea belongs to an ocean, the restaurant is technically by an ocean too. It still sounds odd to equate a море and an океан.
I haven't read this whole exchange, so I'm not sure what conclusion was reached, but I thought I needed to add something here. You are referring to specific oceans, but this sentence just uses a general-sounding "the sea", which I consider to be absolutely synonymous with "the ocean".
If you were playing on a beach and your son said "I'm going to play in the ocean", you wouldn't consult a map to check and say "ah no, that's actually the sea".
I am reporting this anyway; I think that they are close enough to both be accepted in this particular case.
You are correct - there is a technical difference between a sea and an ocean. But, at least here in America, they are completely synonymous when used as in "near the sea" or "by the ocean" and in several other contexts.
If, for example, you are standing on a beach looking out at the Pacific Ocean and commenting on its beauty, you could say either "the ocean is beautiful" or "the sea is beautiful" and be entirely correct both ways. It might be worth noting that "the ocean" refers more to the specific ocean you're talking about / sounds slightly more technical, whereas "the sea" refers more generally to water. It's also worth noting that nobody would refer to a sea as an ocean, but referring to an ocean as "the sea" (not "a sea," but "the sea," as if it's a concept) is perfectly fine and even a bit poetic.
We actually have a phrase here that directly contradicts the difference between sea and ocean - "at sea," which is used to describe that something (usually a ship) is on the water far away from land (usually on an ocean).
I guess my point here is that while there is a difference that you will see in a professional or technical context, in most colloquial speech, the sea is completely synonymous with ocean. For that reason, I think they should either change the translation to "a restaurant near a sea" or accept "the restaurant near the ocean." As a native speaker, my first thought after reading this sentence was of a restaurant in California overlooking the Pacific Ocean, which could 100% be described by "the restaurant near the sea."
Yeah, when anyone is on a beach, they can point to it and say, "I see the sea" or "I see the ocean", as there really is no distinction on the face of it.
Yes, I know that seas are usually smaller portions of oceans, but really, what's the difference? If you say that object X is by the ocean, or by the sea, it really makes no difference. Only to maps and geography can I think of any major difference in the words. But in common, everyday use of English, I've always heard them used interchangeably.
The ones that aren't interchangeable, though, are the smaller bodies of water like lakes and rivers and whatnot.
Also- In the Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, (English copy), you play on a large LARGE body of water and hop to many different islands to complete tasks and stuff. ANYWAY, the large water mass is called "The GREAT SEA", and it's much much larger than any real-life example of "seas", and would probably be considered an ocean, if you had to distinguish them. So, Ocean or Sea? Does it matter? -shrugs-
Well, there are also a lot of seas that are not part of one of the oceans. e.g.the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea etc. And since an ocean, by definition, is NOT enclosed by land, then there are lots of places where you can see an ocean without being able to see a sea...
Just because there are some bodies of water that fall into both categories, that doesn't make the categories identical.
Please don't interpret what I wrote as a criticism of you Akuhime-sama. But I do fundamentally disagree with your viewpoint. The purpose of language is communication, therefore the more information it conveys the better, and precision in usage helps this; therefore distinctions matter.
That does not mean that I am telling you that you "ought" to be more precise; you communicate in whatever style suits you best. But in an environment where we are helping each other to translate between languages, it is necessary to be as precise as possible - often words don't map onto each other in a one-to-one correspondence, and where this is so, it is good to know this.
Once we know the disctinctions, we can then choose whether or not to bother about them in ordinary speech.
As to learning to avoid regional grammatical variants, I can sympathise: where I grew up, one doesn't simply "get off a bus", one "gets off of a bus" - it still sounds reasonable to me, but it gets funny looks from most people! (Other of my relatives speak a dialect that uses "her" in the nominative as well as the accusative.)
I didn't say it did make them identical, but yeah, I know, it's just that they are so close that I don't think it matters like- if you're just using it to refer to a large body of water on the beach. I mean like if you see it, and don't necessarily know if it is an "ocean" or just a "sea", it wouldn't matter what you called it, everyone would still get your point.
And, maybe I've heard them used interchangeably because nobody around me knows the bloody difference, which could very well be true. I know a ton of people in my area who don't use correct English, or don't know that what they are saying is incorrect grammar. (like some people I know who say "I seen" instead of "I HAVE seen")-just one example.
I've had to further educate myself when it comes to grammar because I live in the left section of PA, and everybody learned Pittsburgh colloquialisms and bad grammar from their parents.
@daughterofAlbion: No none at all. But what exactly did I say was my "viewpoint"? Because I don't remember making one. xD
All I said is that in certain situations, people will still get your point whether you said sea or ocean. You'll be able to communicate to them clearly that you see a large body of water off the coast/shore/etc...
And that's not really a matter of opinion or viewpoint, it's just a general statement.
You misspell the world restaurant, it should be ресторан. If you want to use word рядом (which means 'near') it becomes a bit complex. You have to use the preposition before the word 'sea' and sea should be in so-called instrumental case: ресторан рядом с морем. The simplest version I would use, which is totally correct, is: ресторан у моря.
"there is a restaurant near the sea" What is wrong with my answer?
That's your opinion. I have an M.A. in English Literature; I am also a native English speaker and 30 year veteran teaching ESL and EFL in Slavic countries. It does not at all sound "unnatural." So, I will have to say that yours is a relatively uninformed opinion. I see that you are at level 12 in English, so you are obviously not a native speaker, are you?
Well done for making a number of assumptions yourself which rather undermine your point.
I'm level 12 in English because I completed the Russian tree from English before the Russian for English speakers tree was released. (I've also completed the French tree from Russian and I'm working on the Spanish and German trees from Russian.)
Assuming that I'm not a native when the fact I'm a native speaker from Britain (and which trees I have completed) is right there on my profile doesn't speak much for the reading comprehension skills you gained in your MA, so I wouldn't go waving that about as if it proves your point. I'm not impressed.
My opinion is that "on the seaside" sounds unnatural, and I would tend to assume someone using that phrase was a non-native. My grandparents lived in a seaside town and I spent an awful lot of time at the seaside growing up; I have never heard anyone say "on the seaside"; at the seaside and on the seashore, yes, but never on the seaside. It sounds strange to me. I don't have an MA in Eng. Lit. but I am a linguist and a writer, and I dare say my opinion is as well-informed as yours.
If you think it should be added, then by all means report it and the Russian team will decide on its merits, but like I say, assuming I'm a non-native doesn't speak well for your reading comprehension, so I will stick with my own native speaker opinion and not bow to your presumed superiority.