Translation:This room with a green carpet is very dark.
Carpeted rooms are very rare in Russia. Probably because carpets require too much cleaning.
Does ковёр refer to carpet that covers the floor wall to wall or only to large free-standing rugs? Also, could this sentence be interpreted to mean that the room is dark because of the green carpet, or does it only mean that the green-carpeted room happens to be dark?
Great, thanks! I forgot about the kind that hangs on the wall.
I think it can refer to the both carpets!
If you want to point to the carpet that covers the floor wall to wall, you can use "ковровое покрытие" - carpeting, carpet covering.
Oh, i think it can have the both meanings! Good point! That depends on the context!
Thanks, that helps me understand. I originally translated the sentence as, "The room is dark with the green carpet" but that wouldn't be appropriate if the sentence didn't mean that the carpet made the room dark. The default translation felt weird to me, but I think it makes sense; I think it's just needs the instead of a.
>The default translation felt weird to me, but I think it makes sense; I think it's just needs the instead of a.
As a native English speaker, it feels weird to me too, but I can't explain why.
"The" would be better than "a". But I would also be just as likely to skip the article altogether and say "This room with green carpet is very dark"
Regardless, the "a" feels out of place - I wish I knew my own language well enough to explain why.
(Nothing like learning new languages to highlight how much you rely on innate knowledge of your native tongue and how little you actually understand unless you've actively studied it.)
That's why I asked about the type of carpet. If it's wall-to-wall carpet(ing), it's uncountable, so no article; but if it's a giant rug, a carpet, then it is and so should have the or a.
I think the weirdness come from the room being definite but the carpet being indefinite: if you know about the room, you must know about the carpet. I guess that's what I was thinking, too, when I asked if the sentence could mean that the carpet made the room dark: if you know something about the carpet and what it does, then an indefinite article doesn't work—you know too much. >:}
A could maybe make sense if several rooms each had one or several carpet(s) that weren't green, but that feels intuitively unlikely. I don't know, this certainly got me thinking of finer points that I hadn't before! I like it. I hadn't really noticed that there could be some kind of definiteness concord rule.
But just thinking some more, phonetically speaking, "with a" and "with the" sound almost identical, so maybe that's where the sentence came from? I was thinking about, "the park with a big slide": structurally it's the same. Is it any better? Would you ask someone, "You know? The park with a big slide?" That seems like it might be okay. "The pan with a silver handle is expensive"? I'm more doubtful. ...Yet indefinite plural "...with silver handles..." is okay. Ugh.
We're really getting into minutiae, but I think pure semantics are the issue: rooms and their contents constitute a smaller range of possibilities (they're all contained in one house), in my conception, compared to all the parks in a city; and a pan has far too few features to identify single ones in the indefinite. ¯\ (ツ)/¯ I really don't know anymore; I quit!
tl;dr: the green carpet not a green carpet.
I think that your point about there being multiple rooms with various carpet colors makes the most sense.
"Which room is dark?" "The room with a green carpet is dark"
My biggest problem isn't with "the vs a", but with "this".
First of all, it doesn't make sense at all in the above context. If you're specifying through verbal description which room out of several you're referring to, it can't be something within any reasonable proximity to you, so you can't use "this".
It also doesn't make sense within the context of the sentence. "This room" implies that you're near the room, close enough to see it. If you're close enough to see it, then saying "With a green carpet" is redundant. Everyone can see the green carpet. My original answer was thrown off; I said "This room is very dark with the green carpet" because it was the only way "this" makes sense. The redundancy is reduced if you're saying that the green carpet is what is making the room dark, because you're pointing out something about it beyond "It is in this room".
Admittedly, even if you replace "this" with "the", it sounds slightly off. I prefer "The room with the green carpet is dark" to "The room with a green carpet is dark". It doesn't have to do with knowing, but with specificity. You are referring to a single, specific room with a single, specific carpet. Saying "A green carpet" implies that it's just any carpet, it doesn't matter which one. But this particular carpet is necessary to identify the room; it can't be just any one, it needs to be that one. So you need the definite article simply to show specificity.
Now, all of this said, I can think of one context in which the sentence "This room with a green carpet is very dark", and that is informal oral storytelling. However, I personally don't think that informal oral storytelling should be a model for realistic/practical grammatical structure, and so I believe all my above points still stand. (In addition, "This room with the green carpet" still sounds better. I don't think there is any way to make "This room with a green carpet is very dark" the ideal choice for anything)
Also just quickly on the topic of "with the" and "with a". I am a native English speaker and they sound identical to me. I spent about five minutes pronouncing them out loud in various sentences and I am completely sure there is almost no difference. If anything, the "th" sound might be slightly softer in "with a", but at a normal conversational pace the two are absolutely indistinguishable.
The Russian sentence does not answer the question "which room is dark". If it did, it would be "Вот эта, с зеленым ковром". The thing is that, in the given sentence, эта means "that" ( the one we've been talking about or one of the rooms we saw in that house/flat). Also, ковер is more likely to mean a rug than a carpet so the correct translation should be "That room with the green rug is dark".
I always feel weird responding when people clearly speak more languages than I do. (and I'm a little embarrassed that I'm basically monolingual).
Still, I was right there with you right up until you said: >But just thinking some more, phonetically speaking, "with a" and "with the" sound almost identical
And then I realized that I make the same mistake in other languages. I think it sounds the same - and it so doesn't.
I don't know what your native language is but, even when slurred by an English speaker, those two things are still clearly very different to us.
Quickly spoken the difference is:
"With a" - witha (tongue is soft throughout) "With the" - with'the The ' doesn't denote accent/stress but a break between two same sounds. The "th" from "with" would be slightly longer, then the "th" for "the" would kick in a bit firmer.
In any event, I think you know more about my own language than I do (and many others) so... I probably shouldn't have even responded.
As a native English speaker I don't have any problem myself with the indefinite article "a". The DL solution is fine.
ковром sounds like the Spanish word "cabrón" which means "motherfu**er" LOL
LOL I've lived around many Spanish speakers in my life and have heard this word many times. But does it exactly translate to MFer? I know it actually refers to a man who knows his wife is cheating on him but does nothing, and it's sort of a general insult.
You're a little confused, I think, or maybe it's a regional thing. Here, in Mexico "buey" or "chivo" (btw, both are animals with horns) are words used for men whose wives are cheating on them and do nothing (or maybe they don't even know). "Cabrón" (that is similar to the word "cabra" another animal with horns) means MFer, but it's not as rude as MFer, it seems to me, though.
ok slightly confused, from I've read here. I was off about the part about the man knowing. There's even a similar word/concept in Italian & French, but the part about the man having knowledge I can't speak to. But it wouldn't make sense to insult a man for his wife being unfaithful, unless he knew it. It's even mentioned in the movie Goodfellas, and the idea behind the insult probably goes back to Europe. And I know the word is also used in a friendly way, as I've heard it with my own ears. As far as a regional context, that is possible as I grew up in the New York City area, the land of Puerto Ricans.
'This' sounds even weirder! That article would suggest the speaker is already in the room or at least can see and is gesturing towards it, so why elaborate on the colour of the carpet? Haha I'd go for 'the room with a...' :D Although, 'this room with THE green carpet' oddly works...hmm...
If the carpet was dark - (Этот) зеленый ковер в комнете очень темный.
I'm doing this on the review and have already completed the course. What lesson was this in, as I do not recall it.
If you posted specifically why it is unclear, perhaps you would get an answer...
Perhaps you misinterpreted it the way I did at first. To clarify, put a dash (to represent is) between ковром and очень. Then you can just read it word for word.
(I'm sure it's clear to a Russian speaker, and we need to learn this form; I'm suggesting this for explanatory purposes.)
Could I check my understanding of something? And ask a related question?
In this question the adjective тёмная agreed with the subject комната in gender and number. In a previous question, the sentence was В этом доме очень светло. The house is masculine but the adjective is neuter. Is this because the current sentence has a true subject, but the previous sentence was subjectless or had an implied one: "(It) is very bright in this house"?
And while I'm at it: could темна have been used instead? The notes on the predicate skill (Short & Long) seem to indicate it could be.
"Эта комната ... тёмная." It's because the room is the subject of the sentence.
In the sentence with В этом доме светло, the actual subject is not overtly expressed. It might be easier to read it as "Это светло в этом доме" (there you can see that светло goes with это, as a sort of neuter, nondescript noun). That sentence is also fine, but it's got two extra syllables that you don't necessarily need to express that thought fully in Russian.
It is not modifying "дом". If you said "в этом доме светлом", it would still mean "In this bright house" (which is not a complete sentence, and which has a strange word order).
In this context, using the short-form adjective sounds... weird. Maybe for poetry it might be used, but I don't think it's used very often otherwise (except in "темно", as the opposite of светло).
In general, you are right. However, no Russian will ever say, «Это светло в этом доме», because no «это» is implied in impersonal neuter forms such as светло, темно, холодно, тепло and the like. For example, if you want to say, “it’s dark outside”, you simply say, «На улице темно»; it would be incorrect to translate “it’s” with any word in such sentences. Neuter singular adjectives agree with the implied «то, что я вижу/слышу/чувствую» (“what I see/hear/feel is”). The use of short forms темен, темна, темно as complements is limited. Here are some examples: «Лик его тёмен» (poetic) = “His face is dark”, «Ее биография темна» = “Her biography is obscure”, «Его прошлое темно» = “His past is dark”.