Does that mean that I should treat саду as the prepositional case of сад or that саде is still the prepositional case but is written саду if it referrers to a location?
or that саде is still the prepositional case but is written саду if it referrers to a location?
This. "говорить о саде" but "находиться в саду". For most nouns there wouldn't be any difference (for example "говорить о цирке" and "находиться в цирке") so in general it's considered to be the same case, i.e. preposotional, but some nouns retain their old forms for locations.
Does russian differentiate сад and огород like polish does? In polish 'ogród' is generally a garden, while 'sad' means usually a kind of garden where you grow fruit.
огород is usually a type of garden that is next to a дача, where people grow vegetables (potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers etc.), and сад is a garden in general
Много requires that whatever noun follows it, is in the genitive case. The word following много may be singular (много воды, a lot of water (water is uncountable)) or plural (много кошек, много тарелок, много столов, a lot of cats, plates, tables, etc.).
In this situation, only the plural of flowers would make sense. I hope this is helpful to you. Please let me know if it is not clear or does not answer your question.
Wait a moment, why the correct translation is "... a lot of flowers..." if "цветов" means 'Colours', and "цветков" is actually 'Flowers'?
the words "цветов" and "цветков" are the same, almost equivalent. and colors of flowers means "цвет цветков" or "цвет цветов". Цветы is main form. there are цветки, цветочки. they are used as redused of main form?
The form of the masculine noun in the prepositional with the ending in -e is characterized as a book form, in -у(-ю) form - as colloquial-professional, sometimes with a touch of vernacular. For example
в порте - в порту ( in port )
в чае - в чаю (in tea)
It still depends on the use of the word in a literal or figurative sense. For example
номер на доме - работа на дому (number on the house - work at home)
Should it be there IS a lot of flowers since the verb to be relates to the singular object "a lot" ?
In English, "a lot of" is generally plural, because it encompasses plural objects (when used with countable objects). Flowers are countable.
Compare these sentences, which use "a lot of x are"...:
- A lot of people are in the room.
- A lot of shoes are in the closet.
- A lot of plants are on the window sill.
...to these sentences, which use "there are":
- There are a lot of people in the room.
- There are a lot of shoes in the closet.
- There are a lot of plants on the window sill.
(In spoken English, we often say "There is a lot of people," and only the most stringent at grammar will point it out, and they really need to get a new hobby; I know, because I used to be one of them; I got a new hobby! Anyway, anyone would be perfectly understood using this verbiage.)
Non-countable objects when used with "a lot of" will generally use singular. I cannot think of an exception at this time. See the below:
- There is a lot of time for thinking at my new job.
- There is a lot of gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.
- There is a lot of water on the floor.
I don't agree at all. "A lot" should always be preceded by "there is". Countable or non countable quantities. It is mathematical grammar
Sorry, in the name of, "I can do whatever I want with grammar, including actually live by the rules," I disagree that I "should always" do what you say and speak incorrectly.
A lot of is a common, modern colloquialism that replaces many and much. Many is used with plural nouns, and much is used with singular or uncountable nouns.
In the above sentences, for the plural nouns I listed, you can replace "a lot of" with "many." To identify the grammatical subject of the sentence, you can also remove the word there and rearrange the sentence to find the subject. There is an expletive, not the grammatical subject.
So There are many people in this room is functionally equivalent to, There are a lot of people in this room. By removing the expletive and rearranging, it becomes evident that the grammatical subject of the sentence is people, since the sentence becomes, "Many people are in this room." I will not begin saying, "Many people is in this room," because this sounds uneducated.
Or here. If it helps to think of it this way, then by all means, think of it this way: The word is is third-person singular conjugation for to be. Are is third-person plural conjugation for to be. He is, they are.
What happens when you replace the to be conjugation in these sentences with a verb of non-being? How does it sound? Use dances (third-person singular conjugation for to dance) and dance (third-person plural conjugation for to dance). He dances, they dance.
"A lot of people dances in this room" or "Many people dances in this room." These sound silly. If I won't use the third-person singular conjugation for to dance, then I'm not going to use the third-person singular conjugation for to be.
We are missing the тут or the здесь in the Russian to be able to use that for a direct translation of this particular sentence. However, if you wanted to, you could say that in English and it wouldn't be outlandish, just mildly redundant. You would probably say it while standing "here" in the garden, pointing around to all the flowers.