Do direct object plurals stay in nominative plural form? This sentence makes me think so.
The wording from 'Tips & notes', however, isn't clear to me: 'living beings ("animate") copy the Genitive; objects ("inanimate") stay Nominative; in plural this rule applies to all types of nouns' -- what is "this rule" referring to?
Not to be too difficult here, and apologies to mosfet07, but the only time the animate/inanimate distinction makes a difference is in Accusative case. Including all the other cases under an animate/inanimate heading is not very efficient. Nominative and genitive cases are relevant, because sometimes the endings are the same as in accusative, but Dative, Instrumental, and Prepositional cases are irrelevant to animate/inanimate status.
This would be more obvious if the same words were used between the two divisions. There are much more efficient declination tables on the internet.
This is extremely helpful, thank you. Edit: I removed an unnecessary image that I included in this post
The rule is "Accusative plural is same as Nominative plural for inanimate nouns, or same as Genitive plural for animate nouns".
The direct objects don't stay in nominative. They are in accusative. It's just that this Accusative form is the same as Nominative form for inanimate nouns.
I feel it could be more clear if the tips & notes said, "in plural these two rules apply to all types of nouns". I'll try suggesting it somewhere in case the Duolingo powers agree
I knew that "вижу" meant "to see" because I remember it sounds like "widzę" in Polish. I love these similarities.
I was amazed at how close Russian and Polish are. Apparently, it's because the Slavic languages split apart from each other a lot later than the Germanic and Romance languages did.
That's more an English idiom issue, which uses present simple rather than present continuous for verbs involving cognition rather than action. "I see - I know - I recognize - I acknowledge" rather than "I am seeing/knowing/recognizing/acknowledging". (This is just a guideline, not a rule.) I think that that is because with present continuous, the implication is that we can know nothing about what happens outside the time-framing of the present continuous, and it in fact suggests that what's going on now wasn't going on in the past and won't go on in the future, while simple present is a current observation which implies that things were probably like that in the past and will continue to be so in the future.