I am addressing this question to fellow native speakers of English: Do you find the translation "The vase is standing on the table" stylistically awkward? I feel like native speakers of (contemporary) English almost always use the verb 'to stand' in reference to humans/other bipedal animals (not to inanimate objects). However, I asked my (native English-speaking) husband about this and he didn't think the translation was particularly awkward--though he agreed that "The vase is on the table" sounds more natural.
"Standing " is awkward in terms of inanimate objects. In American English "standing" is rarely used that way except some use it with things that easily fall over like brooms.
It's OK, though not necessary, to use "stand" with an object like a vase, which has a clearly upright position (it's standing as opposed to lying on its side). OK, I wouldn't use it with some objects. "The vacuum cleaner is standing there" - really? So I can't think of any clear rules for when to use it or not. But it's certainly fine with a vase.
I agree that this is a perfectly acceptable phrase for any object (animate or inanimate) that is capable of having an "upright" position.
Whereas the vase is on the table is probably more common, it could just mean that the vase simply happens to be there temporarily (e.g. I have just taken it out of the box and needed to put it somewhere), if I say the vase stands on the table, there is a certain implication that this is its proper, permanent location.
I hope you understand that in Russian, Ваза стоит на столе does not imply anything about the vase being at its proper or permanent location.^_^
Hm, if someone quickly asked me about a temporal location of a vase, it would most likely look like: - А где ваза? - Ваза на столе. I think I would skip the verb completely. Though the same thing works for answering someone who is not familiar with where the vase permanently is.
"Ваза стоит на столе" looks either a bit more permanent or like a description of everything at the moment to me. A picture or something.
But I agree that only "Ваза всегда стоит на столе" or "Ваза должна стоять на столе" sound like a permanent location.
I often think that Duo lacks context. It makes such lengthy discussions about details more possible.
I think that implication is contained in the present simple tense rather than the verb "to stand". The present continuous "is standing" is maybe less common in English but doesn't have the same implication of permanence.
Of course. That is why you have accepted is as the correct translation for стоит elsewhere, is it not?
It's certainly uncommon phrasing in English.
That said, I like it when they include it in the acceptable translations to remind me: While it may be awkward in English, I really need to remember to use those words when I'm translating to Russian because that seems to be the norm.
This is one of the ones that works with stand OK for me, but there's one with a cabinet/wardrobe and that's definitely less natural.
I probably have never said such a thing in my 55 year life. "The vase is on the table."
Это АБСОЛЮТНО ВЕРНЫЙ ответ, но Дуо не принимает его, как и многие сотни других верных ответов.
I guess I really meant 2 vs 3 syllables. Sometimes I think I hear sta-li-ye, and something sta-lye.
Compare Mshak vs svoit: https://forvo.com/word/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5/
And yea, I saw this one too :D https://forvo.com/word/%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5/
I cannot hear much of a difference. Which of those two sounds like sta-li-ye?
And I was thinking that I'd be more likely to use sitting on the table instead of standing....although that isn't a meaning of стоит
If it is also/simply read as "a vase on the table", what is wrong in it? There may be a situation, where you don't want to use 'is' at all. Like you write below a painting ' lady with a lamp'. So the point is, would the translation be wrong, or for that, the Russian sentence has to be different
Неверно произносится слово "стоит". Ударение должно быть на втором слоге "сто-и'т". Меняется смысл слова . "сто'-ит". Моя куртка сто'ит сто рублей.
Стоит should simply be translated as IS. We do not say objects are standing or lying (лежит) somewhere in normal English!! This is a basic difference between the two languages which occurs all the time. I can't believe we are expected to write the nonsensical The vase is standing!