This must have been discussed elsewhere, but can я вижу not translate as 'I can see'? To me, 'I can see a bridge' is usually synonymous with 'I see a bridge'. The latter sounds American.
"I see a bridge" is definitely US English. Usually I pick up on this stuff but I never noticed it was actually different in other English flavors.
DL, as you probably well know, supports various regional differences in answers so report it next time if you haven't.
But would it then be confusing to be confronted with я могу видеть мост?
I don't know.
We speak efficiently over here! ;-)
Yeah I did report it in the end.
я могу видеть wouldn’t be too confusing for me since I already use ‘can see’ (+can hear, can smell, can feel) to span the range of meanings between ’I can see nothing without my glasses’, ’I can see the bridge, despite the fog’, to ‘’look over there, I can see a bridge’. Whether or not the difficulty/ease of perception is emphasised depends on context.
I think Ï can see' should be accepted as an alternative translation. 'Can' can have many different uses and in British English people say 'I can see' pretty automatically. I'm not a native speaker of Russian, but I would be rather surprised if 'я могу видеть' was correct in this sense (it isn't in the equivalent of Polish', or at least it would have a different meaning (like I am able to see). Yup, verbs of perception are definitely complicated and I've already fallen in the same trap twice! :)
I'm a native speaker of Russian)
and Я вижу мост (the same bridge you told me about it or Wow! Finally I see a bridge so I came! ) --- no problem I see
and Я могу видеть мост (because the fog/rain ended(before I didn't see it) or I can see because I can see again or I can see the bridge even behind that tall building ) ---so I have reason why I can not see or could not see earlier. Sorry for my English) I hope it's clear)
I am a native speaker of English and confirm completely what you say. I am not sure why the learner needs to dispute this, since the differences are clear.
If you say "I can see a bridge" I am still justified in saying, "sure, but do you see it?" one is about ability the other is about actuality. Sure "I can see a bridge" might be colloquilally similar to "I see a bridge" but seriously this is a training environment.
If your teacher calls you on the difference, it is an opportunity to learn from it because there really is a difference. Ability versus actual observation.
gotta tell you, I wrote I see "the" bridge and it was wrong but can still not see the definite from the indefinite article.
Accusative. For this word (masculine inanimate) accusative and nomivative are identical.
So if inanimate nouns in accusative is the same in nominative , why мы на мосту use у ending?
Because in "мы на мосту", the "на" requires prepositional in order for it to make sense.
I think you'd need a verb of motion for на to take accusative:
Мы идём на мост - We are going to the bridge (accusative)
Мы идём на мосту - We are going on the bridge (prepositional)
Many (most?) single-syllable nouns get the "у" ending in prepositional.
I am still trying to get my head around Russian cases. German I can get - relatively simple. But are inanimate nouns always the same in the accusative as they are in the nominative or is gender the determinant?
мост is masculine and the accusative appears to be the same is the nominative like "Я хочу хлеб" or in the non inanimate "Я хочу человек".
However the use of на (on or at ) would make it one of the indirect objects (rather than accusative) of which I am still trying to navigate.
Both masculine and neuter singular, inanimate nouns have the same form in both the nominative and accusative.
Feminine nouns will differ between the nominative and accusative (but, to make things more fun, there's no differentiation between the animate and inanimate singular, only with the plural):
Сумка -- красная - The bag is red (feminine nominative)
Я хочу сумку - I want a bag (feminine accusative)
> However the use of на (on or at ) would make it one of the indirect objects (rather than accusative) of which I am still trying to navigate.
Sort of, my German grammar isn't that great (of course, neither is my Russian), but I think there are a couple more cases in Russian.
German seems to handle prepositions like you say - they follow what form the noun would be in the sentence (dative, accusative, etc). Russian has a completely separate prepositional case. See my reply above for a (very) little more information.
Just for completeness, I believe "instrumental" is the other case that exists in Russian but doesn't in German.