1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Russian
  4. >
  5. "Тогда был туман."

"Тогда был туман."

Translation:There was fog then.

May 2, 2016



Not: "It was foggy then" ?


I put the same thing. I think "There was fog then" sounds unnatural.


Foggy is an adjective and туман is a noun.


Why is "Then there was fog" incorrect? Is a different word used to express this construction than "был"?


If the course designers don't allow "then there was fog" but do allow "there was fog then", it is probably because the first version sounds like one of a series of statements, as in "First there was hail. Then there was fog. Last there was fire." It doesn't sound as natural for the meaning "at some previous time" or "at that previous time".


I see. Well, I guess that makes sense, thanks!


And what about the russian version? Does it sound as not being one of a series of statements? There is not much context after all, I think.


Why "был" and not "было" ?

Вчера не было тумана.

Тогда не был туман.

What's the difference?

  • 2183

Тогда был туман. There was a fog then. (only correct without не)
Вчера не было тумана. There was not a fog yesterday.

If there was a fog, we are talking about the fog, which is masculine gender.

If there was not a fog we are talking about a situation, in which (the words literally say) there was not of a fog. This lack of fog is not a thing and it has no gender, so было. (At least, that's how I explain it to myself.)


I am just a bit confused of when to use нет and не now, is it true that in the past you'd say не было and in the present just нет? This would give the following sentences:

Вчера не было тумана. (yesterday there was not a fog) сегодня нет тумана. (Today there is not a fog)

Could you just use this for any noun?

не было медведя. (There was no bear.) нет медведя. (There is no bear) был медведь. (There was a bear.)

Is that correct?


Thanks man, I understand it now! Have a lingot


Why not "There was mist then"?


In a similar sentence, Duolingo permitted the translation "foggy" (вчера не было тумана "it was not foggy yesterday"), so why not here, too?


i think "there was fog" should be sufficient. the "then" is redundant


'then there was fog' is this incorrect?


'Then there was fog' seems an entirely valid English alternative


In another ocasion, "it was misty" was the correct answer. Now you have to use the noun "fog".


Why "было солце", but "был туман"? They're both masculin words, right?


Native English speaker here. "Then there was fog" and "There was fog then" mean two entirely different things in English: the first means that after whatever we said in our previous sentence happened, there was fog. But "There was fog then" means that at the time (back then), there was fog, but now there isn't any now. Which one corresponds to the meaning of the Russian sentence?

Learn Russian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.