Thread: quikie translation for a noobie

Can somebody please help translate the following into Russian?

I was born in New York. I grew up and lived there many years.
My first job was in Massachusetts. I worked there almost 10 years
as a Software Engineer. 10 years ago in 1997, I recieved a job
offer at a Titanium Plant in Las Vegas. Las Vegas is a beautiful city
and it never gets cold there. So I decided to move there and I lived
here ever since.

My lame guess:
Я родился в Нью Йорк. Я возрастал и жил здесь много лет.
Моя первая работа был в Массачусетсе. Я работал здесь почти 10 лет
как Software Engineer.
10 лет тому назад в 1997, Я получил предложение работы в титание заводе в Лас Вегасе.
Лас Вегас красивый город и некогда холодный. Так я решил to move здесь и я жил здесь ever since.

Thanks in advance

Originally Posted by shadow1

Я родился в Нью Йорке. Там я вырос и прожил много лет.
Моя первая работа была в Массачусетсе. Я проработал там почти 10 лет инженером-программистом.
10 лет тому назад, в 1997 году, мне предолжили работу на титановом заводе в Лас Вегасе.
Лас Вегас красивый город, и здесь никогда не бывает холодно. Так я решил переехать сюда, и с тех пор я так и живу здесь.

Originally Posted by shadow1

Can somebody please help translate the following into Russian?

I was born in New York. I grew up and lived there for many years.
My first job was in Massachusetts. I worked there for almost 10 years
as a Software Engineer. 10 years ago in 1997, I recieved a job
offer at a Titanium Plant in Las Vegas. Las Vegas is a beautiful city
and it never gets cold there. So I decided to move there and I have lived
here ever since.

My lame guess:
Я родился в Нью Йорк. Я возрастал и жил здесь много лет.
Моя первая работа был в Массачусетсе. Я работал здесь почти 10 лет
как Software Engineer.
10 лет тому назад в 1997, Я получил предложение работы в титание заводе в Лас Вегасе.
Лас Вегас красивый город и некогда холодный. Так я решил to move здесь и я жил здесь ever since.

Thanks in advance

TATY, both those "for" are optional in these sentences; it is not incorrect to omit them.

Originally Posted by chaika

TATY, both those "for" are optional in these sentences; it is not incorrect to omit them.

I don't think so, unless that is American usage. I doubt that's even standard American usage and just colloquial. It sounds very wrong to me without them.

ссылка

on a British site too!
ratio is 4:1 -- for : no-four

I'd agree with chaika. Omitting the 'for' makes the sentence feel a bit more relaxed, but certainly not wrong. If it is a violation of a grammar rule, it's a pretty obscure one that everybody except English teachers ignores.

What about omitted "have"? Is it a mistake or not?

Originally Posted by JJ

What about omitted "have"? Is it a mistake or not?

Probably, yes. But a lot of people talk that way, so I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you want to converse with Queen Elizabeth.

So yes or no? I also dont care about "эээ паслющай дарагой" but it's not Russian language. Do you personaly consider it as a mistake? If the guy is a native New Yorker and he speaks that way I guess it's not a mistake....

Yeah it's a mistake. In spoken language you may be albe to get away with it but in writing it looks bad.

Thanks guys.

Originally Posted by Grogs

I'd agree with chaika. Omitting the 'for' makes the sentence feel a bit more relaxed, but certainly not wrong. If it is a violation of a grammar rule, it's a pretty obscure one that everybody except English teachers ignores.

Maybe that's what they teach you, or don't teach you, as it seems in America. It sounds wrong to my English ear. It's not an obscure grammar rule, it's quite basic really.

In speech it's fine, 'for' is a short word, it's hard to notice it's not there. But in writing, that's wrong. Especially if it were in a formal context.

And I definitely think the 'have' is needed. "I lived there ever since" means "I lived there, and now I don't".
"I have lived there every since" means, "I lived there and I still do now".

Originally Posted by TATY

And I definitely think the 'have' is needed. "I lived there ever since" means "I lived there, and now I don't".
"I have lived there every since" means, "I lived there and I still do now".

What's the difference between 'I lived' and 'I had lived'?

Or should I use 'had lived' (past perfect) only in a dependant clause for harmony of tenses only (i.e. when the main clause is in past indefinite?)

IMO

"For" is optional in both cases.

"Have" is not. The sentence is grammaticallly incorrect without it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by TATY

And I definitely think the 'have' is needed. "I lived there ever since" means "I lived there, and now I don't".
"I have lived there every since" means, "I lived there and I still do now".

What's the difference between 'I lived' and 'I had lived'?

Or should I use 'had lived' (past perfect) only in a Dependant clause for harmony of tenses only (i.e. when the main clause is in past indefinite?)

"I lived" is a simple statement of the fact that at some point you lived somewhere. And now you don't

I lived in Russia for 2 years.

"I had lived" - This is the past perfect tense. This tense is used to show you which of two events happened first.

In 1992 my house was destroyed in a storm. I had lived there for 2 years.

This means that the action of 'living' occurred before the house was destroyed.

Another example:
If we have two sentences in the simple past (I VERB-ed).

I read the book.
My friends talked about the book.

Here it isn't clear which action occurred first. Did I read the book before my friends talked about it? Or did my friends talk about the book, and then I read it?

I read the book. My friends had talked about the book.
(My friends talked about the book, then I read it."

If I use the past perfect in the second sentence it means that that action occurred first.

I had read the book. My friends talked about the book.
(I read the book, then my friends talked about it.)

If I use the past perfect in the first sentence it means that that action occurred first.

I hope that's clear.

Also!

I went to Paris. My friend John lived in Paris so I decided to phone him.
(This means that at the time of going to Paria, John probably still lived there)


I went to Paris. My friend Jogn had lived in Paris so I decided to phone him.
(This means at at the time of writing John no longer lived in Paris.)

funny. I've been studying English for what, more than 10 years now? And no one has ever explained the whole Past Perfect thing as clear as you just have, TATY. Huge thank you.

Thank you, that made things clearer.

So check if I got it right:
I lived in Paris ...
...for two years - incorrect? (have/had been living depending on whether I live there now?)
...some time ago - correct?
...after I moved there from Moscow - incorrect?
... . (period) - just lived (a narration) - correct?

I have lived in Paris
... this year (but don't live there now) - correct?
... during the war (war is over) - incorrect? (had lived should be used?)
... for two years - incorrect? (have been living should be used?)
... after I moved there from Moscow (and still live there) - correct?
... before I moved there from Moscow - incorrect (had lived?)

I have been living in Paris ...
... for two years. - correct, provided that I still live there?
... some time ago - incorrect, (had been living?)
... after I moved there - correct, provided that I still live there?

I had lived in Paris ...
... before the war - correct? (I don't live there now)
... for two years - incorrect (have/had been living?)

I had been living in Paris ... - correct if only before smth for some stated period?

Ramil,

Your questions suggest to me that you missed an important fact: we generally use Past Perfect only in relation to other events. That means it rarely comes up on its own. If it does, it is still meant to be in in relation to something else, but which is implied or already evident.

"I lived in Paris for two years" is perfectly correct, a statement of fact about a period that is separate from the present (therefore you could not live there now).

"I had lived in Paris" is only correct if it is meant to show that this even came before another event in the past. If there is no other event, then it sounds incomplete.

All of your first group of "I lived in Paris" examples are correct.

As for the others:

I have lived in Paris
... this year (but don't live there now) - correct?
Not exactly, partly because it sounds funny that you would consider such a short time to be "living" in a place. "Spent some time" sounds better." In any case, Past Simple should be used, not Present perfect.
... during the war (war is over) - incorrect? (had lived should be used?)
No, just Past Simple.
... for two years - incorrect? (have been living should be used?)
Either one is OK.
... after I moved there from Moscow (and still live there) - correct?
Only if you use "since" in place of "after".
... before I moved there from Moscow - incorrect (had lived?)This sentence is very confusing. Which came first? Where are you now?

I had lived in Paris ...
... before the war - correct? (I don't live there now) Simple Past sounds better there, because your point is not to show that one event came before another. It is a simple statement of fact.
... for two years - incorrect (have/had been living?)
Any Past Perfect tense is incorrect here unless it is meant to take place before another event.

I had been living in Paris ... - correct if only before smth for some stated period? That's right.