Thread: How to say: "I prepared a dish called ... earlier"

I was typing to my Russian friend earlier and wanted to type this.

I went with;

Я приготовил блюдо которое ... "кау ман кай"!

then got stuck, in english I guess the past participle would now come into play, right? But wasn't sure in Russian what to use.

Could anyone please correct what I got so far and then add the right form of называться and explain why.

Cheers, Jake

Я приготовил блюдо, которое называется "кау ман кай"! or Я приготовил блюдо под названием "кау ман кай"

называться is a verb, which means "to be called (as)" or "to bear a name"

I hope that helps

called = называемый (страдательное причастие настоящего времени)
so-called = так называемый, известный под именем / названием

Блюдо has neuter gender, hence:
"приготовил блюдо, называемое ***"


"Называемый" is more used in textbooks, however. iCake's variants sound "more normal".

Originally Posted by ShakeyX

Я приготовил блюдо которое ... "кау ман кай"!

then got stuck, in english I guess the past participle would now come into play, right? But wasn't sure in Russian what to use.

Could anyone please correct what I got so far and then add the right form of называться and explain why.

I believe ShakeyX wanted to ask about the tense usage as well.

So, in Russian the most natural way is to use the present tense here: "Я приготовил блюдо, которое называется ..." (subordinate clause with a verb in present) or "Я приготовил блюдо, называемое ..." (present passive participle).

Now, you wanted an explanation.

In English, if you have the main clause in the past, you automatically put the subordinate clause to the past. But it does not work in Russian this way. I'd better provide some examples to show the difference.

1. I told him that my sister worked as an engineer.
So, you have the past tense (told) in the main clause, and you use the same past tense (worked) in the subordinate clause. However, what you actually mean is that your sister was still working as an engineer at the moment of speech. And maybe she is still working now.

To make it clear, let's define:
moment A is now (i.e. when you say the whole sentence "I told him that my sister worked as an engineer");
moment B is the moment to which you refer by the main clause (i.e. when you say "my sister works as an engineer");
moment C is the moment to which you refer by the subordinate clause (i.e. when you sister works as an engineer).

Since the main clause is in the past tense, it is undoubtful that B < A (B was before A), both in Russian and in English. But the problem is with C.

In Russian, if you say
Я сказал ему, что моя сестра работает инженером. - It means that, from the refrence frame of the main clause, it was in present. She was still working at the time when you said it. And probably she is still working now. So, the present tense here is used to show that C = B. (Although it is not clear if she is still working at the moment A, maybe yes and maybe no).

However, if you say
Я сказал ему, что моя сестра работала инженером. - It means that your sister worked as an engineer before you told him about it. But at that moment (when the speech took place) it was already in the past, i.e. she did not work any longer. So, the past tense in the second clause means that C < B.

So, the tenses in the subordinate clause in English are absolute tenses (related to the moment A). In Russian, they are relative (related to the moment B). The main clause defines your "reference frame". And then you switch to that reference frame when constructing your subordinate clause.

2. Я приготовил блюдо, которое называется "кау ман кай" (BTW, I wonder is it a Thai dish?)
The dish is STILL called "кау ман кай", isn't it? Not only when you cooked it the dish was called that name. What you want to tell by the subordinate clause is still true at the moment A, and it was true at the monent B. That's why your choice is present.

If you say "Я приготовил блюдо, которое называлось "кау ман кай"", it would sound as if it was an old name of the dish.

3. I told him that I would wait for him.
Here, we have an interesting situation: A is NOW (when you say "I told him that I would wait for him"). B is when you told him "I will wait for you" (B < A). And C is the moment when you are awaiting for him. It is clear that C > B (С after B). But it is not clear if C < A or if C > A. So, you cannot use future in English (will-form), and you use the future-in-the-past instead (would-form).

In Russian we say
Я сказал ему, что буду ждать его. We use the regular future in the subordinate clause. But it does not mean C > A. We do not know it. It only means that C > B - we use future since it WAS considered future at the moment B (to which you refer by the main clause).

Thankyou so much for this explanation, really makes sense.

I do wonder though why it is less common to use the participle (I thought they should be used in conjunctions and such).

In either case, participle or standard verb, the present is used because the fact stated is still true now? right?

And yeh "кау ман кай" was my best transliteration of ข้าวมันไก่. A thai dish which I less than adequately приготовил

Originally Posted by ShakeyX

I do wonder though why it is less common to use the participle (I thought they should be used in conjunctions and such).

In fact, participles in Russian are more a sign of the bookish style. Frequent use of participles is uncommon in colloquial speech, although we do use them sometimes. To sound less bookish, try to use relative clauses with separate verbs rather than participles.

In either case, participle or standard verb, the present is used because the fact stated is still true now? right?

In this specific example - yes!

But when it comes to reported speech, present can merely mean the fact was true at the moment of the reported speech:
Я встретил друга на улице. Он сказал мне, что идёт в магазин.
I met a friend in the street. He told me that he was going to the shop.
As you see, we also use present to express simultaneous actions. It is past in the absolute reference frame. But it was present when my friend was speaking to me.

And yeh "кау ман кай" was my best transliteration of ข้าวมันไก่. A thai dish which I less than adequately приготовил

- You mean rice with chicken, right?

BTW, คุณเรียนภาษาไทยได้ไหม?

Thanks again! I think I'm getting it.

And I won't lie, I had to google translate that. I have just learnt to read the script which I can do pretty accurately, but need a thai person in proximity to tell me what I'm reading aloud actually means. These are the problems with traveling :P Learning one language isn't enough.

Originally Posted by ShakeyX

And I won't lie, I had to google translate that. I have just learnt to read the script which I can do pretty accurately, but need a thai person in proximity to tell me what I'm reading aloud actually means. These are the problems with traveling :P Learning one language isn't enough.

Oh, sorry! I see. I thought you could speak some Thai.
I am a beginner, myself. But I admire the language.