"be responsible for"

Привет.
Сегодня я прочитал в газете: "Я возглавил сектор общения с клиентами из Англии". I suppose the word возглавить wants to convey the meaing "I am rensponsible for"?
Вы можете перевести следущие выражения:
1. The new development company is responsible for the building and maintenance of the road.
2. His wife is responsible for the payment of the interest of the loan.
3. They left here responsible of their dog while they will be abroad.
4. He is not a responsible parent. He left his child waiting him one hour outside of the school.

возглавить is a derivative of the word голова, which means head. Surprisingly it completely corresponds to the English verb head as in to be in charge.

So возглавить is to head, to get in charge (of a team, organisation, committee etc)

>>1. The new development company is responsible for the building and maintenance of the road.
Новая девелоперская компания отвечает за постройку и обслуживание (этой) дороги

>>2. His wife is responsible for the payment of the interest of the loan.
Его жена в ответе за то, что им придётся платить неустойку

>>3. They left her responsible of their dog while they will be abroad.
Они оставили ей свою собаку под её ответственность, пока они будут за границей

>>4. He is not a responsible parent. He left his child waiting him one hour outside of the school.
Он безответственный отец. Он заставил своего ребёнка целый час ждать себя возле школы

Yes, возглавить = to become head of.

1. The new development company is responsible for the building and maintenance of the road. - За строительство и ремонт дороги отвечает новая строительная компания.
2. His wife is responsible for the payment of the interest of the loan. - За выплату процентов по займу отвечает его жена.
3. They left here responsible of their dog while they will be abroad. - needs clarification, or mistake
4. He is not a responsible parent. He left his child waiting him one hour outside of the school. - Он безответственный родитель. Он оставил ребенка на целый час ждать около школы.

With honesty the translation: "Его жена в ответе за то, что им придётся платить неустойку" is too advanced for my level. I didn't understand what the "в ответе за то, что" means. If I translate it is awful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

With honesty the translation: "Его жена в ответе за то, что им придётся платить неустойку" is too advanced for my level. I didn't understand what the "в ответе за то, что" means. If I translate it is awful.

---

Well, frankly the original sentence is quite ambigious. Is it that she's guilty of the fact that they need to pay the interest now? Or is it that she's the one who is suppossed to pay the interest, like if the interest is not paid she's the one to blame?

iCake the preposition под does not require a Tvoritel'nyi?

под чем? под мостом. There is something under the bridge.
под что? под мост. Put it there, under the bridge.

под лежачий камень вода не течёт

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pushvv

под чем? под мостом. There is something under the bridge.
под что? под мост. Put it there, under the bridge.
под лежачий камень вода не течёт

---

The questions под чем? под что? don't mean anything for beginners of Russian.

That is why there are examples. Could you try to explain it better pls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

iCake the preposition под does not require a Tvoritel'nyi?

---

It does if you convey the fact that something is already in a certain location. E.G

Под столом - under the table

But

If you convey the fact that something is not in a certain location yet but is being moved there or is going to be there you need the accusative case

под стол - is not under the table yet but where it should be

Положи это под стол - Put it under the table
Нашел это под столом - found it under the table

I hope this helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iCake

>>4. He is not a responsible parent. He left his child waiting him one hour outside of the school.
Он безответственный отец. Он заставил своего ребёнка целый час ждать себя возле школы

---

--------------------------------
With all due respect to iCake's Russian version, I think that the usage of себя is not correct here. To me it means that the child was made to wait for himself, which is hard to imagine in real life. I would use его instead of себя.

"в ответе за то, что" basically means to be responsible for something or someone. Two well-known expressions among Russians leap to my mind.

1) Мы в ответе за тех, кого приручили.
2) Пионер - ты за всё в ответе!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shnuddy

--------------------------------
With all due respect to iCake's Russian version, I think that the usage of себя is not correct here. To me it means that the child was made to wait for himself, which is hard to imagine in real life. I would use его instead of себя.

---

Formally it is perfectly correct as "себя" refers to the subject of the sentence. But I agree that for the ear of native speaker it can be a bit ambiguous. For the better style I propose to remove reflexive pronoun at all:
Он заставил своего ребёнка целый час ждать возле школы.
Even better:
Он заставил ребёнка целый час ждать возле школы.

Well... if someone needs a literary master-class in Russian... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shnuddy

--------------------------------
With all due respect to iCake's Russian version, I think that the usage of себя is not correct here. To me it means that the child was made to wait for himself, which is hard to imagine in real life. I would use его instead of себя.

"в ответе за то, что" basically means to be responsible for something or someone. Two well-known expressions among Russians leap to my mind.

1) Мы в ответе за тех, кого приручили.
2) Пионер - ты за всё в ответе!

---

Don't see anything bad in my sentence. As it-ogo said it may be better to omit себя but it's still not required. As for Он заставил своего ребёнка ждать ЕГО That's really nonsense. Because the question arises immidiately.

Кого его? Because его doesn't refer to the subject, which is он, but refers to somebody else and that somebody isn't mentioned

Well, I am not a great expert of Russian (even though it's my first language), but I doubt that it's perfectly correct in this context, at least. I think "его" is the better alternative. Why? Because if you really wanted to convey the idea of the childing waiting for himself you would definitely use "ceбя", wouldn't you? If it were a movie where the child were traveling in time and were waiting for himself then it would make sense. So, personally, I think "его" eliminates the ambiguity. If you get rid of the pronoun at all then it's now clear who the child was waiting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shnuddy

Well, I am not a great expert of Russian (even though it's my first language), but I doubt that it's perfectly correct in this context, at least. I think "его" is the better alternative. Why? Because if you really wanted to convey the idea of the childing waiting for himself you would definitely use "ceбя", wouldn't you? If it were a movie where the child were traveling in time and were waiting for himself then it would make sense. So, personally, I think "его" eliminates the ambiguity. If you get rid of the pronoun at all then it's now clear who the child was waiting for.

---

Okay, let's agree to disagree. I go on speaking like that and you go on speaking like you feel you should

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iCake

Don't see anything bad in my sentence. As it-ogo said it may be better to omit себя but it's still not required. As for Он заставил своего ребёнка ждать ЕГО That's really nonsense. Because the question arises immidiately.

Кого его? Because его doesn't refer to the subject, which is он, but refers to somebody else and that somebody isn't mentioned

---

As long as we have only two persons in our sentence any ambiguity is ruled out. You are correct that that somebody isn't mentioned, hence, it would be incorrect to refer to someone who hasn't been mentioned. In this case the only pronoun which can refer to "его" is "он", which is the subject of the sentence.

The last example which illustrates my point quite well.

How would you say?

1) Я заставил своего ребёнка ждать меня возле школы.
2) Я заставил своего ребёнка ждать себя возле школы.

I would use sentence 1.

PS: My objective is not to argue but to show foreigners that there has some problematic phenomenon been spotted in this sentence.

No 1 sounds to me, as if you inflicted such a punishment :sorry:

Просто заставил как-то не совсем то здесь. Может быть, вынужден был заставить/вынудить моего ребёнка...?

Shnuddy, добро пожаловать в Мasterrussian!

"Я накосячил, и ребёнку пришлось ждать меня."
Только так.