Thread: Valda - разные вопросы по глаголам

надобно = потребно = надо (old-fashioned version)
надлежать = следует (also old-fashioned or very formal)

I don't quite understand what you meant by "a verb with incomplete declension, impersonal only?" but here are some examples, for a change:

Мне надобно три воза сена на зиму.
Ему надобно сорок рабочих для возведения башни.
(надобно = demand, need)

Вам надлежит прибыть в адмиралтейство завтра к 12 пополудни.
Нам надлежит блюсти порядок во вверенном нам хозяйстве со всем тщанием.
(надлежать = someone has been ordered to...)

Ну вот, прочитал евангелия.

Looked up надлежать in morphological analyzer, it didn't have first nor second person forms, no plural third person just надлежит. In past tense, no masculine, no feminine, no plural. Just надлежало. So it is incomplete declension, which occurs for some of the impersonal verbs. Whether it is only impersonal, I don't know. т.е. только кому надлежит/надлежало

I'd say there's very little difference when you're speaking in the first person saying "I need to" "I have to" or "I must."

When speaking in the second or third person there might be some subtle differences. For example "you need to do this" is more like "you should do it" and "you have to" is similar to "you must."

There are also differences in usage, with "must" being much more formal.

It's the same with Russian words надо, нужно, необходимо, должен, вынужден, следует, приходится, стоит, and all the others. They all have very subtle differences between them and it's impossible to give an exact correspondence with English verbs like need, have to, must, should, ought to.

Originally Posted by Medved

I don't quite understand what you meant by "a verb with incomplete declension, impersonal only?"

A verb has conjugation (спряжение), a noun has declension (склонение). We conjugate verbs, and we decline nouns.
So, it should read "a verb with incomplete conjugation".

Yes, it is incomplete:

надлежу impossible
надлежишь impossibble
надлежит OK

надлежим impossible
надлежите impossible
надлежат impossible

present tense: Мне (тебе, ему, ей, нам, вам, им) надлежит.
past tense: Мне (тебе, ему, ей, нам, вам, им) надлежало.

It is impersonal only, it cannot have a grammar subject in Nominative.

Usage: Dative (to whom) + надлежит (надлежало) + infinitive (to do something).

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

I'd say there's very little difference when you're speaking in the first person saying "I need to" "I have to" or "I must."

There are also differences in usage, with "must" being much more formal.

I definitely agree that "must" often sounds strangely over-formal in colloquial speech.

Regarding "need to," it can sometimes emphasize "physical necessity" more strongly than "have to". So if you say "I have to go to the bathroom," it's like "I want to find a toilet in the next 30 minutes or so," but "I need to go to the bathroom" can mean "If I don't find a toilet in the next 5 minutes, there's going to be a huge mess in my pants or on the floor!!!!"

But otherwise I'd agree that "must," "need to," and "have to" are quite similar.

They all have very subtle differences between them and it's impossible to give an exact correspondence with English verbs like need, have to, must, should, ought to.

For Russians, I would recommend using modifiers such as "perhaps," "possibly," "probably," "definitely," "really," and so forth in order to make your meaning more clear, instead of trying to distinguish subtle shades of meaning with the English verbs alone. (Even though a native English speaker might be able to distinguish the meaning without a modifier -- such as by slightly changing the pitch/intonation of the sentence to make the verb more or less emphatic.)

P.S. Or, you can use entirely different verb constructions -- "I've got no choice but to (do something)" or "I feel an obligation to (do something)" or "It would be the right thing for me to (do something)." Here, the difference in meaning is much more obvious than with "must", "have to", "ought to," etc.

"I must not disagree!" prohibitive
"I need not disagree!" permissive

Basically the verbs' exact meanings aren't that tough of a task, they've been described like thousand times, all one needs is to read the description carefully and memorize the key features. All of them are on the list here: ENGLISH PAGE - Can

Originally Posted by Medved

All of them are on the list here: ENGLISH PAGE - Can

A great link, thanks!

For English-speaking students of Russian, I've written a short dialogue for another language blog with usage examples for several of the "modal" Russian verbs discussed in this thread:

Maria, Carlos, and Lola

Mostly the verbs are in the present tense, because the primary emphasis is on the difference between positive and negated modal constructions, such as:

Тебе надо позвонить Карлосу.
You have to call Carlos.
Тебе не надо звонить Карлосу.
You shouldn't call Carlos.
Ты можешь не звонить Карлосу.
You don't have to call Carlos (if you'd rather not).
Ты не можешь звонить Карлосу.
You cannot call Carlos (because I threw your cellphone into the aquarium).

Thus, I didn't really get deeply into a discussion of tense or aspect.

I would repost the whole thing here, but technically it's work-for-hire under copyright to the other blog. Anyway, I hope it's a useful summary for students, and I would certainly welcome comments from native Russians if there are problems with the phrasings I use.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

For English-speaking students of Russian, I've written a short dialogue for another language blog with usage examples for several of the "modal" Russian verbs discussed in this thread:

Maria, Carlos, and Lola

Mostly the verbs are in the present tense, because the primary emphasis is on the difference between positive and negated modal constructions, such as:

Тебе надо позвонить Карлосу.
You have to call Carlos.
Тебе не надо звонить Карлосу.
You shouldn't call Carlos.
Ты можешь не звонить Карлосу.
You don't have to call Carlos (if you'd rather not).
Ты не можешь звонить Карлосу.
You cannot call Carlos (because I threw your cellphone into the aquarium).

Thus, I didn't really get deeply into a discussion of tense or aspect.

I would repost the whole thing here, but technically it's work-for-hire under copyright to the other blog. Anyway, I hope it's a useful summary for students, and I would certainly welcome comments from native Russians if there are problems with the phrasings I use.

I'd say everything's correct except a slight nuance with "не надо" phrase.

I think "не надо" can have two shades of meaning, so it can be a bit ambiguous sometimes.

1. "не надо" can express "mild" advice not to do something: Тебе не надо звонить Карлосу. ~ I recommend to you not to call Carlos. Otherwise, you may run is some problems.
I think, that is what the English phrase "You shouldn't call Carlos" means (please correct me if I get it wrong).

2. "не надо" can express just the absence of necessity: Тебе не надо звонить Карлосу. ~ You do not need to call Carlos. You may do it, but that is not necessary.

2. "не надо" can express just the absence of necessity: Тебе не надо звонить Карлосу. ~ You do not need to call Carlos. You may do it, but that is not necessary.

Верно, верно. А чтобы неоднозначности не возникало, то в этом случае лучше употреблять "Тебе необязательно звонить этому Карлосу". Так что, "не надо", сказанное с определённой интонацией, всегда = не стоит

Can anyone provide more examples for using "по тебе" instead of "тебя" ?

It is not instead. Actually I don't understand why in English they use direct object in "I miss you". I believe it is counter-intuitive.

BTW "I missed you." also can be translated as "Я по тебе промахнулся."

Hehe

Well, I didn't explain myself well...I didn't really mean "instead of тебя", I meant, more examples with по-тебе

Я по-тебе (X)

Which words can we put instead of the X, other than скучаю?

Я по тебе скучаю, соскучился, тоскую и т.п.; промахнулся; иду, еду (awkward);

Еще так можно
По ком звонит колокол

С английского: For Whom the Bell Tolls.
Из «Духовных стихотворений» (другое название «Молитвы») английского поэта Джона Донна (1572—1631). 17-е стихотворение:

Нет человека, который был бы как Остров,
сам по себе, каждый человек есть часть Материка, часть Суши;
и если Волной снесет в море береговой Утес,
меньше станет Европа,
и также если смоет край Мыса и разрушит
Замок твой и Друга твоего;
смерть каждого Человека умаляет и меня,
ибо я един со всем Человечеством,
а потому не спрашивай никогда, по ком звонит Колокол;
он звонит и по Тебе.

Выражение стало популярным после выхода в свет романа «По ком звонит колокол» (1940) американского писателя Эрнеста Хемингуэя (1899-1961).
Смысл выражения: предложение задуматься о своем месте в мире, о своей бренности, об общности человеческих судеб, солидарности людей и т. д.

"Как правильно: скучаю по вам или скучаю по вас?

Возможны оба варианта, но предпочтительным пока следует считать вариант скучаю по вас.
Скучаю (а также грущу, тоскую и т. п.) по вас – старая норма; по вам – новая.
Прежние лингвистические издания рекомендовали как нормативные только скучать по вас, по нас.
Сегодня эти варианты конкурируют, что находит отражение и в справочниках. Так, «Русская грамматика» (М., 1980) формы скучать по вам и скучать по вас рассматривает как вариативные.

В справочнике Д. Э. Розенталя «Управление в русском языке» указано, что с существительными и местоимениями 3-го лица правильно: скучать по кому-чему, например: скучать по сыну, скучать по нему. Но с личными местоимениями 1-го и 2-го лица мн. числа правильно: скучать по ком, например: скучали по нас, скучаем по вас.

А вот вариант скучать за кем-либо, о котором тоже довольно часто спрашивают, не является нормативным, выходит за рамки русского литературного языка."

http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/hot10/

I saw this sentence in a textbook... does люблю require genitive?

No, it's not genetive there, that is accusative. And these two cases are easy to mix up, because both of them have a determining question КОГО? I don't know if that can help non-native speaker out, but to distinguish one from another you should replace the animated object with an unanimated one, for example I always replace it with СТОЛ.

Я люблю (КОГО? WHO?) своего сына -------- Я люблю (ЧТО? What?) стол?

So now it's clear, that the verb takes an accusative object, because the determining questions are Кого? Что? and not Кого? Чего?

Masteradmin should include to the user agreement of the forum a mandatory checkbox with the sentence "Я знаю, что метод проверочных вопросов по русским падежам для иностранцев не работает."

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Masteradmin should include to the user agreement of the forum a mandatory checkbox with the sentence "Я знаю, что метод проверочных вопросов по русским падежам для иностранцев не работает."

Okay, so you think I did something wrong?

Originally Posted by iCake

I don't know if that can help non-native speaker out, but...

Don't you think why I included that phrase? Moreover, I don't see what can prevent a non-native speaker from figuring it out from my post that if you see a noun in "genetive" form after a verb, you should ask yourself a question first: "is this noun animated?" and if it IS animated, you should have some reservations about the actual case of the noun. That attitude could at least lead a non-native speaker to understanding that not every noun which seems to be genetive is actually genetive.

Furthermore, it can nudge a non-native speaker towards trying to google a particular verb with an unanimated object to see if genetive there is actually accusative.

And one last thing, I actually answered the original question

Originally Posted by iCake

No, it's not genetive there, that is accusative

So I don't see any reason why you criticized my post like that, the only thing I tried to achieve is giving any help I can. And I don't think that just giving a "Yes" or "No" answer is as helpful as trying to explain why you answered like that...