Thread: Есть ( - ) & Это

Originally Posted by ShakeyX

Just came across the sentence; Яблоки - это вид фруктов.

In Russian "A — это B" is your typical construction for definitions ("Tortoises are a family of reptiles"). Or for emphasis, like "Солнце — это жизнь" (Sun is life).
Note that is such construction you cannot swap A and B, just like in English it would be weird to read a "definition" like "A family of reptiles with a shell are Tortoises". You don't have to translate this construction into English, as it is usually clear from the left and right part that the sentence is some kind of definition.

On a side note: a lot of other languages tend to make a distinction between "a" and "the" such as a car means any car but the car means is used when a particular car is the subject, how do you make this distinction in Russian or is that purely left down to этот

Many languages do without the articles, for instance, Japanese. Such details only lead to problems when a translation is what bothers you. In real life people tend to use just enough words to express the meaning, generally aware what the listener knows and what they don't. Or telling more if the listener is unaware. For translation, short sentences become extremely context-sensitive. An easy example would be
"У кого есть учебник?" vs. "У кого учебник?"
You see, in Russian it is typical to NOT use "есть" to express "having" some object that is known to exist. For example, "У тебя красивые ноги". People tend to have legs, so HAVING them is out of question, it is their properties that are. So, back to books, "У кого есть учебник?" is a rough equivalent of "Who's got a textbook?", and "У кого учебник?" is a rough equivalent of "Who has got the textbook?" (because in the latter case the sentence is formed as though it is already known that there is some textbook we are talking about). Such things are all over the laguage. But, indeed, many sentences are hard to translate when a handful of words is all you got. To make it more obvious: in Japanese Present and Future are exactly the same "non-past" tense. Without any words like "tomorrow", "next week", "after 2 years" you can only guess if you don't know the context in which the sentence arised.

Originally Posted by Astrum

And as for the other question, I really don't know, but I remeber reading something liek this once "Ты может купить яблони в магазинах". You can buy apples in stores (or you can buy apples at a store).

That actually means "You can buys apple trees in stores". The correct sentence is "Ты можешь купить яблоки в магазине". But a more natural variant is to use "можно": "Яблоки можно купить в магазине".

Originally Posted by Shady_arc

The correct sentence is "Ты можешь купить яблоки в магазине". But a more natural variant is to use "можно": "Яблоки можно купить в магазине".

Just to clarify as I've just read this, again I guess this is another sentence where things are omitted because it is obvious, but to put my mind at ease in the order Subject Adverb Verb Object is it;

Людям (or some other dative subject) можно купить яблоки в магазине

I'm just checking that I understand the sentence and it goes word for word left to right; Dative Subject, Adverb, Infinitive Verb, Plural Object (accusative) and then preposition? I know ofcourse that Russian speakers would never order it this way as the emphasis is on APPLES.

Originally Posted by ShakeyX

Just to clarify as I've just read this, again I guess this is another sentence where things are omitted because it is obvious, but to put my mind at ease in the order Subject Adverb Verb Object is it;

Людям (or some other dative subject) можно купить яблоки в магазине

I'm just checking that I understand the sentence and it goes word for word left to right; Dative Subject, Adverb, Infinitive Verb, Plural Object (accusative) and then preposition? I know ofcourse that Russian speakers would never order it this way as the emphasis is on APPLES.

This way it explicitly says "People are permitted to buy apples in a store". Or, I guess "People may as well buy apples in a store (while aliens and cats need to resort to some other means)". "Можно" is used for two things : 1."it is possible" 2. "one is allowed to". When you use a person in Dative, it results in a sentence that most likely implies persmission rather than possibility.
And remember that the "subject" (grammatical subject, that is; not the logical agent who does the action) is always in Nominative. So, in Russian realisation of "to have"-sentence like "У меня есть кирпич" - yep, "a brick" is the subject. It is even easier to understand in "permission"-oriented sentences. After all, beign permitted is not an action or activity. You rather receive persmission and become an adressee of an action. However, all in all, that's the way in general, how Russian deals with impersonal sentences (i.e. "Ему холодно", "Мне скучно" and so on). Even when there doesn't seem to be any logic to it.

So ofcourse I know that the sentence is perfectly fine on it's own without the addition of who can do the action. It just seems to me that it is omitted because it is obvious and not because it is not actually there. Maybe I am wrong. But if you had to put a word there, it would be in the dative right? because of the infinitive verb.

But yeh is their no filler word to put in there, in dative, that would result in the same sentence. It is just hard for me learning to have gaps and assuming what they mean, but I guess that's how this language works.