Thread: I Wrote Another Story For Practice

Всем привет! Я написал другой рассказ чтобы практиковаться русский язык. Я недаюсь, в этот рассказ нет много ошибок. Но это невозможно.


Девочка Анны

Утром, я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольга. Я думаю, она сестра молодого мальчика я увидел вчера вечером в парке. Моя подруга сказал что она дочь её подруга Анна. Но Анна уехала из дома. Она ехала одного собранию на работу. Итак моя подруга заботится о ней милая, симпатичная младшая девочка. Через десять минутов, я вышёл из комнаты улыбавшись. Но где её брат, что я увидел в парке вчера вечером?



Спасибо за потраченное время.

Всем привет! Я написал другой рассказ чтобы практиковаться русский язык. Я недаюсь, в этот рассказ нет много ошибок. Но это невозможно.

Всем привет! Я написал другой рассказ, чтобы попрактиковаться в русском языке. Я надеюсь, в этом рассказе не (так) много ошибок. Но это невозможно.
1. Always put a comma before "чтобы".
2. It is a single story, so it is a single one-time experience of your practicing in Russian. Therefore, use perfective: "попрактиковаться". You are not going to use the same short story again and again, that's why "чтобы практиковаться" sounds strange.
3. "Практиковаться" (as all other verbs with -ся) is intransitive. So, you cannot say "практиковаться ЧТО?", you only can "практиковаться В ЧЁМ?".
4. "В этом рассказе" - prepositional case.
5. "Нет много ошибок" - we don't say like that. I would say "В этом рассказе не много ошибок", or better "В этом рассказе не так много ошибок" - I hope that there are not so many errors in this story.

Девочка Анны - what do you mean by that? "Девочка Анны" sounds strange, it means "Anna's girl".

If Анна is the girl's name, then you have to write "Девочка Анна" (the girl called Anna).

Утром, я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольга.

Утром я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольги.

1) Please remember that we do not ever use a comma after time modifiers (like "утром, вечером, вчера, сегодня, завтра, в прошлом году" etc.). It is a regular sentence member, there is no reason to separate it with a comma. I already told you that
2) In "подруга Ольга" the both nouns should decline: "в комнате подруги Ольги", "к подруге Ольге", "с подругой Ольгой" etc.

Я думаю, она сестра маленького мальчика, которого я увидел вчера вечером в парке.

1) Lexical note: "молодой мальчик" does not sound right. We use "молодой" about people of more or less adult, legal age. The actual range of "молодой" can be quite wide, depending on how you understand the youth, but usually it is somewhat between 14 and 30. The limits are not strict, of course.
However, "мальчик" means an underaged boy (definitely younger than 18 or even younger than 16). Usually, "мальчик" is from 0 (just born) up to 14-16. That is why I do not like "молодой мальчик". We would say "маленький мальчик". Yes, "маленький" means age when applied to children.

2) The conjunction "который" is mandatory and it cannot be just skipped as you did.

3) Although "которого я увидел вчера вечером в парке" is grammatically correct (there's no error in it!) I would suggest two changes:
- "которого вчера вечером я увидел в парке" is a better word order here;
- "которого вчера вечером я видел в парке" is even better. You can use perfective (увидел) but it implies that was very short (you were passing by, and you saw that young boy for a short moment), and it also implies you do not expect to see him again. That's why I suggest "видел" instead of "увидел".

BTW, in the first sentence (Утром я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольги) you can also use "видел" instead of "увидел", it would fit the context better.

Моя подруга сказал что она дочь её подруга Анна.

Моя подруга сказала, что она дочь её подруги Анны.

1) "Подруга" is she, not he. Подруга "сказала".

2) Please always use a comma to separate two clauses (which may be connected via "что", "чтобы", "который" etc.) I also noted it already before

3) "Она дочь её подруги Анны" (She is a daughter of her friend Ann). Here, Анна is the name of a friend of your girlfriend. In this case, the both nouns should be in genitive (дочь [кого? of whom?] - подруги Анны).
Another possibility: "Она дочь её подруги, Анна". (She is Ann, a daughter of her friend). In this case, Анна is the name of the girl. And she (Анна) is a daugther of her friend. It can be rephrased the following way to make it clearer: "Она дочь её подруги, Анна" = "Она Анна, дочь её подруги".

4) The whole sentence makes it difficult to understand due to duplicate use of "подруга", and due to overloading with pronouns (Моя подруга сказала, что она дочь её подруги Анны) - it is hard to understand even for a Russian. I would better rebuild the phrase:
Моя девушка (if she is really your girlfriend) сказала, что та маленькая девочка - дочь её подруги Анны.
or:
Моя девушка (if she is really your girlfriend) сказала, что та маленькая девочка - это Анна, дочь её подруги.
- depending on what you actually mean.

Но Анна уехала из дома.

No mistake here

But it turns out that Anna is the name of your girlfriend's friend actually. And that little girl is Anna's daughter.
So, my guess that the title of the story should be "девочка Анна" was wrong.

But you cannot say "девочка Анны". "Anna's girl" is very strange, as if the girl belongs to Anna. You should have titled the story as "Дочь Анны". Or, if you want to emphasize she is a little girl, you could title it "Маленькая девочка" (without specifying whose daughter she is). Or, if you want to be super-precise, title it "Маленькая девочка, дочь Анны"

Она ехала одного собранию на работу.

1) The "одного собранию" part does not make any sense to me. What did you try to say?

2) The rest of the sentence should be:
Она уехала на работу.

You used perfective in the previous sentence: "Но Анна уехала из дома". So you need in the next sentence, too. You just emphasize the fact "she has left home". And then you provide more details of where she left: "She has left for work".

3) Probably, you meant "she has left for work for a meeting"? Then, you should just add "на собрание": "Она уехала на работу на собрание".

Итак моя подруга заботится о ней милая, симпатичная младшая девочка.

Вот моя подруга и заботится о ней, о милой симпатичной маленькой девочке.

1) "итак" does not suit stylistically. This word (итак) is good for logical consequences when you explain something. It is more like "thus", "so we have", "it logically follows".

I understand you wanted to express "cause-result" chain. Ann has left home, so your girlfriend takes care of her daughter.
To express this, there is a colloquial construction "Вот ... и ...", the example is above.

2) First you used "... заботится о ней" and then you specified who is implied with "о ней". It is a bit complicated construction, but if you want to do so, you have to put the specifying part in the same case: "о ней, о маленькой девочке".

3) Again, "младший" does not fit here. "Младший" is a relative age (younger). If there were two girls, then you can call one of them "младшая девочка" and the other "старшая девочка".

Через десять минутов, я вышёл из комнаты улыбавшись.

Через десять минут я вышел из комнаты, улыбаясь.
1) одна минута, две (три, четыре) минуты, пять (6 .. 10) минут.

2) As I noted before, no comma is needed after time modifiers (через 10 минут).

3) The verb "вышел" is pronounced with the first syllable stressed: "вышел". There is an easy rule for that: the prefix "вы-" in a perfective verb always pulls the stress to itself. That is why "ё" is wrong here. Please compare (stressed vowels are bold):

шёл, пошёл, пришёл, ушёл, зашёл etc. but вышел,
летел, полетел, прилетел, улетел, залетел etc. but вылетел,
пил, допил, попил, запил etc. but выпил,
нёс, отнёс, унёс, понёс etc., but вынес,
...

4) We put a comma before a verbal adverb (деепричастие): "вышел, улыбаясь".

5) The most difficult thing: "улыбавшись" is theoretically possible. It is a past-tense imperfective деепричастие.
But according to the standard literary Russian, this form does not exist. There are only two kinds of verbal adverbs:
- imperfective (simultaneous actions);
- perfective (consecutive actions).
Your choice of the imperfective was absolutely right here. But in the standard literary Russian the деепричастие does not have tenses at all. You only need to express the action was simultaneous. Therefore, it is just enough to say "вышел, улыбаясь" (came out while smiling). But in colloquial sub-standard speech your version is possible.

Но где её брат, что я увидел в парке вчера вечером?

Но где её брат, что я увидел в парке вчера вечером?

Theoretically, correct. I would suggest some corrections, however:

Но где её брат, которого я видел в парке вчера вечером?

1) "который" is a better conjunction related to a noun than "что". You have a noun in the first clause (брат), moreover it is animate. Then you refer to it in the second clause using "что". It is not a mistake, but it does not sound good.

2) Why "видел" and not "увидел" is preferrable, - I have already explained it above.

Thanks a whole lot for your reply with extereme detail. Those detailed replies really help me understand the language alot better!

To tell the truth, I was thinking I will have much more nasty mistakes. But I think my mistakes are not so much nasty. I am happy about that.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Утром, я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольга.

Утром я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольги.

1) Please remember that we do not ever use a comma after time modifiers (like "утром, вечером, вчера, сегодня, завтра, в прошлом году" etc.). It is a regular sentence member, there is no reason to separate it with a comma. I already told you that

I try to remember everything. But there is too many information to keep in mind and I occasionally forget about the rules. But I think intime I will get better. Because as I practice and someone corrects my mistakes, I learn more and built the house brick by brick.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

2) In "подруга Ольга" the both nouns should decline: "в комнате подруги Ольги", "к подруге Ольге", "с подругой Ольгой" etc.

Ok. I was in a dilemma about this. Next time I will for sure remember this one!

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Я думаю, она сестра маленького мальчика, которого я увидел вчера вечером в парке.

1) Lexical note: "молодой мальчик" does not sound right. We use "молодой" about people of more or less adult, legal age. The actual range of "молодой" can be quite wide, depending on how you understand the youth, but usually it is somewhat between 14 and 30. The limits are not strict, of course.
However, "мальчик" means an underaged boy (definitely younger than 18 or even younger than 16). Usually, "мальчик" is from 0 (just born) up to 14-16. That is why I do not like "молодой мальчик". We would say "маленький мальчик". Yes, "маленький" means age when applied to children.

2) The conjunction "который" is mandatory and it cannot be just skipped as you did.

3) Although "которого я увидел вчера вечером в парке" is grammatically correct (there's no error in it!) I would suggest two changes:
- "которого вчера вечером я увидел в парке" is a better word order here;
- "которого вчера вечером я видел в парке" is even better. You can use perfective (увидел) but it implies that was very short (you were passing by, and you saw that young boy for a short moment), and it also implies you do not expect to see him again. That's why I suggest "видел" instead of "увидел".

BTW, in the first sentence (Утром я увидел милую девочку в комнате подруги Ольги) you can also use "видел" instead of "увидел", it would fit the context better.

Thanks for pointing these out. It is good to know that perfective verbs can also mean that the action takes places for short amount of time.

But why the conjunction "который" is mandatory and it cannot be just skipped as I did. If I skip it the sentence makes no sense or sounds defective?

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Моя подруга сказал что она дочь её подруга Анна.

Моя подруга сказала, что она дочь её подруги Анны.

1) "Подруга" is she, not he. Подруга "сказала".

2) Please always use a comma to separate two clauses (which may be connected via "что", "чтобы", "который" etc.) I also noted it already before

3) "Она дочь её подруги Анны" (She is a daughter of her friend Ann). Here, Анна is the name of a friend of your girlfriend. In this case, the both nouns should be in genitive (дочь [кого? of whom?] - подруги Анны).
Another possibility: "Она дочь её подруги, Анна". (She is Ann, a daughter of her friend). In this case, Анна is the name of the girl. And she (Анна) is a daugther of her friend. It can be rephrased the following way to make it clearer: "Она дочь её подруги, Анна" = "Она Анна, дочь её подруги".

4) The whole sentence makes it difficult to understand due to duplicate use of "подруга", and due to overloading with pronouns (Моя подруга сказала, что она дочь её подруги Анны) - it is hard to understand even for a Russian. I would better rebuild the phrase:
Моя девушка (if she is really your girlfriend) сказала, что та маленькая девочка - дочь её подруги Анны.
or:
Моя девушка (if she is really your girlfriend) сказала, что та маленькая девочка - это Анна, дочь её подруги.
- depending on what you actually mean.

My mistake in the first statement is so simple. I should have not done that.
And using the genitive after её is logical. I should have thought about that. I hope next time I will remember this!
And in the sentence you reformulated, you use "что та" which I dont know about. What is the meaning of it?

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Она ехала одного собранию на работу.

1) The "одного собранию" part does not make any sense to me. What did you try to say?

2) The rest of the sentence should be:
Она уехала на работу.

You used perfective in the previous sentence: "Но Анна уехала из дома". So you need in the next sentence, too. You just emphasize the fact "she has left home". And then you provide more details of where she left: "She has left for work".

3) Probably, you meant "she has left for work for a meeting"? Then, you should just add "на собрание": "Она уехала на работу на собрание".

Yes your proposal in the 3rd note is correct I exactly tried to say that. I understood everything here.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Итак моя подруга заботится о ней милая, симпатичная младшая девочка.

Вот моя подруга и заботится о ней, о милой симпатичной маленькой девочке.

1) "итак" does not suit stylistically. This word (итак) is good for logical consequences when you explain something. It is more like "thus", "so we have", "it logically follows".

I understand you wanted to express "cause-result" chain. Ann has left home, so your girlfriend takes care of her daughter.
To express this, there is a colloquial construction "Вот ... и ...", the example is above.

2) First you used "... заботится о ней" and then you specified who is implied with "о ней". It is a bit complicated construction, but if you want to do so, you have to put the specifying part in the same case: "о ней, о маленькой девочке".

3) Again, "младший" does not fit here. "Младший" is a relative age (younger). If there were two girls, then you can call one of them "младшая девочка" and the other "старшая девочка".

"Вот ... и ..." is a good thing to learn. Thanks of pointing that out. I hope I will be able to use it correctly next time.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Через десять минутов, я вышёл из комнаты улыбавшись.

Через десять минут я вышел из комнаты, улыбаясь.
1) одна минута, две (три, четыре) минуты, пять (6 .. 10) минут.

2) As I noted before, no comma is needed after time modifiers (через 10 минут).

3) The verb "вышел" is pronounced with the first syllable stressed: "вышел". There is an easy rule for that: the prefix "вы-" in a perfective verb always pulls the stress to itself. That is why "ё" is wrong here. Please compare (stressed vowels are bold):

шёл, пошёл, пришёл, ушёл, зашёл etc. but вышел,
летел, полетел, прилетел, улетел, залетел etc. but вылетел,
пил, допил, попил, запил etc. but выпил,
нёс, отнёс, унёс, понёс etc., but вынес,
...

4) We put a comma before a verbal adverb (деепричастие): "вышел, улыбаясь".

5) The most difficult thing: "улыбавшись" is theoretically possible. It is a past-tense imperfective деепричастие.
But according to the standard literary Russian, this form does not exist. There are only two kinds of verbal adverbs:
- imperfective (simultaneous actions);
- perfective (consecutive actions).
Your choice of the imperfective was absolutely right here. But in the standard literary Russian the деепричастие does not have tenses at all. You only need to express the action was simultaneous. Therefore, it is just enough to say "вышел, улыбаясь" (came out while smiling). But in colloquial sub-standard speech your version is possible.

I understood them all I think. So do you think that it is a good idea to forget about the past form of verbal adverbs and just think about the imperfective/perfective aspects?

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Но где её брат, что я увидел в парке вчера вечером?

Но где её брат, что я увидел в парке вчера вечером?

Theoretically, correct. I would suggest some corrections, however:

Но где её брат, которого я видел в парке вчера вечером?

1) "который" is a better conjunction related to a noun than "что". You have a noun in the first clause (брат), moreover it is animate. Then you refer to it in the second clause using "что". It is not a mistake, but it does not sound good.

2) Why "видел" and not "увидел" is preferrable, - I have already explained it above.

Ok. That is the same mistake as my mistake in the sentence "Я думаю, она сестра маленького мальчика, которого я увидел вчера вечером в парке." So I understood it.

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

Всем привет! Я написал другой рассказ чтобы практиковаться русский язык. Я недаюсь, в этот рассказ нет много ошибок. Но это невозможно.

Всем привет! Я написал другой рассказ, чтобы попрактиковаться в русском языке. Я надеюсь, в этом рассказене (так) много ошибок. Но это невозможно.
1. Always put a comma before "чтобы".
2. It is a single story, so it is a single one-time experience of your practicing in Russian. Therefore, use perfective: "попрактиковаться". You are not going to use the same short story again and again, that's why "чтобы практиковаться" sounds strange.
3. "Практиковаться" (as all other verbs with -ся) is intransitive. So, you cannot say "практиковаться ЧТО?", you only can "практиковаться В ЧЁМ?".
4. "В этом рассказе" - prepositional case.
5. "Нет много ошибок" - we don't say like that. I would say "В этом рассказе не много ошибок", or better "В этом рассказе не так много ошибок" - I hope that there are not so many errors in this story.

What is рассказене ?

Originally Posted by impulse

What is рассказене ?

It is a typo, it should have been:

в этом рассказе не (так) много ошибок

Originally Posted by iCake

It is a typo, it should have been:

в этом рассказе не (так) много ошибок

Thank you, I've corrected it.

Originally Posted by impulse

But why the conjunction "который" is mandatory and it cannot be just skipped as I did. If I skip it the sentence makes no sense or sounds defective?

Она сестра маленького мальчика, которого я видел вчера вечером в парке.

"Который" is the only way to join two clauses here.

English allows "fusion sentences" (I am not sure if it is a grammar term at all). Something like "I read the book you gave me". Here, "the book" functions both as an object of the first clause (I read the book) and as the object as the second clause (you gave me the book).

Russian just does not have this construction at all. The only way to join clauses is to use a conjunction word:
Я читал книгу, которую ты дал мне. (I read the book which you gave me).

If you say something like "Я читал книгу ты дал мне" it can be very confusing. The speaker will not probably get they are linked. It will sound as two independent sentences, the second incomplete: "1) Я читал книгу. 2) Ты дал мне ... (what? something is missing)" That's what the speaker would think. So, it is just not an option for Russian.

Originally Posted by impulse

And in the sentence you reformulated, you use "что та" which I dont know about. What is the meaning of it?

Моя девушка сказала, что та маленькая девочка - дочь её подруги Анны.

No, "что" and "та" are just two independent words

My girlfriend told me that (= что) that (= та) little girl is a daughter of her friend Ann.

Actually, "та маленькая девочка" just means "that little girl" (that one you mentioned before)

The confusion can raise of the fact in English "that" is ambiguous. The same word (that) has to different fuctions: 1) "she told me that..." and 2) "that little girl".

In Russian, they are just two different pronouns: "что" (relative pronoun, used as a conjunction) and "та" (indicative pronoun, feminine).

Originally Posted by impulse

Yes your proposal in the 3rd note is correct I exactly tried to say that.

Она уехала на работу на собрание.

Oh, I think now I see what you tried to say using "один". But you have chosen a wrong case.

Well, if it is an unknown meeting, and you want to specify you do not know any details, there is another option for you:

Она уехала на работу на какое-то собрание.

"Какой-то" is exactly the word which means "A meeting", "SOME meeting", "I-DON'T-KNOW-WHAT meeting".

Note that "один" has a different connotation. If you say: "Она уехала на работу на одно собрание", then it means you DO know what meeting she has, but you think it is not important to specify details which you know.

Originally Posted by impulse

So do you think that it is a good idea to forget about the past form of verbal adverbs and just think about the imperfective/perfective aspects?

Yes! According to the academic Russian grammar, the verbal adverb does not have any tenses. It only can be imperfective or perfective.

For example, there is a pair of verbs: читать (imperfective) - прочитать (perfective).

The first one is used to make the imperfective verbal adverb (читать - читая):
Я ужинаю, читая книгу. - I am having dinner while reading a book.
Я ужинал, читая книгу. - I was having dinner while reading a book.
Я буду ужинать, читая книгу. - I will be having dinner while reading a book.

Note that the tense does not matter (present, past or future). Only the simultaneous actions matter (both ongoing actions are performed at the same time).

The second one is used to make the perfective verbal adverb (прочитать - прочитав):
Я ужинаю, прочитав книгу. - I am having dinner after reading a book.
Я ужинал, прочитав книгу. - I was having dinner after reading a book.
Я буду ужинать, прочитав книгу. - I will be having dinner after reading a book.

Note that the tense does not matter again (present, past or future). Only the consecutive actions matter (one action is completed before another one is started).

Comment. "Прочитав" assumes the WHOLE book is read. If you only spent a short time reading a part of the book, then you use another perfective verb: почитать (infinitive) - почитав (verbal adverb).

Note that both "читав" or "прочитая/почитая" forms do not exist according to the academic grammar.

Although, to be honest, "читав" CAN be heard sometimes as a colloquialism: "Я ужинал, читав книгу". So, the speaker thinks that using "читав" specifies the action was in the past. But it is not considered as a part of the standard Russian, so do not bother learning it. It is already clear from the main verb (ужинал) that the action was in the past.
The opposite versions (прочитая/почитая) are just impossible under any circumstances.

Thanks again for your answer.

If I am not mistaken there are two adverbial forms of the verb читать as follows;

1- читая >> present tense
2-читавши>> past tense.

and for the verb прочитать as follows

1-прочитав >> represent the past tense.
2-прочитавши >> represent the past tense.

So here what is the difference between 1st and 2nd adverbial forms of both verbs? 2nd forms are used often?

I think this is a different concept than читать - читая -читав (which does not exist according to the academic grammer)

Or читавши and читав mean the same?

Originally Posted by impulse

Thanks again for your answer.

If I am not mistaken there are two adverbial forms of the verb читать as follows;

1- читая >> present tense
2-читавши>> past tense.

and for the verb прочитать as follows

1-прочитав >> represent the past tense.
2-прочитавши >> represent the past tense.

So here what is the difference between 1st and 2nd adverbial forms of both verbs? 2nd forms are used often?

I think this is a different concept than читать - читая -читав (which does not exist according to the academic grammer)

Or читавши and читав mean the same?

The forms with "-вши" are just more colloquial than the forms with "-в". So, yes, "читав" = "читавши" (both of them are not standard).
And "прочитав" = "прочитавши".
The forms with "-вши" are not used in official documents or in scientific texts etc.