# Forum Learning Russian Language Grammar and Vocabulary  ребёнка / дети

## Platinum

ребёнка / дети 
What is the difference?  Thanks.

----------


## Rtyom

ребёнка — singular number, Genetive/Accusative case.
дети — plural number, Nominative case.

----------


## Platinum

> ребёнка — singular number, Genetive/Accusative case.
> дети — plural number, Nominative case.

 Sorry.  I didn't learn English (my native language) this way, and I'm not learning Russian this way.  I don't know anything about Genetive/Accusative, Nominative cases, etc. 
I learned that for the word "child", the singular is ребёнoк and the plural is дети.  But then later I saw, "четыре ребёнка".  Why is it this instead of "четыре дети".  
Perhaps most people learn by the "textbook" method, but that doesn't work for me.  I am using Pimsleur and Rosetta Stone, and they don't waste time explaining all the technicalities.  Thanks for your help.

----------


## shadow1

Notice when you count things in English, you say 
one CHILD
two CHILDREN 
Well Russian sorta kinda works like that. 
one child = один ребёнок 
two children = два ребёнка 
three children = три ребёнка 
four children = четыре ребёнка 
five children = пять детей
six children = шесть детей
... 
Notice the word ребёнок changes to ребёнка just like "child" changes to "children" when going from one to two.
But in Russian, ребёнка changes to детей when you go from "four" to "five"

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Sorry.  I didn't learn English (my native language) this way, and I'm not learning Russian this way.  I don't know anything about Genetive/Accusative, Nominative cases, etc.

 Well, it's too bad.  ::  I believe it will take one twice the time to learn Russian without any idea about cases. And it definitely makes explanations longer.  ::

----------


## chaika

It is really difficult for an adult to learn Russian without learning grammar. And Russian certainly has a lot of it! I learned Russian the normal way in school, and I would suggest you pick up a textbook that explains grammar too.  
Otherwise with Pimsleur I think you just have to memorize четыре ребёнка  but пять детей. And then wait till they want to explain why. Sticking with Pimsleur alone will leave you with a lot of questions of this type.   
It is a lot easier learning the language's grammar -- in this case we just have one grammatical rule: after numbers 2-3-4 (and compounds ending in them, such as 22, 33) use the genitive singular of a noun, after 5 and above use the genitive plural.

----------


## Platinum

> Notice the word ребёнок changes to ребёнка just like "child" changes to "children" when going from one to two.
> But in Russian, ребёнка changes to детей when you go from "four" to "five"

 Ahhh, I see.  It works like time:
один час
два часа
три часа
четыре часа
пять часов 
I like your explaination, shadow1.  And your didn't need to mention cases.  No offense, gRomoZeka, but I don't think it's necessary to learn about cases.  After all, I'm sure you were speaking fluent English (or whatever your native language) at the age of 5 or 6, without knowing anything about cases. 
But then again, I'm just a beginner and can't really know how it's best to learn a new language.  For now I'll try it this way, but I might convert later if I must.

----------


## Platinum

> It is really difficult for an adult to learn Russian without learning grammar. And Russian certainly has a lot of it! I learned Russian the normal way in school, and I would suggest you pick up a textbook that explains grammar too.  
> Otherwise with Pimsleur I think you just have to memorize четыре ребёнка  but пять детей. Sticking with Pimsleur will leave you with a lot of questions of this type.   
> It is a lot easier learning the language's grammar -- in this case we just have one grammatical rule: after numbers 2-3-4 (and compounds ending in them, such as 22, 33) use the genitive singular of a noun, after 5 and above use the genitive plural.

 Chaika, I sorta understand what your saying.  I don't mean that grammar is not important, but my idea is that it's just as easy (for me, at least) to memorize четыре ребёнка  but пять детей.  But you are right...I do have questions like this.  But that's where MR forum comes in.   ::   Nice people to help! 
I do have New Penguin Russian book, and perhaps I will study it on the side, while doing Pimsleur and Rosetta Stone.  The more sources, the better, I suppose.

----------


## Lampada

> ... but I don't think it's necessary to learn about cases.  After all, I'm sure you were speaking fluent English (or whatever your native language) at the age of 5 or 6, without knowing anything about cases. ...

 Cases in Russian are the same significance as the strict rule of SVO (subject-verb-object) is in English.

----------


## shadow1

> Ahhh, I see.  It works like time:

 Well, actually not just time and children, but *ALL* words.

----------


## Platinum

> Cases in Russian are the same significance as the strict rule of SVO (subject-verb-object) is in English.

 I agree.  But my 6-year-old daughter knows how to speak near-perfect English.  And she has no idea about this strict rule.  She doesn't even know what a verb is yet.   ::  
My point is...I think you can learn about cases without even knowing the names of the cases.  But again, I admit that I'm a beginner and I don't really know what I'm talking about.   ::

----------


## Platinum

> Well, actually not just time and children, but *ALL* words.

 LOL.  Well, yeah.  I don't know many words yet.   ::

----------


## DDT

> I agree.  But my 6-year-old daughter knows how to speak near-perfect English.  And she has no idea about this strict rule.  She doesn't even know what a verb is yet.

  But your 6 year old is hearing 1,000s of English words every day, spoken in context, complete with real life situations. And what is more, if your child could have read and understood a text book on English grammar she would have learned  quicker.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I agree.  But my 6-year-old daughter knows how to speak near-perfect English.  And she has no idea about this strict rule.  She doesn't even know what a verb is yet.

 Mind of a child differs from one of the adult. And to achieve this near-perfectness she spent every moment of her life actively learning English and hearing English everywhere.
Are you going to give up at least 6 years of your life exclusively to Russian?  :: 
Anyway, good luck.  ::

----------


## Platinum

> Mind of a child differs from one of the adult. And to achieve this near-perfectness she spent every moment of her life actively learning English and hearing English everywhere.
> Are you going to give up at least 6 years of your life exclusively to Russian? 
> Anyway, good luck.

 You all make good points.  Perhaps I will rethink my plan.  At the moment, I just started Rosetta Stone and I'm going through Pimsleur for the second time.  I guess my problem is that when I'm using a textbook I get so overwhelmed with the technical jargon, I find that I'm getting frustrated and give up.  And many times the vocab lists are too long to retain many of the words. 
As I said before, perhaps I will get out my old Penguin book and trudge my way through while I'm using the multi-media things.  Thanks everybody for your help and advise...I'm sure I'll have many more questions.

----------


## scotcher

There's a lot to be said for the way learning a second language can teach you a lot about your own language that you didn't know previously, but you won't get that benefit without learning the theory (ie the grammar) rather than just trying to learn the practice.

----------


## DDT

It sounds like you have had all the resources at hand to learn with. I think it is time to open the New Penguin book.

----------


## Platinum

> It sounds like you have had all the resources at hand to learn with. I think it is time to open the New Penguin book.

 Well, it seems to get very high marks here at MR.  I suppose it must be a good book.

----------


## vox05

> six children = шесть детей
> ...
> Notice the word ребёнок changes to ребёнка just like "child" changes to "children" when going from one to two.
> But in Russian, ребёнка changes to детей when you go from "four" to "five"

 And then back from 20 to 21. And then again...
Сто один ребенок, сто одиннадцать детей.

----------


## vox05

> I agree.  But my 6-year-old daughter knows how to speak near-perfect English.

 But I hope you manage to learn Russian to some extent by some more easy way than 6 year long total immersion?   

> My point is...I think you can learn about cases without even knowing the names of the cases.

 Yes, but explaining something to somebody about cases is more simple using case name than 'uhmm that stiff that comes with 'кого/чего'

----------


## Zaya

*Platinum*, are you going just to remember all the forms of all the new Russian words without knowing the rules of their changing ('how it works') and intense practice?  ::  Then you're a brave person. I'm afraid I'm not good enough at English to explain such peculiarities of the language but I would like to help you next time (giving examples etc.) if I can.
Unfortunately we can't learn languages as quickly and easily as children anymore.   ::  And what of no small importance they assimilate information otherwise.  ::

----------


## Lampada

> *Platinum*, are you going just to remember all the forms of all the new Russian words without knowing the rules of their changing ('how it works') and intense practice?  Then you're a brave person. I'm afraid I'm not good enough at English to explain such peculiarities of the language but I would like to help you next time (giving examples etc.) if I can.
> Unfortunately we can't learn languages as quickly and easily as children anymore.   And what of no small importance they assimilate information otherwise.

 Did you mean "accumulate"?  Yes, they accumulate knowledge by adsorbing it.

----------


## Zaya

> Yes, they accumulate knowledge by adsorbing it.

 Exactly. 
О, меня исправляют.) Спасибо.)
Well, I tried to choose the word that goes with 'information' because I didn't know any appropriate collocations and found this sentence in my dictionary:
to assimilate
1 [transitive]
to completely understand and begin to use new ideas, information etc [= absorb] 
Does it sound oddly? 
Practically, I tried to translate "воспринимают информацию по-другому" and I meant both adults and children so I couldn't use 'absorb' (впитывают)).

----------


## scotcher

> And what of no small importance they assimilate information otherwise.

 "Assimilate" is fine in that context (in the meaning: _to absorb information_), but the sentence itself isn't grammatically correct.

----------


## Zaya

> Notice when you count things in English, you say 
> one CHILD
> two CHILDREN 
> Well Russian sorta kinda works like that. 
> one child = один ребёнок 
> two children = два ребёнка 
> three children = три ребёнка 
> four children = четыре ребёнка 
> five children = пять детей
> ...

 а  также 
двое детей
трое детей
четверо детей 
"жена и трое детей", например   ::

----------


## Zaya

Could somebody correct all the mistakes in my English messages?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> *Platinum*, are you just going to remember all the forms of all the new Russian words without knowing the rules of their changing [conjugation] ('how it works') and intense practice?  Then you're a brave person. I'm afraid I'm not good enough at English to explain such peculiarities of the language, but I would like to help you next time (giving examples etc.) if I can.
> Unfortunately we can't learn languages as quickly and easily as children anymore.   And, something of no small importance, they absorb information in a different way than we do.

 I think you are pretty good in English, better than Peter the Great! That is quite a comparison!   ::

----------


## Zaya

Thank you, *kalinka_vinnie*!   

> their changing [conjugation] ('how it works')

 I meant conjugation and declension (всё вместе).

----------


## Platinum

> Originally Posted by Zaya  *Platinum*, are you going just to remember all the forms of all the new Russian words without knowing the rules of their changing ('how it works') and intense practice?  Then you're a brave person. I'm afraid I'm not good enough at English to explain such peculiarities of the language but I would like to help you next time (giving examples etc.) if I can.
> Unfortunately we can't learn languages as quickly and easily as children anymore.   And what of no small importance they assimilate information otherwise.    Did you mean "accumulate"?  Yes, they accumulate knowledge by adsorbing it.

 Also, it should be "absorbing".  To ABsorb means to soak within.  ADsorb means to cling to the surface.  Sorry, I'm a chemist.

----------


## Platinum

Thanks for your comments.  Before, I thought I might actually have a chance to be successful with Russian.  I thought that with this software i might actually learn.  But you all have convinced me that I'll get nowhere without learning the thing I dispise most...grammar! 
Well, I'm not giving up, but I'm no longer optimistic.  I'll be back with more questions later....if you all are willing.   ::

----------


## TATY

This is why Pimsleur is rubbish. Grammar is necessary!

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka  Mind of a child differs from one of the adult. And to achieve this near-perfectness she spent every moment of her life actively learning English and hearing English everywhere.
> Are you going to give up at least 6 years of your life exclusively to Russian? 
> Anyway, good luck.    You all make good points.  Perhaps I will rethink my plan.  At the moment, I just started Rosetta Stone and I'm going through Pimsleur for the second time.  I guess my problem is that when I'm using a textbook I get so overwhelmed with the technical jargon, I find that I'm getting frustrated and give up.  And many times the vocab lists are too long to retain many of the words. 
> As I said before, perhaps I will get out my old Penguin book and trudge my way through while I'm using the multi-media things.  Thanks everybody for your help and advise...I'm sure I'll have many more questions.

 Yes, use Penguin, it's the best. With Russian, you are not going to make serious progress without sitting down for some hardcore grammar sessions.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by DDT  It sounds like you have had all the resources at hand to learn with. I think it is time to open the New Penguin book.   Well, it seems to get very high marks here at MR.  I suppose it must be a good book.

 Not just here. Check the reviews at Amazon.

----------


## DDT

> This is why Pimsleur is rubbish. Grammar is necessary!

 It is not rubbish. It is still a valuable tool for learning. Anyone who used Pimsleur before starting Russian in University was miles ahead of those who didn't. And  those who didn't use it had the worst pronunciation in class  ever. They were unbearable. I have heard speak, third year Russian students that had never listened to a CD that sounded like they were speaking complete babble, even though they knew all the right words.

----------


## Platinum

> Originally Posted by TATY  This is why Pimsleur is rubbish. Grammar is necessary!   It is not rubbish. It is still a valuable tool for learning. Anyone who used Pimsleur before starting Russian in University was miles ahead of those who didn't. And  those who didn't use it had the worst pronunciation in class  ever. They were unbearable. I have heard speak, third year Russian students that had never listened to a CD that sounded like they were speaking complete babble, even though they knew all the right words.

 I strongly agree.  Pimsleur and Rosetta Stone are great (altough VERY expensive).  The words and phrases I learn from both methods are solid.  I will certainly never forget them.  But I am now starting to see that it will only take me so far.  I will need more to be able to figure out how to say things outside of their vocabulary lists.  It seems to me that a person should use as many sources as possible.

----------


## chaika

If you come to a spot where you don't know the grammar, you can sometimes figure it out logically.... 
В школе заболела преподавательница русского языка и поставили на замену математика (М).
Ну, значит, приходит он на урок к ученикам (У).
М: Какая тема последнего задания?
У: Падежи.
М: Повторяем падежи:
Именительный: кто, что.
Родительный: кого, чего.
Дательный: кому, ...?
(пишет на доске)
кто/что
кого/чего
кому/?
М: А дальше кто знает?
У: Не помним (прикалываются).
М: Тогда выведем.
Пусть неизвестное слово Х, тогда:
кто/что
кого/чего
кому/Х
составляем пропорцию:
кого/чего = кому/Х
(го) сокращается, получаем:
ко/че = кому/Х
аналогично сокращаем (ко), получаем:
1/че = му/Х
Переумножим:
1 * Х = че * му
Получаем:
Х = чему
У: ...???...!!!... 
=:^)

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  This is why Pimsleur is rubbish. Grammar is necessary!   It is not rubbish. It is still a valuable tool for learning. Anyone who used Pimsleur before starting Russian in University was miles ahead of those who didn't. And  those who didn't use it had the worst pronunciation in class  ever. They were unbearable. I have heard speak, third year Russian students that had never listened to a CD that sounded like they were speaking complete babble, even though they knew all the right words.

 I used the Penguin course to the end before uni, and even after into the second year I knew all the grammar they were teaching me. I know the problem of bad pronuncation. At our uni there are 4th year (final) students who can't be uderstood by Russians due to they abismal pronuncation.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I know the problem of bad pronuncation. At our uni there are 4th year (final) students who can't be uderstood by Russians due to they abismal pronuncation.

 Don't they teach you correct pronouncation at the university? I think that's the first thing the course usually begins with...

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  I know the problem of bad pronuncation. At our uni there are 4th year (final) students who can't be uderstood by Russians due to they abismal pronuncation.   Don't they teach you correct pronouncation at the university? I think that's the first thing the course usually begins with...

 Yes, of course we are taught how to pronounce Russian correctly but it's not that simple. It takes a long time to get good pronuncation, teachers can't spend the whole course trying to get people to pronounce things properly. Some people just never learn as well. 
Teachers have to strike a balance between over-correcting students and under-correcting students. By that I mean, if a teacher corrects every little mistake the student makes, and at the beginner's level that's a lot, then the student will become demoralised, and also it would just take too much time. But if the teacher doesn't correc the student enough, then the student won't learn correct pronunciation. I find most teachers don't correct students enough. 
Some students, no matter how many times they are corrected just don't learn, and don't pronounce things properly. 
Like lesson 1 or 2 of any Russian course at univeristy, students are taught that an unstressed O is not pronounced O, but like a weak A sound. This will be repeated numerous times throughout the years of study but many students still pronounce an unstressed O as O. 
For example, there are people on my course, who started studying at uni in 2004, have just spent a whole year in Russia, have been taught a million times that an unstressed O is not pronounced O, have heard it a billion times in Russia, but still will say "moloko".

----------


## gRomoZeka

Thanks, TATY. I agree. The balance between over-correcting students and under-correcting is hard to achieve. While nowadays it's common to correct students as rare as possible to not to discourage them, back in the USSR there was tendency to overcorrect.  
At first years of English classes (7-8 y/o kids) we literally couldn't say a phrase without being interrupted half a dozen times by a teacher. It's probably not the best way, but I must say that knowledge sticks.  
Especially when the corrections were made in our teacher unique manner: "What's the matter with you, people! Ivanov is the only one who's pronounced "there are" right. "R", don't forget "r-r-r"!!! *everybody stares at Ivanov darkly*   ::  ) 
PS. И кто-нибудь, исправляйте же мои ошибки!  ::

----------


## vox05

> For example, there are people on my course, who started studying at uni in 2004, have just spent a whole year in Russia, have been taught a million times that an unstressed O is not pronounced O, have heard it a billion times in Russia, but still will say "moloko".

 This is really weird. Like if someone continuing to pronounce 'bear' like 'beer' because there is 'ea' like in 'fear'.

----------


## Rtyom

> Teachers have to strike a balance between over-correcting students and under-correcting students. By that I mean, if a teacher corrects every little mistake the student makes, and at the beginner's level that's a lot, then the student will become demoralised, and also it would just take too much time. But if the teacher doesn't correc the student enough, then the student won't learn correct pronunciation. I find most teachers don't correct students enough.

 As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.

----------


## scotcher

> For example, there are people on my course, who started studying at uni in 2004, have just spent a whole year in Russia, have been taught a million times that an unstressed O is not pronounced O, have heard it a billion times in Russia, but still will say "moloko".

 A friend of a friend who supposedly studied Russian at uni, does this, but he takes it one step further. The O he uses isn't even a Russian O, it's a Southern/ Estuary English 'O'. So the Os in moloko all rhyme with the O in the English word "row" (what you do in a boat, not what you do with your wife), as spoken by someone from Sussex. Ugh.  
Obviously, this is not confined to that one vowel, it's the same right across the board. He basically just sounds like someone reading a translit. 
The funny thing is, native speakers can't understand a word he says, but British people who also speak Russian _can_ understand him with a bit of difficulty.

----------


## scotcher

> As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.

 Wow, that's quite a sweeping statement! On what data do you base this? And what is this "western education" of which you speak anyway?

----------


## Zaya

> Originally Posted by Rtyom  
> As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The personality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.   Wow, that's quite a sweeping statement! On what data do you base this? And what is this "western education" of which you speak anyway?

 Люди говорят.) 
У вас такого пиетета, как у нас, нет, отношения больше похожи если не на дружбу, то на сотрудничество. 
У нас обстановка скованнее, а уж чтобы кто-то задумывался о том, как бы личность студента не задеть? Смешно. "Учитель всегда прав. Если учитель не прав, смотри пункт первый".   ::  
Скажешь, заблуждение?) Извините, что не на английском.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by Rtyom  
> As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.   Wow, that's quite a sweeping statement! On what data do you base this? And what is this "western education" of which you speak anyway?

 I know exactly Rtyom is saying. As far as American education, anyway. It is true, and I imagine England and Australia are not far behind.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  Teachers have to strike a balance between over-correcting students and under-correcting students. By that I mean, if a teacher corrects every little mistake the student makes, and at the beginner's level that's a lot, then the student will become demoralised, and also it would just take too much time. But if the teacher doesn't correc the student enough, then the student won't learn correct pronunciation. I find most teachers don't correct students enough.   As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.

 It's nothing to do with Western Education, well, at least not when we are talking about correcting pronunciation. I helped out at English lessons in a Russian university and the teacher, a Russian, had near-perfect English pronunciation. The Russian students' pronunciation varried. When I had converstation sessions with them I didn't correct every mistake. Because for them practically every vowel was not quite right. I only corrected them when the word was unrecognisable. or when it sounded like a different world. The Russian teacher did the same. If you correct every little pronunciation mistake it would take 10 minutes to say one sentence. 
My Ukrainian teacher over-corrects, and it drives me insane. Speaking a foreign language requires confidence and when someone pointd out a mistake in every word you say, how can you become confident in speaking that language?

----------


## gRomoZeka

> My Ukrainian teacher over-corrects, and it drives me insane. Speaking a foreign language requires confidence and when someone pointd out a mistake in every word you say, how can you become confident in speaking that language?

 Тяжело в ученьи, легко в бою. (с)  :: 
I prefer being over-corrected, than corrected not enough. It's better to learn now, when you're a beginner, than to speak confidently, but incoherently later, when it's hard to relearn.

----------


## Zaya

Well, I remember filling in questionnaire that was called 'Needs and requirements analysis'. There was the point 'When you are having a duscussion in your group should the teacher:
- interrupt you every time you make a mistake?
- interrupt you only if you keep making the same mistake?
- never interrupt, but note down the mistakes for explanation later?' 
The last variant seems to be the way out.) 
One of my teachers did so.  
When you stop the conversation, your teacher asks you to translate some phrases, pronounce some words etc. Making sure that you do make the mistake, he or she explains it.  
Correct my mistakes, please, if there are any.

----------


## Оля

> I prefer being over-corrected, than corrected not enough.

 Oh, yes! Me too.

----------


## gRomoZeka

Well, I see it that way: when students discuss smth, i.e. the point of exercise is to learn expressing their thoughts, the interruptions should be made only when the student is at obvious loss and needs advice or correction. 
But when you read aloud a grammar excersise (like we did at school) or answer a question, i.e. communicate solely with a teacher he/she should correct every mistake you make (and in pronouncation too).  
It's not as discouraging as you may think, because thus in a couple of months number of pronounsation corrections needed decreases dramatically, because students have already grasped the basic conceptions.
If they are not corrected during that period they'll stick to their mispronounsation for years.  *PS. Correct my mistakes, please.*

----------


## Zaya

*TATY*, к сожалению, я не знаю, насколько хорошо ты говоришь на русском и украинском, так что не могу судить о ситуации.))

----------


## TATY

> Well, I remember filling in questionnaire that was called 'Needs and requirements analysis'. There was the point 'When you are having a duscussion in your group should the teacher:
> - interrupt you every time you make a mistake?
> - interrupt you only if you keep making the same mistake?
> - never interrupt, but note down the mistakes for explanation later?' 
> The last variant seems to be the way out.) 
> One of my teachers did so.  
> When you stop the conversation, your teacher asks you to translate some phrases, pronounce some words etc. Making sure that you do make the mistake, he or she explains it.  
> Correct my mistakes, please, if there are any.

 Ah yes! In Saint Petersburg one teacher wrote down our mistakes and told us after. That was a good way, as she could write stuff on the boards and explain the mistakes in more detail.    

> *TATY*, к сожалению, я не знаю, насколько хорошо ты говоришь на русском и украинском, так что не могу судить о ситуации.))

 Russians always complimented me on my accent. It is good. But I am very interested in phonetics and therefore perhaps that's why my Russian accent is better than other peoples'.

----------


## Rtyom

> Originally Posted by Rtyom  
> As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.   Wow, that's quite a sweeping statement! On what data do you base this? And what is this "western education" of which you speak anyway?

 By "Western" education I meant American style. My data are based on a small research in America. It was sort of comparative between Russian and American styles. I have no personal experience but I derived big knowledge of it from this detailed scholarly analysis.

----------


## Rtyom

> My Ukrainian teacher over-corrects, and it drives me insane. Speaking a foreign language requires confidence and when someone pointd out a mistake in every word you say, how can you become confident in speaking that language?

 That's true. Anyway, a teacher's aim is to seek for compromise. Working as a teacher, I never overcorrect.

----------


## scotcher

> Originally Posted by scotcher        Originally Posted by Rtyom  
> As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.   Wow, that's quite a sweeping statement! On what data do you base this? And what is this "western education" of which you speak anyway?   By "Western" education I meant American style. My data are based on a small research in America. It was sort of comparative between Russian and American styles. I have no personal experience but I derived big knowledge of it from this detailed scholarly analysis.

 Right, fair enough, but you were replying to something Tatu said concerning an English university, not an American one, generalising them both as "western", which is absurd. "The West" is not some social gestalt, it is a vague geoplitical grouping of many different countries and cultures. It makes no more sense to talk about "western education" than about "western food".

----------


## Rtyom

Yes, I see it now. As usual, it's my inattention. I'm sorry.

----------


## DDT

> Speaking a foreign language requires confidence and when someone pointd out a mistake in every word you say, how can you become confident in speaking that language?

 And that's exactly where CDs like Pimsleur come in. 
In the classroom setting the teacher should be correcting the pronunciation mercilessly during the early stages. There is no point in learning everything wrong and then having to re-learn it all again later. Bad habits are hard to lose!

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by Rtyom        Originally Posted by scotcher        Originally Posted by Rtyom  
> As far as things are concerned, this is a big topic to discuss. I think that this is _the_ problem of Western education. The perosnality of a student is more valuable there than at our place. And, as a consequence, they also grant more freedom to students, and the latter improvise making numerous mistakes.   Wow, that's quite a sweeping statement! On what data do you base this? And what is this "western education" of which you speak anyway?   By "Western" education I meant American style. My data are based on a small research in America. It was sort of comparative between Russian and American styles. I have no personal experience but I derived big knowledge of it from this detailed scholarly analysis.   Right, fair enough, but you were replying to something Tatu said concerning an English university, not an American one, generalising them both as "western", which is absurd. "The West" is not some social gestalt, it is a vague geoplitical grouping of many different countries and cultures. It makes no more sense to talk about "western education" than about "western food".

 Well I do have personal experience in this. The Russian kids I work with are nothing like other kids. It is clear that their Russian schooling was based on actual learning the old way. The West, and I mean all of it, is clearly more affected by the Politically Correct policies born of the hippy 60s generation.

----------


## scotcher

> Well I do have personal experience in this. The Russian kids I work with are nothing like other kids. It is clear that their Russian schooling was based on actual learning the old way. The West, and I mean all of it, is clearly more affected by the Politically Correct policies born of the hippy 60s generation.

 Wait wait wait. 
All of it? Just like that? 
All educational systems (assuming that each system is itself uniform, which they aren't) in the dozens of countries that make up the vague geopolitical grouping cum meta-society known as "the west" (no matter whose definition of "the west" you are using), are all uniform enough to have exactly the same problem, and you really have enough experience of all those systems or people who have gone through these systems to state this categorically? 
And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?  
Hehe, nah sorry, I think you're talking out of your antipodean date.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Wait wait wait.
> All of it? Just like that? 
> All educational systems (assuming that each system is itself uniform, which they aren't) in the dozens of countries that make up the vague geopolitical grouping cum meta-society known as "the west" (no matter whose definition of "the west" you are using), are all uniform enough to have exactly the same problem, and you really have enough experience of all those systems or people who have gone through these systems to state this categorically? 
> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?  
> Hehe, nah sorry, I think you're talking out of your antipodean date.

 Well, if you had an experience of studying in Russian school or university, you would know that the Soviet approach of education (which is still maintained by the majority of educational institutions throughout former USSR) was very different from the approach "western" countries have. 
And yes, I use western (i.e. of western culture) referring to North America, european countries (those wich weren't influenced by the Soviet system) and some others (Australia, etc.) 
The main difference, as I see it: Soviet system gives you plenty of grammar from the early beginning + a lot of academic info, smacks you on the head for every mistake, focused not on everyday vocabulary, but on more sophisticated one. In worst-case scenario you'll be able to discuss art or poetry, but unable to ask where bathroom is or make an order at the restaurant. You're not supposed to like the process, but you're supposed to learn as much as possible. 
"Western" system thinks too much of personality, it's afraid of hurting students feelings, or exausting them, or freaking them out (and inventing moronic ways of studing Russian, like the one, where they don't use cyrillics), giving them as little scholastic info as possible and (in worst-case scenario) teaching them to repeat some phrases parrot-like style and nothing else. You're supposed to like studying, but nobody can garantee, that you will really learn something. 
It is a generalisation, of course. Systems differ from country to country, but the difference between "them" and Soviet-style system remains, and it's huge.

----------


## scotcher

> Originally Posted by scotcher  Wait wait wait.
> All of it? Just like that? 
> All educational systems (assuming that each system is itself uniform, which they aren't) in the dozens of countries that make up the vague geopolitical grouping cum meta-society known as "the west" (no matter whose definition of "the west" you are using), are all uniform enough to have exactly the same problem, and you really have enough experience of all those systems or people who have gone through these systems to state this categorically? 
> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?  
> Hehe, nah sorry, I think you're talking out of your antipodean date.   Well, if you had an experience of studying in Russian school or university, you would know that the Soviet approach of education (which is still maintained by the majority of educational institutions throughout former USSR) was very different from the approach "western" countries have. 
> And yes, I use western (i.e. of western culture) referring to North America, european countries (those wich weren't influenced by the Soviet system) and some others (Australia, etc.) 
> The main difference, as I see it: Soviet system gives you plenty of grammar from the early beginning + a lot of academic info, smacks you on the head for every mistake, focused not on everyday vocabulary, but on more sophisticated one. In worst-case scenario you'll be able to discuss art or poetry, but unable to ask where bathroom is or make an order at the restaurant. You're not supposed to like the process, but you're supposed to learn as much as possible. 
> "Western" system thinks too much of personality, it's afraid of hurting students feelings, or exausting them, or freaking them out (and inventing moronic ways of studing Russian, like the one, where they don't use cyrillics), giving them as little scholastic info as possible and (in worst-case scenario) teaching them to repeat some phrases parrot-like style and nothing else. You're supposed to like studying, but nobody can garantee, that you will really learn something. 
> It is a generalisation, of course. Systems differ from country to country, but the difference between "them" and Soviet-style system remains, and it's huge.

 Nah, sorry, I'm not having this. What you are both saying is simply silly. It's akin to saying  
"All Chinese people are short. All of them. I know I'm generalising, but it's true."  
Firstly, you are positing that "western education" is homogenous enough to be compared with that of a single country, Russia. This is plainly absurd. How much do you really think the teaching methods in, say, Norway, have in common with those in Spain, or Scotland? Even just inside the UK, there are two separate systems (a bachelor's degree takes three years in England and Wales, but four in Scotland, for one example), and within these systems each institution is completely independent and autonomous, free to teach using whatever methods they see fit, so long as the examinations are properly audited and meet the standards of the QAA. 
You are saying that, in spite of this freedom, they all, from universities founded 500+ years ago through to plate-glass unis founded in the inner cities in the 1960s, choose to employ exactly the same flawed (in your opinion) teaching methods you listed above, and not only that, but so do all the institutions in all the other countries that make up "the west". 
Secondly, you are _then_ positing that these teaching methods are in some way a 'problem', in fact '_the_ problem', without offering the slightest evidence that any such problem even exists. Is "the west" lagging behind Russia, or anyone else ('the east'?) in any sphere of academia? Or commerce? Or any other measurable you can think of? Surely you would expect this to be the case were their academic institutions so rife with this endemic 'problem'? Even assuming that you can accuse 'western education' of all being too focused on the individual, and too politically correct, where is there the slightest bit of evidence that, on balance, it works any better or any worse than the Russian system with which you are comparing it? 
I'm sorry, but I don't care how relatively vast your own personal experience may be, it doesn't come close to being in the vicinity of the ballpark of being adequate to back up any of that.

----------


## DDT

> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

 Yes, I am making a sweeping generalisation here. Just as i am when I say that the West has become increasingly Americanised in the last few dacades, due to pop culture, McDonald's and American TV etc., ..........but I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. 
And it is that Americanisation that helps  lead the "feelgood" education system increasingly more towards the point where kids in school can not be disciplined or even chastised by teachers. Where there are no longer competitions for fear of hurting the losers feelings. So everyone gets a First Place Prize. 
It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme.  You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

----------


## gRomoZeka

First, it's impossible to say which system is better, both have their faults and advantages. But I prefer the one I used to. 
I'm not talking about methods or curriculum (who cares whether it's 4 years or 7, one school or another), I'm talking about general (or more wide-spread) approach.  
I believe Russian _traditional_ approach (it is changing) is more academic, while in the world prevails more practical approach.
How do kids in UK state schools learn foreign language in their first year?
Do they deeply study grammar from the very beginning or just get necessary and clipped explanations? 
At our school we began studying English from the first grade (7 years old). After memorizing the alphabet we were made to memorize reading rules ("in the closed syllable "a" pronounced as "

----------


## scotcher

> Originally Posted by scotcher  
> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?    Yes, I am making a sweeping generalisation here.

 Right, you are, which is what I objected to (though to something Rtyom said, not you), only to have to come back and claim they weren't sweeping generalisations at all. Glad we got that cleared up.   

> Just as i am when I say that the West has become increasingly Americanised in the last few dacades, due to pop culture, McDonald's and American TV etc., ..........but I doubt that anyone would disagree with that.

 No, they wouldn't disagree. I don't think many people would stop at the west though, isn't everywhere getting Americanised?   

> And it is that Americanisation that helps  lead the "feelgood" education system increasingly more towards the point where kids in school can not be disciplined or even chastised by teachers. Where there are no longer competitions for fear of hurting the losers feelings. So everyone gets a First Place Prize. 
> It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme.  You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

 See this is where you are making leaps of faith. You are taking your own prejudices (which, when it comes to discipline in schools, I must admit I share), some personal experience of a few badly-educated individuals, and the occasional story of _political-correctness-gone-mad_, which invariably get loads of coverage in the knee-jerky right-wing press, and offering this as proof that there is a problem with the whole education system, when in fact it is no such thing, it is simply evidence that the system is not perfect and that it fails some people. It is categorically not evidence that the system is worse _on the whole_, for the majority of students, than that which went before or than that which still exist in Russia. If you can offer any such evidence I'll gladly hear it. 
And in any event, yes, I probably wouldn't have disputed the generalisation had it been confined to _English-speaking_ countries, even if I would still have disputed that there is necessarily a "problem", as opposed to just a different method.   

> First, it's impossible to say which system is better, both have their faults and advantages. But I prefer the one I used to.

 Fair enough. I don't accept the premise that there are only two systems to compare, that's kind of my whole point, but if you want me to play along and pretend that the education systems in all the countries in the west have the same problem, the problem described above by DDT, then OK, I probably prefer the Russian one too.  ::    

> I'm not talking about methods or curriculum (who cares whether it's 4 years or 7, one school or another), I'm talking about general (or more wide-spread) approach.  
> I believe Russian traditional approach (it is changing) is more academic, while in the world prevails more practical approach.
> How do kids in UK state schools learn foreign language in their first year?
> Do they deeply study grammar from the very beginning or just get necessary and clipped explanations?

 British kids don't always even learn _English_ grammar, so there would be little point in trying to teach them that of a foreign language. 
But... so what? English-speaking countries are notoriously bad at teaching kids foreign languages by any methods, in contrast to... pretty much every other country in Europe. You can't condemn "the western education system" just because English-speakers are arrogant  ::  
I'll tell you something from _my own_ personal experience, my very own anecdotal generalisation: of all the foreigners I have met, Russians don't even come close to matching people from elsewhere in Europe when it comes to speaking English as a second language. Almost without exception, the Dutch and the Scandanavians I've met speak better English than half the population of the UK, almost without an accent, or even with a hint of an identifiable British or American accent. The French and Germans come a close second, being able to communicate easily but retaining very strong accents from their own languages. Russians have the worst pronunciation, and the hardest time communicating. And I'm not talking about Russians who didn't study English at all, I'm talking about people like my wife who went to a school specialising in English, and studied it throughout her education. When we first met when she came here to study, her English was appalling. Her written English, on the other hand, was excellent. I've even met a Russian who teaches English in Russia, who I had to ask to speak in Russian because I couldn't understand him when he spoke English.  
Another one of my experiences was spending time in Russia a few years ago when my wife was finishing her degree, and getting to witness how half her class openly bribed their way through "protecting their dissertation" or whatever the expression is. And as far as I was led to believe, that was just the middle class students. The really rich students had paid enough to bypass the whole course, in some cases my wife said she hadn't seen some of the graduates since the week of enrolment. 
So those are my personal experiences. Now, would it be fair of me to jump to the conclusions that the second experience must automatically be responsible for the first, and therefore feel safe in proclaiming that bribery is _the_ problem with "all Eastern European education"? 
No, of course it wouldn't! 
[quote]At our school we began studying English from the first grade (7 years old). After memorizing the alphabet we were made to memorize reading rules ("in the closed syllable "a" pronounced as "

----------


## TATY

> Speaking a foreign language requires confidence and when someone pointd out a mistake in every word you say, how can you become confident in speaking that language?
> 			
> 		  And that's exactly where CDs like Pimsleur come in. 
> In the classroom setting the teacher should be correcting the pronunciation mercilessly during the early stages. There is no point in learning everything wrong and then having to re-learn it all again later. Bad habits are hard to lose!

 In the first year of a language course at university taken from the beginner's level there is a LOT to fit in and time and attention has to be allocated to all areas of the language. Yes, it is ideal to spend hours and hours on pronunciation, but it's just not practical. My class at uni had about 30 people in it. You say there must be merciless correction. That must mean that for the pronunciation to be correct there must be no trace of a foreign accent, as, afterall, if it sounds foreign, then it's not correct Russian pronunciation. A teacher that mercilesly corrects students in a bad teacher. 
And what is wrong pronunciation? Let's take the example of the French. When French people speak English they almost all have a strong French accent. Even the ones who are fluent in English still have a French accent. Now this accent is *incorrect English pronunciation*, but is understandable.  
Teachers have to make sure the students' pronuncation is understandable, not to make them sound 100% native.  
My final thought: Accent is something that can be developed relatively easily later on in the learning proccess through listening to CDs, Radio etc., recording one's own pronunciation. With exposure to the foreign language the accent will develop naturally. Explaining often complex grammar points, explaining the nuances of words and phrases and the like is what a teacher is needed for more than anything.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by scotcher  
> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?    It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme.  You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

 It is happening in Britain but I don't think it's due to 'Americanisation'.

----------


## DDT

> isn't everywhere getting Americanised?

 Yes, but I hope that Russia is far, far behind. But, here is a thought. Perhaps it is not exactly right to say that the world is becoming "Americanised." Perhaps the world is just blending. I say this because I  see some things that are more "European" happening to America and Australia, as well.    

> See this is where you are making leaps of faith. You are taking your own prejudices (which, when it comes to discipline in schools, I must admit I share), some personal experience of a few badly-educated individuals, and the occasional story of _political-correctness-gone-mad_, which invariably get loads of coverage in the knee-jerky right-wing press, and offering this as proof that there is a problem with the whole education system, when in fact it is no such thing, it is simply evidence that the system is not perfect and that it fails some people. It is categorically not evidence that the system is worse _on the whole_, for the majority of students, than that which went before or than that which still exist in Russia. If you can offer any such evidence I'll gladly hear it.

 I can't give any proof. Only personal observations as a volunteer teacher's aid at my local middle school. For instance; When learning about Great Britain recently, it seemed very important to see English culture through the eyes of a young Muslim boy and  his love for the Koran. I am not stupid. I can see what is going on here. Every time I show up in class I see some type of social engineering going on having nothing to do with basic education.    

> And in any event, yes, I probably wouldn't have disputed the generalisation had it been confined to _English-speaking_ countries,

 Well, perhaps I should have confined my generalisation to English speaking countries, just to be sure.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by DDT        Originally Posted by scotcher  
> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?    It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme.  You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.   It is happening in Britain but I don't think it's due to 'Americanisation'.

 Perhaps then just the natural evolution of "Pop Culture"? Or perhaps from new psychological developments born of the 60's movement? What do you think it is?

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY        Originally Posted by DDT        Originally Posted by scotcher  
> And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?    It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme.  You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.   It is happening in Britain but I don't think it's due to 'Americanisation'.   Perhaps then just the natural evolution of "Pop Culture"? Or perhaps from new psychological developments born of the 60's movement? What do you think it is?

 I think it's general Western culture, general social development. The education system has been evolving constantly in the direction you described as 'americanism'. Back in the day left-handed kids were told this was wrong and made to write with there right hand, then later the general opinion changed to thinking this was wrong and was no longer practised. Kids used to be caned, beat, belted at school, then it was banned in country after county. The current system is just the continuation of the 'be nice to the kid' attitude.  
Just because it may have happened first in America doesn't mean that when it happens elsewhere it is a result of 'Americanisation'. Afterall, the term "The West" exists because the countries it describes generally share common values, ways on life when in comparison with whatever isn't 'The West'. This is why Australia, despite being East on the map, is grouped in with 'The western-world'.

----------


## chaika

Excerpt from the AATSEEL newsletter. Back issues in .PDF format also available free on the site.  
Article talks about the человек/люди, ребёнок/дети issue.  http://www.aatseel.org/100111/pdf/aatseeldec06nl150.pdf 
The last noun is ребенок — дети. БТС lists ребенок as having two plurals: дети and ребята, although ребята is listed separately as well. The word ребенок has a number of meanings: a very small child or a baby, one’s own child, and an older pre-teen child. The plural for the first two is
only дети, while the plural of the last one can be either дети or ребята. Ребята also means ‘lads, guys’. БТС’s example Своих ребят у него нет, meaning ‘He has no children of his own’ is not representative, since it is much harder to envision this sentence with a feminine pronoun, and it is said about a man of lower social standing. 
N. два ребёнка	пять детей
A. двух детей 	пять детей 	 двадцать два ребёнка 
G. двух детей     пяти детей
D. двум детям 	пяти детям
I. двумя детьми 	пятью детьми
P. о двух детях 	о пяти детях 
The alternative form and its declension are quite predictable: 
N. пять ребят
A. пять ребят
G. пяти ребят
D. пяти ребятам
I. пятью ребятами
P. о пяти ребятах 
However, one has to keep in mind that this paradigm is more likely to get replaced by the the collective numeral paradigm:
N. пятеро ребят
A. пятерых ребят
G. пятерых ребят
D. пятерым ребятам
I. пятерыми ребятами
P. о пятерых ребятах 
Overall these new emerging paradigms with numerals   have a certain amount of leveling off: instead of having two completely different paradigms, the tendency is to have a single paradigm with one or two exceptions.
© 2006 by Alina Israeli

----------


## Оля

> N. пятеро ребят 
> A. пятерых ребят 
> G. пятерых ребят 
> D. пятерым ребятам 
> I. пятерыми ребятами 
> P. о пятерых ребятах

 The case order should be N, *G, D, A*, I, P.

----------


## kamka

> Well, I remember filling in questionnaire that was called 'Needs and requirements analysis'. There was the point 'When you are having a duscussion in your group should the teacher:
> - interrupt you every time you make a mistake?
> - interrupt you only if you keep making the same mistake?
> - never interrupt, but note down the mistakes for explanation later?'
> .

 Being a student of 2 languages at a university, I've been taught phonetics by 4 teachers (2 of them English, and 2 Russian). All of them used different techniques, one that proved to be the most effective (at least in my opinion) was when the teacher recorded us reading some short stories, then listened to it carefully at home, and later one, during the next class, gave each and every single one a tiny piece of paper with our mistakes and her notes; what should we especially focus on and so on, and so forth. It must've been very time-consuming, but at the same time, it seemed to help all of us greatly. Another teacher was just listening to us speaking, taking notes and then asking us to repeat the words we mispronounced and giving us hints what should we work on. It seemed to work just fine, but on the other hand, at the end of the day, plenty of us forgot what was he saying way too fast, hence I think having it written down works best. :P   

> My final thought: Accent is something that can be developed relatively easily later on in the learning proccess through listening to CDs, Radio etc., recording one's own pronunciation. With exposure to the foreign language the accent will develop naturally. Explaining often complex grammar points, explaining the nuances of words and phrases and the like is what a teacher is needed for more than anything.

 You do have a point, on the other hand, though, it's fairly difficult to get rid of some of the speaking habits, if we spoke with them for a long time. An example off the top of my head, quite trivial, but still gives some insight into what I mean: up until I went to the uni I've been taught to pronounce "ate" like /eit/, then suddenly we were supposed to speak according to the RP standards of pronunciation - you have no idea how long did it take me to start saying /et/ instead of /eit/. Perhaps it's not the very best example, since both of the forms are fine in everyday Eng, but it was the first one that popped my mind when it comes to overcoming some of our habits. What I basically mean, it takes much longer to change them once we're used to them, than to learn to seak properly from the very beginning. In high school they didn't really pay much attention to our pronunciation, unless it was an obvious mistake. Chances are, though, that the people will NEVER learn to speak properly simply 'cause it'll be too difficult for them to get rid of their old habits. I know people who have been learning English for more than 10 years and still keep on saying /f/ instead of the /th/ sound 'cause no one took the time to practise a little with them before.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> one that proved to be the most effective (at least in my opinion) was when the teacher recorded us reading some short stories, then listened to it carefully at home, and later one, during the next class, gave each and every single one a tiny piece of paper with our mistakes and her notes; what should we especially focus on and so on, and so forth.

 Sounds great. It must be quite helpful.   

> up until I went to the uni I've been taught to pronounce "ate" like /eit/, then suddenly we were supposed to speak according to the RP standards of pronunciation - you have no idea how long did it take me to start saying /et/ instead of /eit/.

 Er... RP? What's that? I still pronounce "ate" as /eit/. Is it considered wrong?

----------


## kamka

> Er... RP? What's that? I still pronounce "ate" as /eit/. Is it considered wrong?

 RP is Received Pronunciation, also known as BBC English. As far as I know /eit/ is consdered ok in standard English, what is more, I think it's more popular than /et/, since RP is not THAT widely spoken, I can be wrong though. Bet TATY will know best, since he's British  ::

----------


## TATY

> N. пятеро ребят 
> A. пятерых ребят 
> G. пятерых ребят 
> D. пятерым ребятам 
> I. пятерыми ребятами 
> P. о пятерых ребятах 
> 			
> 		  The case order should be N, *G, D, A*, I, P.

 There isn't a definite fixed order. If you don't learn the names and use the "First case, second case" nomenclature then of course it matters which order they are in, but if you name them it doesn't matter. NAGDIP is commonly used in English books on Russian.

----------


## Оля

> There isn't a definite fixed order.

 There is. There isn't a definite fixed order only for English speakers who don't understand its importance and its historical traditions (roots).   

> but if you name them it doesn't matter.

 Of course if you NAME them it doesn't matter, but if you WRITE them , it does.
I.e. when I check something Russian wrote this way (NAGDIP), it is hard to me to check it well.   

> NAGDIP is commonly used in English books on Russian.

 You know, I even don't doubt on it...   :: 
By the way, there is no Russian books on English where English words are wrote in Cyrillic alphabet...
A genitive was the second case in Ancient Greek, in Latin, it is Russian, in German, also in Polish, etc.
There isn't a definite fixed case order only for English speakers, but it is important, so you just don't want to know it...

----------


## chaika

Интересно, что Оля заметила ошибку в порядке падежей. Я просто цитировал прямо с страниц газеты. Но когда я изучал русский язык, порядок бы такой же как у неё. Думаю, что понимаю причину такого порядка NAGDIP (иногда N=A, иногда А=G, с таким порядком парадигмы легче понять). Есть и G2 (чашку чаю), и Locative (в лесу).

----------


## Zaya

> Интересно, что Оля заметила ошибку в порядке падежей. Я просто (про)цитировал прямо со страниц газеты. Но когда я изучал русский язык, порядок был (?) такой же, как у неё. Думаю, что понимаю причину такого порядка NAGDIP (иногда N=A, иногда А=G, с таким порядком парадигмы легче понять). Есть и G2 (чашку чаю), и Locative (в лесу).

 А что такое G2?
Не знаю, с чем это связано, но могу подтвердить, что падежи должны стоять в строго определённом порядке.
Немецкие падежи меня тоже учили писать в одном и том же порядке.
N
G
D
A
При этом N=A во всех случаях, кроме одного (м. р.), а G - как раз наоборот, никогда не совпадает с N.
Помню, кому-то из одногруппников сделали замечание по этому поводу, хотя параллельно заметили, что в каких-то старых учебниках был и другой порядок написания падежей. Может, новые есть, в которых пишут N, а потом A, но лично мне удобно, если A находится в конце, потому что можно туда особо и не заглядывать. Ещё в учебниках могут писать падежи в том порядке, в котором они изучаются (в моём вот вообще NADG).

----------


## Оля

> А что такое G2?

 Ну вот это как раз "чашка _чаю_", как chaika написал. Иначе "чаю" - это какой падеж?.. Ага-аа?  ::    

> Не знаю, с чем это связано, но могу подтвердить, что падежи должны стоять в строго определённом порядке.

 Думаю, прежде всего, с традицией.
Слово "падеж" даже происходит от слова "падать" (как в греческом - не помню, но в латыни тоже так). И нам даже схему-график такой рисовали, где стрелка от именительного падежа "падает" к винительному, по дороге "пересекая" родительный и дательный. 
Родительный _обязательно_ должен быть вторым. Например, в латинских словарях для каждого существительного дана форма _родительного_ падежа, и даже само название "родительный" именно такое потому, что этот падеж как бы "рождает" все остальные падежи, в том смысле, что содержит в себе основу, которая при спряжении повторяется в остальных косвенных падежах (так и в греческом, и в латинском, и в русском). Например: 
дочь *дочер*и дочери
дочь (=nom.) дочерью дочери  дочери дочерей дочерям дочерей дочерями дочерях

----------


## Zaya

> Originally Posted by Zaya  А что такое G2?   Ну вот это как раз "чашка _чаю_", как chaika написал. Иначе "чаю" - это какой падеж?.. Ага-аа?

 А в русских грамматических справочниках это как называют? Родительный второй?)

----------


## Rtyom

> Originally Posted by Оля        Originally Posted by Zaya  А что такое G2?   Ну вот это как раз "чашка _чаю_", как chaika написал. Иначе "чаю" - это какой падеж?.. Ага-аа?    А в русских грамматических справочниках это как называют? Родительный второй?)

 Обычно, по-моему, никак не называют. А вообще — «второй родительный».

----------


## Оля

> А в русских грамматических справочниках это как называют? Родительный второй?)

 Без понятия, я их не читаю.   ::

----------


## Zaya

Я их редко читаю. Чаще заглядываю.)) 
По теме: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0% ... 0%B5%D0%B6 
Думаю, это не зря придумали:   

> Мнемоника для падежей русского языка: 
> «Иван Родил Девчонку, Велел Тащить Пелёнку». 
> «Иван, Роман, Дайте Вашу Трубку Покурить». 
> «Имя Ребёнку Дали, Винни Топтыжку Прозвали». 
> «Иван Рубил Дрова, Варвара Топила Печь». 
> «И Родила Дарья Ваньку Толстого, Пузатого».

 «Иван Родил Девчонку, Велел Тащить Пелёнку» у кого-то в подписи стояло, точно помню.

----------


## Оля

> Думаю, это не зря придумали:     
> 			
> 				Мнемоника для падежей русского языка: 
> «Иван Родил Девчонку, Велел Тащить Пелёнку». 
> «Иван, Роман, Дайте Вашу Трубку Покурить». 
> «Имя Ребёнку Дали, Винни Топтыжку Прозвали». 
> «Иван Рубил Дрова, Варвара Топила Печь». 
> «И Родила Дарья Ваньку Толстого, Пузатого».

 А я не поняла, как это использовать...

----------


## Zaya

По тому же принципу, что и  "каждый охотник желает знать, где сидит фазан".   ::

----------


## Полуношник

> Мнемоника для падежей русского языка: 
> «Иван Родил Девчонку, Велел Тащить Пелёнку». 
> «Иван, Роман, Дайте Вашу Трубку Покурить». 
> «Имя Ребёнку Дали, Винни Топтыжку Прозвали». 
> «Иван Рубил Дрова, Варвара Топила Печь». 
> «И Родила Дарья Ваньку Толстого, Пузатого».
> 			
> 		  «Иван Родил Девчонку, Велел Тащить Пелёнку» у кого-то в подписи стояло, точно помню.

 Иван родил девочку Верочку, толстую, пузатую.

----------


## Оля

> По тому же принципу, что и "каждый охотник желает знать, где сидит фазан".

 Аааа...

----------


## chaika

Too cool, you guys! Of course I had to go look that up. We don't have such a neat way of remembering it, only a guy's name: Roy G. Biv. 
Back to grammar, G2 is also called "partitive genitive." http://lingvo.yandex.ru/en?text=partiti ... ranslate=1

----------


## Rtyom

> «Иван, Роман, Дайте Вашу Трубку Покурить».

 Слишком сильно смахивает на один пошлый анекдот.   ::   ::

----------

