# Forum Other Languages English for Russians - Изучаем английский язык Practice your English  ''What happened''

## Lena.from.Russia

Two sentences:
1.What happened?
2. What did you do last night? 
Why do we use an auxiliary verb ''did'' in the second sentence and in the first one we don't and just say what happened (not 'what did happen')?  
Спасибо!

----------


## translationsnmru

In "what happened", "what" is the subject of the sentence. In "What did you do last night", a different word acts as a subject. I  guess that is the reason.

----------


## bitpicker

True. In the second sentence "you" is the subject and"what" is the object. 
Compare: Who saw you? Who = subject, you = object. Who did you see? Who = object, you = subject.

----------


## zxc

> Who*m* did you see? Who*m* = object, you = subject.

 (Note: To those learning English, for all intents and purposes 'whom' is somewhat of a dying word in speech these days, I just wanted to point it out for clarity as you may come across it from time to time in texts.)

----------


## Throbert McGee

Hmmm, "sheriff stars" to both translationsmru and Bitpicker for their answers -- аs a native speaker of English, I really had no idea how to answer Lena's question, but I thought the subject/object analysis was very logical! 
Двадцать очков Гриффиндору...

----------


## bitpicker

> Hmmm, "sheriff stars" to both translationsmru and Bitpicker for their answers -- аs a native speaker of English, I really had no idea how to answer Lena's question, but I thought the subject/object analysis was very logical! 
> Двадцать очков Гриффиндору...

 I have to confess that while I never had any problem with such phrases I had to look up the reason why it is like it is in a grammar book. It's a distinction I had never really thought about before.  ::

----------


## Marcus

> Hmmm, "sheriff stars" to both translationsmru and Bitpicker for their answers -- аs a native speaker of English, I really had no idea how to answer Lena's question, but I thought the subject/object analysis was very logical! 
> Двадцать очков Гриффиндору...

 Удивительно, как люди не понимают собственного языка. В американских школах не разбирают предложения по составу?

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

Thank you for your ideas  ::

----------


## zxc

> Удивительно, как люди не понимают собственного языка. В американских школах не разбирают предложения по составу?

 Не надолго, а затем люди забывают. Разве не то же самое в русских школах? Я могу вспомнить, когда я задавал вопросы русскам о падежах, и они не могли даже перечислить все из них по имени.

----------


## Lampada

> .Не надолго.Недолго, а затем люди забывают. Разве не то же самое в русских школах? Я могу вспомнить, когда я задавал вопросы русским о падежах, и они не могли даже перечислить всех их по имени.

 _
Недолго =_ короткое время_
Ненадолго =_ на короткое время  _У нашей квартире есть свободная комната, и наш друг ненадолго остановится у нас._

----------


## rockzmom

Lena, 
Your posts to the forum are very good.  
I'm a native American English speaker and this one when I first read it made me shake my head as "what did happen" sounded so odd to my ears but then I started to think about it and I actually do say "What did happen." It is only for a very specific thing though, when I'm upset... say with my children and they are saying that one thing happened and I've heard a different version or two of the same story. I would indeed say (probably through gritted teeth), "So, what DID happen???" Or I might say "So tell me, what DID happen?" At that point, my girls better tell me the truth about what happened.

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

> Lena, 
> Your posts to the forum are very good.  
> I'm a native American English speaker and this one when I first read it made me shake my head as "what did happen" sounded so odd to my ears but then I started to think about it and I actually do say "What did happen." It is only for a very specific thing though, when I'm upset... say with my children and they are saying that one thing happened and I've heard a different version or two of the same story. I would indeed say (probably through gritted teeth), "So, what DID happen???" Or I might say "So tell me, what DID happen?" At that point, my girls better tell me the truth about what happened.

 Thanks  ::  I know that we can use 'do' or 'did' to emphasize the meaning or stress something. For example, I do like apples, I did see him last night, etc. But ''what happened'' was playing on my mind for a long time. I was wondering why it was not used with the auxiliary verb ''did''. Thanks to this forum and people who know more than me I could get some nice and reasonable answers  ::

----------


## Hanna

Yes Lena, I also want to chime in with Rockzmom and say that your English is great. 
Just continue participating here and reading and listening to English speaking material. 
You have already "succeeded in your studies, I think, so you should feel great about that. 
What you are doing now is just "polishing" the edges a bit. 
Keep it up !

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

> Yes Lena, I also want to chime in with Rockzmom and say that your English is great. 
> Just continue participating here and reading and listening to English speaking material. 
> You have already "succeeded in your studies, I think, so you should feel great about that. 
> What you are doing now is just "polishing" the edges a bit. 
> Keep it up !

 Thank you Hanna!  ::  I am glad to hear that my English is great. I do love English! It's such a great language. I am trying to learn more and more - to read books in English, listen to music, watch films and I'm coming to London soon! It's not my first time but I am excited  ::

----------


## Throbert McGee

> Удивительно, как люди не понимают собственного языка. В американских школах не разбирают предложения по составу?

 _Мне_ удивительно, что _вы_ удивляетесь тому, что много людей плохо понимает формальную грамматику собственного языка!  ::  
I mean, one thing that I've heard over and over from people who have intensively studied a second language as adults is: "I never even thought about the grammatical rules of my own language until I began studying a foreign language and doing translations." 
And speaking of translations, if it had occurred to me to try translating Lena's two sentences ("What happened?" and "What did you do last night?") into Russian, I would have immediately realized that "what" was a subject in the first one and an object in the second one. ("*Что* случилось?" vs. "*Чем* вы занимались вчера вечером?") Although I'm not sure that I would have made the connection between the subject/object difference and the use/non-use of the auxiliary verb "did." 
By the way, Lena -- do you understand that "What did happen?" is grammatically possible? However, the "did" would be strongly stressed and typically have a rising intonation, and the meaning would be something like "Что, *на самом деле*, случилось?" But the "did" in "What did you do last night?" is normally unstressed, and doesn't have an emphatic meaning -- it's simply a past-tense marker.

----------


## Marcus

I've been always interested in Russian grammar, although many people do not remember even the titles of the cases. Grammar is taught much in Russian schools. We learnt definitions, determined declensions and conjugations, determined members of sentence (subject,  predicate, object, atribute, modifier) and parts of speech, determined parts of word (prefix, root, suffix ending) in many words. And how is English grammar studied in American schools?

----------


## Marcus

> I have to confess that while I never had any problem with such phrases I had to look up the reason why it is like it is in a grammar book. It's a distinction I had never really thought about before.

 And this is very strange. English is not your mother toungue. How could you say it corectly if you did not know the rules? We learnt structure of English qestions and trained using them for a very long time. And questions with "who" and "what" were treated separately and much attention was paid to distinction between questions where "who" ("what") is a subject and where it is an object.

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

> And this is very strange. English is not your mother toungue. How could you say it corectly if you did not know the rules? We learnt structure of English qestions and trained using them for a very long time. And questions with "who" and "what" were treated separately and much attention was paid to distinction between questions where "who" ("what") is a subject and where it is an object.

 I guess people have different teachers and different ways of learning. I learnt English myself and I didn't have any tutors. That's why I didn't know about subject/object issues much. I know a Swedish girl who speaks English pretty well. She did study English at school but she had know idea what transcription is (she could not read it) or what the present perfect tense means...I agree with Throbert McGee...we study grammar at schools but then we just speak our native language and we don't pay attention to the rules that much. For example, when you say "Она пришла домой" or "Я пришел домой" you just say it and you don't wonder why you say "она пришла" and not  "она пришел".

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

> _Мне_ удивительно, что _вы_ удивляетесь тому, что много людей плохо понимает формальную грамматику собственного языка!  
> I mean, one thing that I've heard over and over from people who have intensively studied a second language as adults is: "I never even thought about the grammatical rules of my own language until I began studying a foreign language and doing translations." 
> And speaking of translations, if it had occurred to me to try translating Lena's two sentences ("What happened?" and "What did you do last night?") into Russian, I would have immediately realized that "what" was a subject in the first one and an object in the second one. ("*Что* случилось?" vs. "*Чем* вы занимались вчера вечером?") Although I'm not sure that I would have made the connection between the subject/object difference and the use/non-use of the auxiliary verb "did." 
> By the way, Lena -- do you understand that "What did happen?" is grammatically possible? However, the "did" would be strongly stressed and typically have a rising intonation, and the meaning would be something like "Что, *на самом деле*, случилось?" But the "did" in "What did you do last night?" is normally unstressed, and doesn't have an emphatic meaning -- it's simply a past-tense marker.

 Yes,  now I do understand that it is possible. I've never heard ''what did happen'' before though. But I trust native speakers  :: 
In addition, I would never guess that "did" could be translated as "на самом деле"...I would imagine an angry or anxious Russian man/woman shouting "ЧТО случилось" and this loud "ЧТО" would mean your stressed "did".

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

One thing I have noticed right now. Maybe I am wrong... 
When in Russian there is a verb after a question word "что(a question word) случилось (verb)", "кто видел тебя?", "кто сказал тебе об этом?" we don't use the auxiliary verb "did":
что случилось? - what happened?
кто видел тебя? - who saw you?
кто сказал тебе об этом? - who told you about it? (The verbs are just used in past tense)  
And if there is a pronoun after a question word "Кому(question word) ты (pronoun) сказал об этом?", "кого ты видел?" we use the auxuliary verb:
кому ты сказал об этом - who did you tell it about?
кого ты видел? - who did you see? 
Am I wrong or not?

----------


## bitpicker

Marcus, I learn languages by "osmosis" rather than by memorizing rules, I try to replicate the language learning of a child learning his mother tongue. As an adult I have the additional tool of knowing about grammatical rules, but I use that tool to explain to myself certain characteristics of the language which I nevertheless try to adopt as natural rather than as the result of conscious thinking. I have read hundreds of English language novels and other books, had countless conversations in speaking and writing and have probably seen or heard and therefore now can mimick just about every imaginable sentence structure there is. If things like a non-stressed "what did happen?" never turn up, then I never get an impetus to use that form. When I notice forms like "what did happen?" then I try to glean from the context what this form achieves in addition to a simple "what happened?". Usually there will be a dialogue, for example: 
A: But that's not what happened!
B: Alright, so what did happen then, in your words? 
And I simply understand from such examples sooner or later that the form with "did" adds emphasis.  
If you approach a language only through rules and translation, then you never achieve real access to the language. It's like using only half your brain for the language. The left hemispere processes the foreign language, applying rules and translations, then transfers the syntactic content thus transformed into the native language to the right hemisphere which harvests the semantic content; and the semantic content of the reply from the right hemisphere is clothed in the native language first in the left, then again transformed by applying the set of known rules and translations, and hopefully comes out correctly. That's like an interpreted computer language: slow.  
What you need to aim for is a direct connection between the syntactic processes in the left hemisphere to the semantic in the right hemisphere without a detour through your native language. Only then you will really be able to think in the target language, and then you will really know the language. This is more like a compiled language, and it is fast.  ::  
I'm still a couple of years at least from reaching that point in Russian, but I am quite content that I will, eventually.

----------


## bitpicker

Lena, you're not wrong, but it's still the same thing: кто is the subject of its sentence, and кого, кому are accusative and dative objects respectively. You would still say что ты видел?, and that's "what did you see?", as что in this sentence is in accusative case and ты is the subject.

----------


## Hanna

> And this is very strange. English is not your mother toungue. How could you say it corectly if you did not know the rules? We learnt structure of English qestions and trained using them for a very long time. And questions with "who" and "what" were treated separately and much attention was paid to distinction between questions where "who" ("what") is a subject and where it is an object.

 Yes, I want to echo what bitpicker said. His written English is like native, you can safely trust anything he says about English. In fact, because he's making the effort, his English is better than that of many English speakers (who are notoriously lazy about grammar, grammatical rules and even spelling.) 
I  suspect he probably has a noticeable accent when speaks, but that's not  relevant in a forum. But basically, he's put a lot of time into it,  he's an absolute ace with grammar and additionally his experiences are relevant for  anyone learning English.   
Remember that English is MUCH closer  to German than it is to Russian, so it's been easier for him to learn  than it's been for you, for example. In Western Europe it's also much  easier to get exposure to English and native English speakers.  
For me, it's the same thing although in Scandinavia we have _even more_ exposure  to English than in Germany. I started from a really young age and I've  lived in the UK for 10+ years. Basically, I am confident about my  English and if I make any mistakes here, it's because I don't bother  proof-reading most of the time, and because I change what I want to say  while I'm in the middle of writing a sentence.  
Unfortunately I don't know grammatical terms well and I am not as good at explaining the reasons why a certain sentence structure is better than another, as Robin is. The only English grammar I can remembers studying, is verbs: "go-went-gone" and "I am, you are, he-she-it is..." The rest I simply learnt naturally.  
One little mistake is not  the end of the world unless it's for a professional situation. I don't  even particularly agree with the idea that everyone should have to speak  English as a second language... As can be seen in International Politics, Science etc - as long as you've got functional English and can  articulate yourself clearly without sounding like a fool...  that's all  you really need. Anything else is "extras". You should be aware that native English speakers usually think that foreign accents sound cool and interesting and they generally believe that the foreign speaker is intelligent since he masters more than one language (at least that is the attitude towards white people...)  
I agree with everything that Robin said, although I wouldn't have expressed it as well. Translationsnmru is another forum user who is not a native English speaker but writes in absolutely perfect English and gives great advice.  
I  am trying to apply the same principles that he's outlining to learning  Russian (basically repeating what I did for English). But I'm not so sure my approach is correct; Russian is harder and more different to any other language I know. I  have not had the same practical incentive (necessity) to learn it, and  nowhere near the same exposure.  So I am not sure that the "English"  approach necessarily works for learning Russian.... I feel that my learning is far too slow although it got a big boost by my trip to Eastern Europe (which is coming to and end shortly). 
And I have a vertical hole in my brain where the information about grammar should be. For some reason I seem unable to pick it up and remember it. It's a real handicap when learning Russian and I am so in awe of people who can confidently speak about grammatical concepts.

----------


## Marcus

> Marcus, I learn languages by "osmosis" rather than by memorizing rules, I try to replicate the language learning of a child learning his mother tongue. As an adult I have the additional tool of knowing about grammatical rules, but I use that tool to explain to myself certain characteristics of the language which I nevertheless try to adopt as natural rather than as the result of conscious thinking. I have read hundreds of English language novels and other books, had countless conversations in speaking and writing and have probably seen or heard and therefore now can mimick just about every imaginable sentence structure there is. If things like a non-stressed "what did happen?" never turn up, then I never get an impetus to use that form. When I notice forms like "what did happen?" then I try to glean from the context what this form achieves in addition to a simple "what happened?". Usually there will be a dialogue, for example: 
> A: But that's not what happened!
> B: Alright, so what did happen then, in your words? 
> And I simply understand from such examples sooner or later that the form with "did" adds emphasis.  
> If you approach a language only through rules and translation, then you never achieve real access to the language. It's like using only half your brain for the language. The left hemispere processes the foreign language, applying rules and translations, then transfers the syntactic content thus transformed into the native language to the right hemisphere which harvests the semantic content; and the semantic content of the reply from the right hemisphere is clothed in the native language first in the left, then again transformed by applying the set of known rules and translations, and hopefully comes out correctly. That's like an interpreted computer language: slow.  
> What you need to aim for is a direct connection between the syntactic processes in the left hemisphere to the semantic in the right hemisphere without a detour through your native language. Only then you will really be able to think in the target language, and then you will really know the language. This is more like a compiled language, and it is fast.  
> I'm still a couple of years at least from reaching that point in Russian, but I am quite content that I will, eventually.

 I agree that exposure is absolutely necessary to learn the language. But grammar is also needed, I think. Probably it would have taken too long time before I would have undestood how questions are formed in English. (I' m not sure if the last sentence is correct). 
bitpicker, did you pick up endings of Russian cases, for example, or their  without learning them and then looked them up in a grammar book just for interest? And grammar is one of the most interesting parts of learning languages.

----------


## Marcus

> at least that is the attitude towards white people...)

 And what about other people? I ask because I'm not very white.

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

> And what about other people? I ask because I'm not very white.

 This is funny. White, black and not very white  ::  I think the attitude is the same when your English is understandable.

----------


## Hanna

Well, sadly, there is a bit of prejudice in Europe (in this case I am talking about the UK) against people from places like Africa, India and the Middle East. They are not given recognition to the same degree, for learning English, as others get.  
For example, I worked in a pan-European company a while back, however the software development was done in India. I was travelling a lot on the European continent, often together with my two bosses, an Englishman and an American. They were commenting a lot on peoples' English. In the case of most people that the liked across Europe, the comments were positive. For example when someone who spoke bad English would apologise for it, they would say, "no, no it's fine", or the standard answer "well your English is better than my [insert language]".  
I also worked with some guys who were based in England but were originally from various Eastern European countries, Ukraine, Serbia and Russia. They spoke bad-to-passable English but they too were told their English was fine and the communication with them was completely problem-free. (that was around the time decided to take up Russian).  
The English skills of the Indians however, were also pretty good, but with regards to them, there were always complaints that it was hard to speak with them, to hear what they were saying, that there were cultural problems etc. They never got any appreciation for the fact that they spoke English as a second language. I agree in a way. It WAS harder to deal with them and I did not always understand the logic of their behaviour. They did not understand me sometimes. I developed a way of communicating with them that worked, but I did not enjoy that way of working and I still was not always able to understand everyone I spoke with. With other Europeans we could joke about the problems and find a way around them, but with the Indians it was always hard work.  
The same thing happens when English people complain about immigrants speaking poor English. They are certainly *not* referring to the millions of Europeans (including even, Polish people) who live in the UK. They are almost guaranteed to be speaking about Pakistanis, Indians and middle eastern people. Somehow it is much worse when such people speak bad English than when a Polish or French person does it.  
Probably somebody will now think that I am a racist for saying all this. I am not, I am just explaining the reality as it is.  
Marcus, if your language is Russian and you talk and behave like a Russian, then that's what you'd be treated like. Very few people are hung up on the actual race. It's the cultural differences that are causing problems, not the skin colour. There are lots of Indians who have grown up in the UK, with them there are never any problems, speaking with them is just like anyone else, no difference. 
Perhaps something similar exists in Russia, with peole from Caucasus and Central Aisa.

----------


## Marcus

I think that grammar and vocabulary can be absorbed from reading in intermediate or advanced level. At the beginning grammar must be studied well. Our school teacher used to talk to us mainly in English. And learnt a lot of words, expressions and some grammar constructions (question tags, complex subject) just because I listened to her. In the university we used grammar-translation method more. And I didn't like it much.

----------


## Lena.from.Russia

Yes, Hanna you are right. Some people speak Russian well but some speak like Равшан (google  :: )
I think that it's good to speak English even when you have a 'strange' accent and when it's hard to understand but at least you speak it! I remember when I was at the airport (in one of the biggest cities in Russia) there was a woman who was checking the luggage,etc. And then one man came to her to give his luggage. I was behind him. The Russian woman asked him in Russian "Are you flying to Rome and not anywhere else?" The man was keeping silence. Then I saw his passport and could guess that he was Italian and apparently spoke no Russian. The woman was repeating again "Are you flying to Rome and this is you final destination?" The man was keeping silence again and was nervous. The strange thing was that the woman was asking and asking the same qustion in Russian as if  repeating the same question  would make the Italian man  begin speak Russian fluently  ::  This was silly to ask when you see the person doesn't understand. I had to translate for him and for the woman what he was saying. So, I think that in such places if you work you should speak at least bad English but speak it, so people who do not know Russian would not feel that way the man did. The other example...I was flying to Kaliningrad and there was a man sitting next to me. When there was the time to serve drinks, etc. a flight attendant came to him and asked in Russian. The man didn't understand the Russian language. She asked in Russian  "would you like orange or tomato juice?"   and as tomato and tomat sounds a bit similar in English and Russian he could understand the only word and tried to say it even in Russian and said "помАдор"   ::  (помидор- tomato) So yes accents are sometimes hard to understand  but people try to speak at least  ::

----------


## bitpicker

> I agree that exposure is absolutely necessary to learn the language. But grammar is also needed, I think. Probably it would have taken too long *time* before I would have unde*r*stood (better: too long for me to understand) how questions are formed in English. (I' m not sure if the last sentence is correct). 
> bitpicker, did you pick up endings of Russian cases, for example, *on* their*  own* without learning them and then looked them up in a grammar book just for interest? And grammar is one of the most interesting parts of learning languages.

 I did read a couple of grammar books front to back early on, and I still refer to them, read them again chapter-wise and even have some books on special linguistic topics such as particles, phonetics and contractions. But I read those books in order to find out what lies ahead of me. I never sit down with a declension table and try to memorize it. And I still use such tables to look up the correct form if I am not sure about it when writing Russian. Some cases come more naturally to me than others. But I do find already that some phrases and constructs come to mind immediately from thought image to Russian when I need them. I don't have to think a single word in German when I compose a post like this one in English, and neither do I have to think about meaning when I read English. I'll be satisfied when I have reached that level in Russian.  
I agree that grammar is interesting; but it is a tool to work with the language. If you're a carpenter, then what you should care about is the wood, not the saw and the hammer. The language as it is being used is the wood, the grammar is the saw and hammer.  ::

----------


## Marcus

Robin, I understand what you mean. Training makes one's language skills automatical, and learning tables of grammar is useless without much application. 
Probably you forgot how you started learning English. But can you speak, read and write in Russian, if you don't know what object and dative case are, it's endings, what prepositions are used with it? I mean if you study the language as an adult. And if you know nothing about declension at all (if you are an English native speaker, for example)?
I don't believe that an adult can study a foreign language without learning grammar.

----------


## rockzmom

> And what about other people? I ask because I'm not very white.

  

> This is funny. White, black and not very white  I think the attitude is the same when your English is understandable.

 Lena, Hanna is correct about white, black, not very white... but it is even worse in the States. If you are Hispanic and don't speak English very well OR you speak it well but with an accent, many Americans ASSUME you are stupid. However, if you are white and don't speak English very well and have a "cool" accent, people will not think that. Americans love cool accents and white or light skin people. We are shallow. 
Marcus, there is good news... the white skin is changing to a "what are you?" mixture. If you are a mixture of races and somewhat light skinned and people can't tell exactly what you are... are you white Hispanic, Italian, European??? What are you?? A multi-ethnic person AND on the light or a little brown, then you have it made right now. So, you dear Marcus, you might be an "it" person in the States right now. 
The problem with being a mutli-ethnic person though, is that no one race will claim you. Sadly, you are not enough of one thing to be able to fit in.

----------


## bitpicker

> I don't believe that an adult can study a foreign language without learning grammar.

 Its not about not learning grammar but learning the grammar by example and not as terminology and rules. Children learn their native grammar without knowing what an object is. In school you don't learn the "truth" about your language, only the formal rules extracted from observing what the speakers and writers of the language are doing. You could easily do without that. Of course grammar (as in terminology and precisely formulated rules) is useful, but it is not the best means of access to learning the language.

----------


## Hanna

Further to Rockzmom's point: The fact that Americans choose a mixed race person as their president definitely proves her point.  
If globalisation continues at the same speed, then, a hundred generations from now, everyone might be mixed race and look a lot more like each other...

----------


## Marcus

Anyway, grammar is less important than vocabulary. I understand most part of articles of Bulgarian wikipedia, although I don't know Bulgarian at all. Bulgarian grammar differs much from Russian, but words are similar.

----------


## zxc

> Further to Rockzmom's point: The fact that Americans choose a mixed race person as their president definitely proves her point.

 I don't think this is entirely accurate.   
President Obama definitely appears as a black man, that is to say his skin tone doesn't really appear to be that of a mixed person.  The media and people in general during the election and even to this day identify him as the first "black" President, and references to the fact that he's actually mixed are and were few and far between.

----------

