# В Беларуси нет морей



## Uly

In a language forum, a Russian national translated the phrase *В Беларуси нет морей* as _There aren't any seas in Belarus_. This is confusing to me. I know that Belarus has no coastline and is considered a landlocked country. Is this what the original Russian means, or does it in fact mean that there are no "seas" within its borders? Is her English translation correct?


----------



## Vadim K

As far as I know there isn't a single sea in the world which is located entirely within the borders of one country. So I think the phrase can only mean that Belarus has no coastline.


----------



## Uly

Vadim K said:


> As far as I know there isn't a single sea in the world which is located entirely within the borders of one country. So I think the phrase can only mean that Belarus has no coastline.


I can only agree. To me the phrase "in Belarus" can only refer to what lies within its borders. Thank you for your clarification. The only correct translations I see possible are "Belarus is a landlocked country" and "Belarus has no coastline." Would you agree that "There are no seas in Belarus" is a ridiculous translation?


----------



## Awwal12

Uly said:


> a Russian national translated the phrase *В Беларуси не морей* as _There aren't any seas in Belarus_.


I suppose it was "не*т* морей" (otherwise it doesn't make sense). The meaning looks quite correct. Of course, I don't think it was intended to mean literally "there are no seas inside Belarusian borders" (rather implying the absence of the coastline), but at least it's what it says in Russian. The message is basically "If you are in Belarus, you won't find any seas there", looks pretty transparent.


----------



## Vadim K

Uly said:


> I can only agree. To me the phrase "in Belarus" can only refer to what lies within its borders. Thank you for your clarification. The only correct translations I see possible are "Belarus is a landlocked country" and "Belarus has no coastline." Would you agree that "There are no seas in Belarus" is a ridiculous translation?



I agree with you because you are an English native speaker. But please take into consideration that the person who translated this phrase isn't one of them. Neither do I. So this translation doesn't sound ridiculous for me. I mean, it *didn't* sound ridiculuos for me. From now on it does sound ridiculuous with the help of information provided by you.


----------



## Uly

Awwal12 said:


> I suppose it was "не*т* морей" (otherwise it doesn't make sense). The meaning looks quite correct. Of course, I don't think it was intended to mean literally "there are no seas inside Belarusian borders" (rather implying the absence of the coastline), but at least it's what it says in Russian. The message is basically "If you are in Belarus, you won't find any seas there", looks pretty transparent.


That was a typo. I've fixed it. However, I have to disagree with your interpretation. As Vadim correctly stated above, there are no countries with seas within their borders, and to say that "there are no seas in..." is an acceptable way to express that a country is landlocked, is, well...


Vadim K said:


> I agree with you because you are English native speaker. But please take into consideration that the person who translated this phrase isn't one of them. Neither do I. So this translation doesn't sound ridiculous for me. I mean, it *didn't* sound ridiculuos for me. From now on it do sound ridiculuous, with the help of information provided by you.


Vadim, this person considers herself a professional Russian-English translator))) That's why this was all so perplexing to me. I actually am a professional translator and like you, I don't argue with natives. Thank you for your response))



Awwal12 said:


> I suppose it was "не*т* морей" (otherwise it doesn't make sense). The meaning looks quite correct. Of course, I don't think it was intended to mean literally "there are no seas inside Belarusian borders" (rather implying the absence of the coastline), but at least it's what it says in Russian. The message is basically "If you are in Belarus, you won't find any seas there", looks pretty transparent.


Thank you! I was actually referring to the English version as an acceptable translation of the Russian. It's just not. Anyone who read that without the benefit of the original Russian sentence would take it to mean that the country contained no seas, which is a ludicrous proposition.


----------



## Awwal12

Well, the best translators into some language are its native speakers. If a translator isn't a native speaker of the language, he'll unavoidably make mistakes under the influence of his own native language; the only question is how many mistakes will be there (maybe really few, like one mistake in a hundred of pages).


----------



## Uly

Awwal12 said:


> Well, the best translators into some language are its native speakers. If a translator isn't a native speaker of the language, he'll unavoidably make mistakes under the influence of his own native language; the only question is how many mistakes will be there (maybe really few, like one mistake in a hundred of pages).


I agree with you 100%! It's a mistake.


----------



## Nikined

Can't you say something like "There's no sea in Belorussia" or "There isn't a sea in Belorussia"? Could it be the plural that makes it bad?


Uly said:


> there are no countries with seas within their borders, and to say that "there are no seas in..." is an acceptable way to express that a country is landlocked, is, well...


Can you tell me what did you mean after "well"?


----------



## Uly

Nikined said:


> Can't you say something like "There's no sea in Belorussia" or "There isn't a sea in Belorussia"? Could it be the plural that makes it bad?
> 
> Can you tell me what did you mean after "well"?


No, Nikined, it's not the plural, it's the wording. IN BELARUS means inside the country. There are two ways of saying that a country doesn't border with a world ocean/sea - I wrote them above.  ...is, well... ridiculous!


----------



## Awwal12

Uly said:


> There are two ways of saying that a country doesn't border with a world ocean/sea - I wrote them above.


And in the most colloquial way you can get?.. After all, both "landlocked" and "coastline" don't seem to be a part of the most basic vocabulary.


----------



## Uly

Awwal12 said:


> And in the most colloquial way you can get?.. After all, both "landlocked" and "coastline" don't seem to be a part of the most basic vocabulary.


The most colloquial way to say it is "Belarus has no coastline" but "Belarus is landlocked" is what 99% of native English speakers would say. And why does it have to be basic? Is this forum for basic English, or for correct, natural English?


----------



## Awwal12

Uly said:


> The most colloquial way to say it is "Belarus has no coastline" but "Belarus is landlocked" is what 99% of native English speakers would say. And why does it have to be basic? Is this forum for basic English, or for correct, natural English?


For natural English in any form it takes. I'm still wondering how an average redneck from Georgia would put it, for example...


----------



## Uly

Awwal12 said:


> For natural English in any form it takes. I'm still wondering how an average redneck from Georgia would put it, for example...


The average Georgia redneck might say something like "There aren't any seas in Belarus" 😂 But seriously - EVERYBODY knows what landlocked means in the English-speaking world. It's very common.


----------



## Awwal12

Uly said:


> The average Georgia redneck might say something like "There aren't any seas in Belarus" 😂 But seriously - EVERYBODY knows what landlocked means in the English-speaking world. It's very common.


I suppose any Russian speaker will _understand_ "не имеет выхода к морю" as well. Except this is an entirely different register of speech.


----------



## Assiduous student

Uly said:


> I agree with you 100%! It's a mistake.



Where's the mistake? As far as I see it, this thread raises what is entirely a non-question. Your Russian native speaker who has provided this sentence for you has not made any mistake. For a start, the Russian and English versions of this sentence are both grammatically correct (and both pretty basic sentences and so not really the subject of a substantive query here). 

You're trying to argue that "in Belarus" means something other than what it means. A nation has maritime borders, and so there are "seas" that are "within" a nation's borders. Part of the Baltic Sea is "in Russia", i.e. within Russia's acknowledged maritime borders. Russia does not end at the beach. True, I'll grant you that the according of maritime borders to countries according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is just a convention.

I don't really like the plural "seas" here, although it is not grammatically incorrect. I'd prefer "there is no sea in Belarus because it is a landlocked country".  But "sea" can be countable, so this may just be my personal preference.

What is this query about? Apparently nothing?


----------



## Assiduous student

Nikined said:


> Can't you say something like "There's no sea in Belorussia" or "There isn't a sea in Belorussia"? Could it be the plural that makes it bad?
> 
> Can you tell me what did you mean after "well"?


 
Nikined, I agree with you that Belorussia is or was more natural to Englishmen of my age than Belarus. That's because I was 22 when the USSR came to an end, and so I was already aware of Belorussia. And, of course, hardly any Belorussians speak "Belarusian". But I think the battle on that is lost.... There are also those who prefer Byelorussia, with a "y" in it.


----------



## Assiduous student

Uly said:


> No, Nikined, it's not the plural, it's the wording. IN BELARUS means inside the country. There are two ways of saying that a country doesn't border with a world ocean/sea - I wrote them above.  ...is, well... ridiculous!



Well, you are claiming that "in Belarus" cannot mean "within the country's territorial and maritime borders and airspace". But that is your own personal definition and doesn't relate to anything in the real world. And for a claimed "native speaker" and "translator" to write "doesn't border with", as if "border with" were a verb... well... чего говорить???? [There is "to border on", but "to border with" means nothing. ]


----------



## Uly

Assiduous student said:


> Where's the mistake? As far as I see it, this thread raises what is entirely a non-question. Your Russian native speaker who has provided this sentence for you has not made any mistake. For a start, the Russian and English versions of this sentence are both grammatically correct (and both pretty basic sentences and so not really the subject of a substantive query here).
> 
> You're trying to argue that "in Belarus" means something other than what it means. A nation has maritime borders, and so there are "seas" that are "within" a nation's borders. Part of the Baltic Sea is "in Russia", i.e. within Russia's acknowledged maritime borders. Russia does not end at the beach. True, I'll grant you that the according of maritime borders to countries according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is just a convention.
> 
> I don't really like the plural "seas" here, although it is not grammatically incorrect. I'd prefer "there is no sea in Belarus because it is a landlocked country".  But "sea" can be countable, so this may just be my personal preference.
> 
> What is this query about? Apparently nothing?


The query is about the fact that she meant sea(s) OUTSIDE the country - in other words - that Belarus is landlocked. She just didn't know how to express this.


----------



## Assiduous student

Uly said:


> The query is about the fact that she meant sea(s) OUTSIDE the country - in other words - that Belarus is landlocked. She just didn't know how to express this.



She did not express this incorrectly. You are being tenacious over nothing. I can tell you for a fact that THERE IS NO SEA IN BELARUS.  There is no sea in Hungary either. As Awwal12 said, "landlocked" would be correct, but belongs to a different register of speech and has a different translation into Russian.


----------



## Uly

Assiduous student said:


> She did not express this incorrectly. You are being tenacious over nothing. I can tell you for a fact that THERE IS NO SEA IN BELARUS.  There is no sea in Hungary either.


We're talking about two different things. One is bodies of water inside a country, and another is an ocean or sea that forms the border of any side of a country. Hungary and Belarus are two of 49 landlocked countries in the world.


----------



## Awwal12

Assiduous student said:


> And, of course, hardly any Belorussians speak "Belarusian". But I think the battle on that is lost.... There are also those who prefer Byelorussia, with a "y" in it.


In Russia both variants are used with no apparent preferences (the name "Беларусь" was already comparatively familiar to Soviet citizens, since this was the name of the country in Belarusian, which in turn gave name to a number of Soviet-produced tractors, trains etc.). Currently the situation is pretty much the same as with Туркмения/Туркменистан and Киргизия/Кыргызстан.
In the Russian language of Belarus, of course, only "Беларусь" will be normal.


----------



## Assiduous student

Uly said:


> We're talking about two different things. One is bodies of water inside a country, and another is water that borders outside a country. Hungary and Belarus are two of 49 landlocked countries in the world.



There is a verb "to border on". But your use is just not right. There is no such phrase as "water that *borders outside* a country".  The sea adjacent to a country is, at least partly, within that country's borders. You are claiming not to know this.


----------



## Uly

Assiduous student said:


> I'll correct my statement above that "borders" is not a verb. There is a verbal use ("to border on"). But your use is just not right. There is no such phrase as "water that *borders outside* a country".  The sea adjacent to a country is, at least partly, within that country's borders. You are claiming not to know this.


Actually, my initial question has been answered.Thank you! I edited my comment above.


----------



## Assiduous student

Another word that could be used is "shoreline". As a landlocked country, Belarus has no shoreline.


----------



## Uly

Assiduous student said:


> Another word that could be used is "shoreline". As a landlocked country, Belarus has no shoreline.


Yep! I forgot about that one))) Thank you!


----------



## Nikined

Assiduous student said:


> Nikined, I agree with you that Belorussia is or was more natural to Englishmen of my age than Belarus. That's because I was 22 when the USSR came to an end, and so I was already aware of Belorussia. And, of course, hardly any Belorussians speak "Belarusian". But I think the battle on that is lost.... There are also those who prefer Byelorussia, with a "y" in it.


It's just more natural to me.


----------



## Assiduous student

You can Google this paragraph, and find it in a UK magazine:



> Being a landlocked country there is no sea in Austria, but what it lacks in coastline the surrounding Tirol more than makes up with its lakes and consequently its water sports.


----------



## Lyutik

Assiduous student said:


> There is a verb "to border on". But your use is just not right. There is no such phrase as "water that *borders outside* a country".  The sea adjacent to a country is, at least partly, within that country's borders. You are claiming not to know this.


Thanks a lot for your explanation! That's me who wrote that phrase. And now Mr.Uly is trying to make fool of me for my "incorrect" translation.


----------



## Nikined

Lyutik said:


> Thanks a lot for your explanation! That's me who wrote that phrase. And now Mr.Uly is trying to make fool of me for my "incorrect" translation.


Three threads over one issue Not counting some private conversations, I guess


----------



## Lyutik

Nikined said:


> Three threads over one issue Not counting some private conversations, I guess


I agree with you. Яйца выеденного не стоит.


----------



## Uly

Lyutik said:


> Thanks a lot for your explanation! That's me who wrote that phrase. And now Mr.Uly is trying to make fool of me for my "incorrect" translation.


Nobody's making a fool of nobody - we're all here to learn, Lyutik))) Now you know 😉


----------



## Uly

Nikined said:


> Three threads over one issue Not counting some private conversations, I guess


Yep! And all this to learn the word *landlocked 😂*


----------



## Assiduous student

Lyutik said:


> Thanks a lot for your explanation! *It was me* who wrote that phrase. And now Mr.Uly is trying to make fool of me for my "incorrect" translation.



Lyutik, I don't know why Uly did this - and, yes, he should have been clearer who he was criticising and why. A sea "in a country" doesn't just mean one fully enclosed within the land borders; it can be a sea within its maritime borders, although Belarus has no maritime territory. This has always been clear, so this thread was a nonsense from the outset.


----------



## Assiduous student

Uly said:


> Nobody's making a fool of nobody - we're all here to learn, Lyutik))) Now you know 😉



Now he knows what? You haven't taught him anything. There is nothing wrong with the sentence "there are no seas in Belarus".


----------

