# быть



## JanisPearl

Hi! I have some questions about the use of verb быть.
My teacher told me than when I want to say,for example "He was an engineer" I have to use the verb быть+instrumental case = он был инженером.She said that we use this construction,verb быть+instrumental case,ONLY when we want to indicate the job a person did. 
But: in my book,I found this phrase:"Вот пачему главной идеей Ломоносава была идея создания русского университета" In this text they talk about Lomonosav, and they say that in his time he couldun't study in Russia,and so he had to go abroad to study.And than there is the phrase I put above.I translated it in italian as "Ecco perchè la principale idea di Lomonosov fu l'idea della fondazione dell'università russa."Is it correct?
Than,my question is: if the verb была is referred to главной идеей,why are these two words in the instrumental case? They don't indicate a job.
I suppose it's a rule i don't know 
 Some lines later there is also a similar phrase: 
Ломоносов был великий человек,он создал первый университет,он,лучше сказать,сам был первым нашим университетом. The first быть is followed by nominative case,an the second one by the instrumental case. Can somebody explain me,in simple words,why?


----------



## ExMax

Both these forms are accepted. 
 The quote from Rosentahl: “Существительное и прилагательное в функции именной части составного сказуемого могут стоять как в форме и м е н и т е л ь н о г о, так и в форме т в о р и т е л ь н о г о падежа; ср.: И в семье его Савельич был свой человек (Мельников-Печерский). -- И у Ивашиных он был своим человеком (Чехов); День был тусклый, теплый (Шукшин)”. 
There are some stylistic requirements though, but you can consider these requirements as minor.


----------



## dec-sev

JanisPearl said:


> She said that we use this construction,verb быть+instrumental case,ONLY when we want to indicate the job a person did.


 I don't think that's true. I mean only the job.


> "Вот п*o*чему главной идеей Ломоносава была идея создания русского университета"


 You've got the answer. Not only with jobs.


> Ломоносов был великий человек,он создал первый университет,он,лучше сказать,сам был первым нашим университетом


You can also say "Ломоносов был великим человеком" (instrumental case) and I would say that "был первым нашим университетом" is the only possible choice here. I mean был "первый наш университет" does not sound good at all.
May be you've misunderstood your teacher's words. Ask her and show her the exapmles with идея и Ломоносов.


----------



## JanisPearl

For ExMax:

Thank you for your answer,but I have a problem...My knowledge of russian is really elementar,i'm attending the first year course at university so...!Could you please translate what you wrote in english?


----------



## JanisPearl

dec-sev said:


> I don't think that's true. I mean only the job.
> You've got the answer. Not only with jobs.
> 
> You can also say "Ломоносов был великим человеком" (instrumental case) and I would say that "был первым нашим университетом" is the only possible choice here. I mean был "первый наш университет" does not sound good at all.
> May be you've misunderstood your teacher's words. Ask her and show her the exapmles with идея и Ломоносов.



Unfortunately I have no other lessons...Just the exam!
So,we can say that there is not a precise rule about the use of быть?
I must know it! Infact during the exam,she wants us to read the texts she chooses,and she wants us to explain the grammatical rules,so I have to be able to say,for example,why in this case the verb is followed by nominative case,and in another case by instrumental


----------



## ExMax

JanisPearl said:


> Could you please translate what you wrote in english?


Rosentahl is an author of the reputable reference book of the rules of the Russian grammar. The quote confirms that both nominative and instrumental case of nouns and adjectives can be used in predicative of compound predicates.


----------



## JanisPearl

Ok,thank you very much


----------



## ExMax

I’ve read again the chapter regarding the declination of predicative. The main idea is, “No strict rules  ” 
 You can find lots of examples when both  instrumental case, and  nominative case are used. What about me, usually I use the instrumental case with “был”.


----------



## JanisPearl

Ok,thank you again.
I have another little question about the verb быть: In this phrase"Первоначально в Московском Университете было три факултета:философский,юридический и медицинский,а сейсас больше  двадцати." 
Why is the verb be in the neutral form ending -o and not in the plural form ending in -i? I learnt that if the subject (три факултета ) is plural,i have to put the verb in the plural form "были". Why is it singular and neutral?


----------



## ExMax

You have rather difficult example for a first-grader  . You have so called impersonal sentence here, therefore the neutral form of the predicate is acceptable. In fact, "было" is not an action of "три факультета", so you cannot consider "три факультета" as a subject.
But: "Три факультета был*и* самыми популярными"


----------



## JanisPearl

ExMax said:


> You have rather difficult example for a first-grader  . You have so called impersonal sentence here, therefore the neutral form of the predicate is acceptable. In fact, "было" is not an action of "три факультета", so you cannot consider "три факультета" as a subject.
> But: "Три факультета был*и* самыми популярными"



Thank you again^^
I hope i'll have a better teacher the next year!


----------



## JanisPearl

Ps: could you please write me some other simple examples,with easy words,in which the verb be is used in the past,in the neutral form ,with a plural subject?


----------



## ExMax

"Было много причин ей отказать, но я согласился помочь" 
In fact, in Russian impersonal sentences, "было" (neutral, singular) is the only acceptable form for "быть" in the past tense. 
Russian impersonal sentences (i.e. "without an acting subject") is a big and rather complicated category. I think you need to read any textbook about this part of the Russian grammar.


----------



## JanisPearl

...Isn't причин singular in this case???


----------



## ExMax

Definitely, no. "There were many reasons to refuse..."


----------



## JanisPearl

So when my book says "if a noun ends in consonant" it's male,singular, it doesn't say the truth?
I studyed that the endings for plural may be just three: и,ы,а. And причин has none of these letters in the end. So did i learn another wrong thing? 
I start hating my book.


----------



## JanisPearl

Or is it  because много wants the following word in the genitive case?


----------



## ExMax

JanisPearl said:


> Or is it  because много wants the following word in the genitive case?


Absolutely. "Много (чего?) причин." The nominative is "причин*ы*". The singular form is "причина", i.e. the feminine gender


----------



## JanisPearl

Russian has an interesting,but completely different grammar from italian,so many things sound really strange!

Thank you very much for your patience


----------

