# On the 22nd of April 1887



## italics

Hi!

I've always had a problem with dates in Russian, does anyone either know any good resources where I can learn how to do them properly or can someone help me?

Sorry for my butchery of the Russian language, but...

Is 'On the 22nd April 1887'
'В двадцать второй апреля в восемнадцать восьмидесятом седмом году' ?

And is 'From 1901 (he began to...)'
'С девятнадцать перого года'?



Thanks so much for your help


----------



## Jana337

Hi and welcome! 

I will guess (please wait for our native members):

Двадцать второго апреля тысяча восемьсот восемьдесят седьмого года (everything in the genitive).
Or:
Двадцать второго апреля в тысяча восемьсот восемьдесят седьмом году (the beginning in the genitive, the year in the locative).

В тысяча девятьсот первом году он начал ...

If (!!!) I am right, the rule is: Decline only the very last part of an ordinal number.

Jana


----------



## Ptak

Двадцать второго апреля тысяча восемьсот восемьдесят седьмого года.


----------



## Etcetera

Jana's absolutely right.



Jana337 said:


> Двадцать второго апреля тысяча восемьсот восемьдесят седьмого года (everything in the genitive).
> Or:
> Двадцать второго апреля в тысяча восемьсот восемьдесят седьмом году (the beginning in the genitive, the year in the locative).


The difference between these two sentences is pretty little. Both are possible, but the first is more common, and the second would be more appropriate as the beginning of a story.


----------



## italics

thanks everyone!


----------



## Crescent

Hi there, Italics! 

I can totally understand your concern: I myself always get numbers confused in the languages that I'm learning, and after all, it is especially hard in Russian because on top of everything, we have declensions.

Although both of the versions Jana gave are perfect, I think the first one: _Двадцать второго апреля тысяча восемьсот восемьдесят седьмого года_ (everything in the genitive) is more common and sounds somewhat more...elegant. You see, in the second one, the ''break'' of declension (how it changes from genetive to locative) to me (perhaps it's a matter of personal opinion only, I have to add) sounds a little..clumsy. Although, as I said before, both are absolutely fine. 

What you have to remember is that the reason it is in the genetive, is because it answers the question: Кого, чего? --> года. And obviously after that all the 'adjectives' (in our case: numbers) have to take the same declension and agree. So that what you get is:
Седьмого марта, тысяча девятьсот девяносто четвертого года (рождения, for example) 
Good luck to you and may your studying of our beautiful language prosper!


----------



## Ptak

Crescent said:


> тысача девятьсот девяносто четвертого года


It should be "*тысяча*", not "тысача".


----------



## Crescent

Ptak said:


> It should be "*тысяча*", not "тысача".


Yes, of course you're right - it should be that indeed.  My apologies. I always do that when I'm not paying attention...


----------



## Thomas1

italics said:


> [...]
> And is 'From 1901 (he began to...)'
> 'С девятнадцать перого года'?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for your help


Could anyone please answer this part?


My guess is that it's not девятнадцать since I think Russians don't use this kind of method to give dates.

My try:
_от тысяча девятьсот первого года_

I have an additional question:
how do you decline years that are higher than 1999, for example: on the 21st of June 2005? Does something change?


Tom


----------



## Ptak

italics said:


> And is 'From 1901 (he began to...)'
> 'С (одна) (тысяча) девятьсот первого года'?


*С* 1901 года is correct.

But "*от* 1901 года" can be used too (more rarely), depending on the context.


----------



## Ptak

Thomas1 said:


> how do you decline years that are higher than 1999, for example: on the 21st of June 2005? Does something change?


Nom. Две тысячи пятый год
Gen. Две тысячи пятого года
Dat. Две тысячи пятому году
Acc. Две тысячи пятый год
Instr. Две тысячи пятым годом
Prep. Две тысячи пятом годе

And only for 2000:

Nom. Двухтысячный год
Gen. Двухтысячного года
Dat. Двухтысячному году
Acc. Двухтысячный год
Instr. Двухтысячным годом
Prep. Двухтысячном годе


----------



## Etcetera

Thomas1 said:


> on the 21st of June 2005?


It would be Двадцать первого июня две тысячи пятого года.
So, the basic principle is the same. We don't divide the number of the year into two parts (as the English do), but we read the whole number.


----------



## Thomas1

Thank you both. 


Ptak said:


> *С* 1901 года is correct.
> 
> But "*от* 1901 года" can be used too (more rarely), depending on the context.


Could you please give an example of its usage?

Could I use it in the following context?
from 1901 to 1910
от 1901 года до 1910 года

One more question: did I decline correctly 1901 in my version?


Tom


----------



## Ptak

Thomas1 said:


> Could you please give an example of its usage?


For example, "Постановление правительства *от* 1 апреля 1989 года..." (or just "от 1989 года")



Thomas1 said:


> Could I use it in the following context?
> from 1901 to 1910
> от 1901 года до 1910 года


This "context" is not complete at all, but mostly it would be used not "от 1901 года до 1910 года", but "*с* 1901 года до 1910 года" or even "*с* 1901 года *по* 1910 (nom. case.) *год*".

For example: "С 1901 года по 1910 год он работал врачом в местной больнице".



Thomas1 said:


> One more question: did I decline correctly 1901 in my version?


"от тысяча девятьсот первого года" is grammatically correct.


----------



## lilyolie

I am trying to find out how you would write the year 1974 (and) 1999 in russian dialect.  thank you much


----------



## Q-cumber

1974 - тысяча девятьсот семьдесят четвёртый (год)
 1999 -  тысяча девятьсот девяносто девятый (год)


However, I would not call the Russain language a dialect. 


PS The Slavic Languages' partition is located here.


----------



## lilyolie

Thank you is there a shorter way to write it.

thank you much


----------



## Q-cumber

lilyolie said:


> Thank you is there a shorter way to write it.
> thank you much



Well, Russians also use the Arabic numerals.  The shortest way to write these is: "1974" & "1999" accordingly.

It the 20-th century it was common to omit the first two digits, i.e. "семьдесят четвёртый год" (74) instead of "тысяча девятьсот семьдесят четвёртый год" (1974). Now that doesn't sound that well.


----------



## Ptak

Q-cumber said:


> Now that doesn't sound that well.


То есть если ты _сейчас_ скажешь "в 74-м году", то тебя не поймут?


----------



## Crescent

Ptak said:


> То есть если ты _сейчас_ скажешь "в 74-м году", то тебя не поймут?



No, I think Ptak has a point!  I believe everyone would understand you perfectly. In fact, it is exactly like in English you can say '94 instead of 1994. But this only applies to the 20th century. Otherwise, you have to state clearly which century you're talking about.


----------



## Nanon

Just for fun... what about "в 5-м году"? Should we add "нашего века"? 
Of course, I would say "two years ago"... I know...


----------



## Crescent

Nanon said:


> Just for fun... what about "в 5-м году"? Should we add "нашего века"?
> Of course, I would say "two years ago"... I know...



Ah, no, no! For this, you would have to say ''двухтысячи пятый год'' comme: deux milles cinque.


----------



## Nanon

Crescent said:


> Ah, no, no! For this, you would have to say ''двухтысячи пятый год'' comme: deux mille cinq.



Thank you Crescent for clarifying - I knew the response, though. Also, saying "year five" or "six" or "seven"... does not work well, not only in Russian, but in any language I know - and for similar reasons. If you say "year five", you may be almost sure that... тебя не поймут.  
I apologise if I broke a rule by using irony.


----------



## Ptak

Crescent said:


> Ah, no, no! For this, you would have to say ''двухтысячи пятый год'' comme: deux milles cinque.


 
Are you kidding?
It should be "*две тысячи* пятый год".


----------



## Crescent

Ptak said:


> Are you kidding?
> It should be "*две тысячи* пятый год".



Oh, my gosh, really??  I wasn't kidding, no.  *dies of embarassment* It sounded just fine when I said it to myself two minutes ago. 
I'm so sorry, dear foreros! Shoot me!  
Thanks, Ptak. I owe you one!


----------



## Ptak

Ptak said:


> Nom. *Две тысячи пятый год*
> Gen. Две тысячи пятого года
> Dat. Две тысячи пятому году
> Acc. Две тысячи пятый год
> Instr. Две тысячи пятым годом
> Prep. Две тысячи пятом годе
> 
> *And only for 2000:*
> 
> Nom. *Двухтысячный* год
> Gen. Двухтысячного года
> Dat. Двухтысячному году
> Acc. Двухтысячный год
> Instr. Двухтысячным годом
> Prep. Двухтысячном годе


----------



## Q-cumber

Ptak said:


> То есть если ты _сейчас_ скажешь "в 74-м году", то тебя не поймут?



Поймут, конечно.  И я, скорее всего, так и скажу. Однако, в 21 веке это уже звучит несколько..."менее определённо", что ли. Я заметил, что в прессе всё чаще (increasingly  ) пишут с уточнением "в семидесятые годы *двадцатого (прошлого) века*" <the seventieth years of the twentieth (last) century>
   Конечно, многое тут зависит от контекста. Имеет большое значение, насколько очевидно что события, о которых идёт речь, происходили именно в двадцатом веке.


----------



## Q-cumber

Nanon said:


> Thank you Crescent for clarifying - I knew the response, though. Also, saying "year five" or "six" or "seven"... does not work well, not only in Russian, but in any language I know - and for similar reasons. If you say "year five", you may be almost sure that... тебя не поймут.
> I apologise if I broke a rule by using irony.



It's funny. I am trying to realise, which year would be the first one that sounds OK in such а representation.
1910 - "десятый год" still sounds weird...  

By they way, should we talk about the year of 1905 (1910), I'd omit "тысяча" and say "девятьсот пятый год" (or "девятьсот десятый год"). By some uncertain reasons, that doesn't work for greater numbers. You can't say "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году" <in the year of "975"  > 

By the way, there were several years in the 20th century that have particular meanings in Russian language, as follows. Most probably, one of these would be named in the short form
1917 - the year of the Bolshevic revolution - "семнадцатый год"
1937 - in this year most severe Stalin's repressions (1937-1938) and executions had began ("тридцать седьмой")
1938 - sometimes has the same meaning
1941 - the year of the beginning of the WW2 (on June 22nd, 1941 Hitler first attacked the USSR). "сорок первый"
1945 - the year of the Victory "сорок пятый"
the sixtieth - "шестидесятые" the years of the "Khrushyov snowbreak" (freedom of speech, etc.). The people that belong to the generation that was active in the sixtieth are often called "шестидесятники"...    

....and so on


----------



## Maroseika

Q-cumber said:


> By they way, should we talk about the year of 1905 (1910), I'd omit "тысяча" and say "девятьсот пятый год" (or "девятьсот десятый год"). By some uncertain reasons, that doesn't work for greater numbers. You can't say "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году" <in the year of "975"  >


To me it seems quite right and I often hear it and use myself.
As for the current century, more an dmore often I hear "ноль пятый".


----------



## Ptak

Maroseika said:


> You can't say "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году"
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems quite right and I often hear it and use myself.
Click to expand...

I agree...


----------



## Q-cumber

Maroseika said:


> To me it seems quite right and I often hear it and use myself.


To ensure, I've done a context search on the Rambler for <"девятьсот восемьдесят" год>. I've looked though at least 10 resulting pages (150 matches), and there  always was "тысяча" added in front of  "девятьсот восемьдесят...". The few results without "тысяча" refered to the 10th century. You can check for yourself, if you wish...

A similar search for the "девятьсот десятый год" brought seven matches without "тысяча" on the first two pages.
 Of course, I don't mean it's wrong to say "девятьсот семьдесят пятый" год. Yet this form is definitely less common for the "big numbers".


----------



## cyanista

I don't know if it's a question of personal preference but "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году" means the year 975 to me. If someone said that meaning 1975 I would deduce it from the context but it would sound odd and incomplete to me. 

"в семьдесят пятом году" is on the contrary quite common (or _still_ common) to denote 1975. All of us were born in the 20th century (at least, I suppose so ), so we will automatically see all two-digit numbers as referring to that century. It will probably change with the next generation.


----------



## Nanon

All your contributions are great! Sorry I read Crescent's reply to my message in such a haste I didn't ask to confirm anything. Две тысячи пятый год was indeed the reply I had in mind!!!
Cyanista, about the use of two digits, this is slightly off-topic but we have a two-digit example in French literature: "Quatre-vingt-treize" (i.e. 93) by Victor Hugo. It was written (obviously) in the XIX century and it depicts the French revolution, thus it is about 1793. It is translated as "93-й год" as far as I know.


----------



## Ptak

cyanista said:


> I don't know if it's a question of personal preference but "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году" means the year 975 to me.


Maybe it depends on the context?


----------



## Etcetera

cyanista said:


> I don't know if it's a question of personal preference but "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году" means the year 975 to me. If someone said that meaning 1975 I would deduce it from the context but it would sound odd and incomplete to me.
> 
> "в семьдесят пятом году" is on the contrary quite common (or _still_ common) to denote 1975. All of us were born in the 20th century (at least, I suppose so ), so we will automatically see all two-digit numbers as referring to that century. It will probably change with the next generation.


I totally agree with Cyanista here.


----------



## Q-cumber

cyanista said:


> I don't know if it's a question of personal preference but "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году" means the year 975 to me. If someone said that meaning 1975 I would deduce it from the context but it would sound odd and incomplete to me.
> 
> "в семьдесят пятом году" is on the contrary quite common (or _still_ common) to denote 1975. All of us were born in the 20th century (at least, I suppose so ), so we will automatically see all two-digit numbers as referring to that century. It will probably change with the next generation.



I agree...На нашем диалекте - "в семьдесят пятом году"  "в девятьсот семьдесят пятом году"


----------



## Athaulf

On a related note, I'd like to ask if it's common for native Russian speakers to get confused about the declensions of numbers? Slavic languages generally have notoriously complex and irregular grammatical rules for the use of numbers, but in Croatian even we native speakers are hard pressed to correctly put a noun phrase containing a number (especially a composite number!) into a case other than nominative. From a casual glance at Russian number declension tables, they seem to me almost as bad as the Croatian ones, so I'm curious whether even the native speakers might have a similar problem?


----------



## CrazyArcher

One more difference about the years:
When you refer to a decade before 20th century as, for the sake of example, _"1840's"_, the Russian equivalent would be _"сороковые годы девятнадцатого века"_. English is much more elegant here 

It's quite spectacular to watch the impact that the change of century makes on the language. While references like "70's" or "80's" are common as they were 10 years ago (and personally I use them alot, since I'm involved into music), my generation is the last one that will be comfortable with it, and even for us it's probably going to fade away in a decade or so. Oh, I'm not 20 yet and I already feel old...


----------



## Q-cumber

Athaulf said:


> On a related note, I'd like to ask if it's common for native Russian speakers to get confused about the declensions of numbers? Slavic languages generally have notoriously complex and irregular grammatical rules for the use of numbers, but in Croatian even we native speakers are hard pressed to correctly put a noun phrase containing a number (especially a composite number!) into a case other than nominative. From a casual glance at Russian number declension tables, they seem to me almost as bad as the Croatian ones, so I'm curious whether even the native speakers might have a similar problem?



Well, I don't see a big problem here, because only the last digit is being changed. *"тысяча девятьсот семьдесят"* (is fixed) *"пять"* (makes the difference). Thus it is as easy as to play with number "пять" alone. Is it different in Croatian?


----------



## cyanista

Q-cumber said:


> Well, I don't see a big problem here, because only the last digit is being changed. *"тысяча девятьсот семьдесят"* (is fixed) *"пять"* (makes the difference). Thus it is as easy as to play with number "пять" alone. Is it different in Croatian?


No Q, what you've written only applies to ordinal numbers (*тысяча девятьсот семьдесят* *пятый*).
Every single part of a cardinal number must be declined. I'll take an example from this site as I'm too lazy to write it myself. 

*Nominative* шестьсот двадцать четыре 
*                Genitive*                шестисот двадцати четырёх 
* Dative* шестистам двадцати четырём 
*                Accusative* as                Nominative 
* Instumental* шестьюстами двадцатью четырьмя 
*                Prepositional* (о)                шестистах двадцати четырёх

Most native speakers do have a problem getting it right so they just ignore the rules and start declining somewhere closer to the end.  Perhaps it's about time someone abolished this rule? 

Edit: I've just seen a mistake in their example and corrected it. You see, it's terribly difficult!


----------



## Athaulf

Q-cumber said:


> Well, I don't see a big problem here, because only the last digit is being changed. *"тысяча девятьсот семьдесят"* (is fixed) *"пять"* (makes the difference). Thus it is as easy as to play with number "пять" alone. Is it different in Croatian?



It's not different -- only the last word in the composite number is declined (though I see from the post below that you do have some confusion at least over that in Russian ). However, in Croatian we already have problems with simple numbers, and the unchanged words in composite numbers further confuse the matter because they make it even harder to feel which form is correct. 

Croatian declensions of numbers are terribly irregular, and there are many bizarre variations with gender and animacy. It also doesn't help that different numbers take different cases of the corresponding adjectives and nouns (kind of like in Russian, but more complicated). In many cases, people (myself included) will intentionally rephrase the sentence to avoid having to put a numbered noun phrase in cases other than the nominative. 

Some cases are simple, for example the forms _dvojica_, _trojica_, etc., which are used to number men (but not women, and not any other animate nouns!), decline like regular feminine (not a typo ) nouns. But if you ask for the declension of the similar forms _dvoje_, _troje_, etc. that are used for mixed-sex groups, children, and some animals (I swear I'm not making this up ), I'll probably think for a minute and conclude that I'm clueless. I'm not even comfortable with declining such simple forms as, say, _dva stola_ or _dvije žene_.


----------



## Q-cumber

*cyanista*
Yeah, you are absolutely right. While composing my presvious post, I was thinking about years only, not cardinal numbers.  Like (I believe) the most of the other native speakers, I never apply to the Grammar rules, when I am about  to say ot to write something. In fact, it wouldn't cause me even a slight difficultу to say: "Книга состояла из шестисот двадцати четырёх страниц" or "Мы отправили письма шестистам двадцати четырём адресатам", etc. Is seems to be pretty obvious to me. However, should you ask me about the cases and rules used for the conjugations, I'll not be able to answer. And I admit, it should be really difficult for a foreigner to unravel all these grammatical nuances.


----------



## Q-cumber

Athaulf said:


> Some cases are simple, for example the forms _dvojica_, _trojica_, etc., which are used to number men (but not women, and not any other animate nouns!), decline like regular feminine (not a typo ) nouns. But if you ask for the declension of the similar forms _dvoje_, _troje_, etc. that are used for mixed-sex groups, children, and some animals (I swear I'm not making this up ), I'll probably think for a minute and conclude that I'm clueless. I'm not even comfortable with declining such simple forms as, say, _dva stola_ or _dvije žene_.


I am trying to realise whether or not we have the same problems with Russian numbers.


----------

