# и поехал по своим делам



## wonlon

Question 2:

From my Russian friend's facebook status, which reads:

 По пути из Харбина в Пекин сегодня заметил две китайские аэропортовые инновации
- автоматический считыватель посадочных талонов при входе в самолет у гейта, который при каждом считывании говорит "счастливого пути" (на китайском)
- кабинки для переодевания прямо около транспортера с багажом, кабинки очень чистые, внутри есть зеркало, вешалка, скамейка и стол.   *Мне кажется, очень удобно, прилетел, зашел, переоделся, если нужно, и поехал по своим делам.* Такого раньше не видел нигде.

What does the phrase *Мне кажется, очень удобно, **прилетел, зашел, переоделся, если нужно, и поехал по своим делам* mean?
I understand it as "It seems to me very convenient, I (looks like there is an omitted Я) arrived, passed by, if necessary, also ???", so I just understand it fragmentally.
I particularly don't understand *и поехал по своим делам*.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Miralasa

It is a way to form impersonal constructions: "You arrive, walk in, change your clothes if necessary, and go on about your business."


----------



## Saluton

The punctuation should be corrected: Мне кажется, очень удобно: прилетел...
Miralasa's translation is good.


----------



## wonlon

*прилетел, зашел, переоделся, если нужно, и поехал по своим делам*
Why is past tense used here? I actually thought that it is an actual past action done by my friend.


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> *прилетел, зашел, переоделся, если нужно, и поехал по своим делам*
> Why is past tense used here? I actually thought that it is an actual past action done by my friend.



It is past, because it is perfect - situation is being described as if already having happened. It is also possible to use present / impefect:
Приезжаешь, заходишь, переодеваешься, если нужно, и едешь по своим делам.

Variant with past / perfect sounds more drastic.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> It is past, because it is perfect - situation is being described as if already having happened. It is also possible to use present / impefect:
> Приезжаешь, заходишь, переодеваешься, если нужно, и едешь по своим делам.
> 
> Variant with past / perfect sounds more drastic.



Is it a kind of subjunctive mood or hypothetical mood, which uses past tense?


----------



## Maroseika

wonlon said:


> Is it a kind of subjunctive mood or hypothetical mood, which uses past tense?



No, this is the object mood.


----------



## wonlon

You mean there is a use of Russian past tense, that I can pretend something happened (though I am referring to habitual action _(since "arrive, walk in, change clothes" are done by passengers every day)_), so it sounds more drastic?
I used to think it must be present tense - Приезжаешь, заходишь, переодеваешься.

Russian is really a mystery.


----------



## Drink

wonlon said:


> You mean there is a use of Russian past tense, that I can pretend something happened (though I am referring to habitual action _(since "arrive, walk in, change clothes" are done by passengers every day)_), so it sounds more drastic?
> I used to think it must be present tense - Приезжаешь, заходишь, переодеваешься.
> 
> Russian is really a mystery.



You can use the present as well, but they are used in slightly different ways that I find difficult to explain. The past tense was originally just a perfect participle, and it came to be used for much more than just the past tense.


----------



## Словеса

Hello,


wonlon said:


> (looks like there is an omitted Я)


You're right. It's an impersonal "I". Though you may imagine it as the third person as well ("someone arrived, entered …", i.e. a hypothetical person that you imagine and whose actions you explain). Certainly no "you" here, though it passes well in the translation.


----------



## Словеса

Maroseika said:


> Variant with past / perfect sounds more drastic.


Quite right. Because it sounds more perfective. I mean: not only perfect (in the sense you described), but also perfective.


----------



## Drink

Словеса said:


> Hello,
> 
> You're right. It's an impersonal "I". Though you may imagine it as the third person as well ("someone arrived, entered …", i.e. a hypothetical person that you imagine and whose actions you explain). Certainly no "you" here, though it passes well in the translation.



I disagree, there certainly can be an implied "you" there in Russian (even if not always). For example you can easily add "Ну ты, например" to the beginning without changing the meaning: Ну ты, например, прилетел, зашел, переоделся, если нужно, и поехал по своим делам.


----------



## Словеса

Drink said:


> I disagree, there certainly can be an implied "you" there in Russian (even if not always).


I think it just depends on any particular person's imagination. So all three imaginary persons are possible: first, second, and third. I, by default, read it in the third person.
The English version with 'you' sounds "strange" to me, but it's maybe also for the reason mentioned by Maroseika: it's not as "drastic" (in my imagination). Plus, I feel no dialogue in these Russian words (that's why I rejected the second person promptly); quite the opposite in the English version.
In reality, this question is probably scholastic, like the number of angels on the head of a pin.  Maybe, there are no persons at all, only the sense of the list of actions being possible and doable by someone.


----------



## Drink

Словеса said:


> I think it just depends on any particular person's imagination. So all three imaginary persons are possible: first, second, and third. I, by default, read it in the third person.
> The English version with 'you' sounds "strange" to me, but it's maybe also for the reason mentioned by Maroseika: it's not as "drastic" (in my imagination). Plus, I feel no dialogue in these Russian words (that's why I rejected the second person promptly); quite the opposite in the English version.



I guess under the influence of English, I read it in the second person by default. In English _you_ is used impersonally in this construction like French _on_, but Russian also uses _ты_ in this way (at least colloquially). There does not need to be any dialog.



Словеса said:


> In reality, this question is probably scholastic, like the number of angels on the head of a pin.  Maybe, there are no persons at all, only the sense of the list of actions being possible and doable by someone.



I completely agree here.


----------



## wonlon

Словеса said:


> In reality, this question is probably scholastic, like the number of angels on the head of a pin.  Maybe, there are no persons at all, only the sense of the list of actions being possible and doable by someone.



I also think that the person is hypothetical, just someone, anyone who passes by the кабинки.


----------



## wonlon

Maroseika said:


> Variant with past / perfect sounds more drastic.


After one day of contemplation, I still find the word "drastic" very vague. What is "drastic"? And how can perfective+past make a feeling "drastic"?


----------



## Словеса

wonlon said:


> After one day of contemplation, I still find the word "drastic" very vague. What is "drastic"? And how can perfective+past make a feeling "drastic"?


It's the meaning of the perfective aspect that it makes an action be dealt with as momentary. It's just how it happens to be thought of in our imagination: as an action whose duration is not attentively considered. It's unlike the other variant.
Completeness ("perfectness" as opposed to "perfectiveness") is a byproduct here, I think.


----------

