# Спрос порождает предложение



## meyerhold

Could someone kindly help me with the following sentence: "Спрось порождает предложение."  Since the context is in the past tense, I am assuming that the use of the present here means the phrase is idiomatic - am I correct?  Thank you.


----------



## igusarov

meyerhold said:


> "Спрос*ь* порождает предложение."  Since the context is in the past tense, I am assuming that the use of the present here means the phrase is idiomatic - am I correct?


Not necessarily idiomatic. Present here means that the cause-effect relations between the demand and supply are not specific to that particular situation in the past. Increase in demand is always followed by corresponding increase in supply. This happens everywhere all the time. So, present tense was used here pretty much in the same sense as present simple in English: to indicate a usual, repetitive action.

Edit:
Sorry, the translation would be: "Demand generates supply". The verb used for "generate" literally means "gives birth to".


----------



## meyerhold

Thank you - I had arrived at "Demand produces its own supply" - demand generates supply is better.


----------



## Saluton

The set expression is *спрос рождает предложение*. The option with порождает is rare.


----------



## Nickle Sydney

Saluton said:


> The set expression is *спрос рождает предложение*. The option with порождает is rare.



Забавно, всю жизнь говорил "порождает"


----------



## FairOaks

igusarov said:


> The verb used for "generate" literally means "gives birth to".



Yeah, exactly what "generate" means, too.
 genus = род
generare = рож(д)ать
…


----------



## Drink

FairOaks said:


> Yeah, exactly what "generate" means, too.
> genus = род
> generare = рож(д)ать
> …



The original Latin root, yes. But in English, no one would ever associate the word "generate" with birth.


----------



## meyerhold

Thank you, everyone.  (Drink" - actually, I would associate generate with birth, in the right context. - Meyerhold)


----------



## Drink

meyerhold said:


> Thank you, everyone.  (Drink" - actually, I would associate generate with birth, in the right context. - Meyerhold)



Can you give an example of such a context?


----------



## meyerhold

Hi - I mean by association.  Not that it means to give birth, but that it raises that association because of the root, "gen" as in generation, or progeny (offspring).


----------



## Johnoldman

meyerhold said:


> Could someone kindly help me with the following sentence: "Спрось порождает предложение."  Since the context is in the past tense, I am assuming that the use of the present here means the phrase is idiomatic - am I correct?  Thank you.


You have an mistake. It's incorrect "Спрось" correct is "Спрос"


----------



## Johnoldman

Saluton said:


> The set expression is *спрос рождает предложение*. The option with порождает is rare.


It is not so )) "порождает" in this option is ok


----------



## FairOaks

Drink said:


> Can you give an example of such a context?


Something along the lines of: " … The Norton family has since generated many offspring." And don't tell me it was used in the sense of "make" (...)


----------



## Bostan

Если мне память не изменяет (я - выпускник финансового факультета) слова Кейса в переводе на русский звучат именно так  - "спрос *рождает* предложение".


----------



## Drink

meyerhold said:


> Hi - I mean by association.  Not that it means to give birth, but that it raises that association because of the root, "gen" as in generation, or progeny (offspring).



Like I said, there is no such association for most English speakers.



FairOaks said:


> Something along the lines of: " … The Norton family has since generated many offspring." And don't tell me it was used in the sense of "make" (...)



I am _not_ saying that in that sentence "generate" _means_ "make" or "create", but it _can_ be _replaced_ with "make" or "create" without the sentence losing any of the association with birth, because this association comes from the word "offspring" and not from "generate".


----------



## FairOaks

Drink said:


> I am _not_ saying that in that sentence "generate" _means_ "make" or "create", but it _can_ be _replaced_ with "make" or "create" without the sentence losing any of the association with birth, because this association comes from the word "offspring" and not from "generate".



Yeah well, I'm not saying that in the sentence "I cooked lunch for my wife" the word "cook" means "prepare" or "make (ready)", either, but it can be replaced with "prepare" or "make" without affecting the association with food one bit, for this association springs from the word "lunch", and not "cook".


----------



## Drink

FairOaks said:


> Yeah well, I'm not saying that in the sentence "I cooked lunch for my wife" the word "cook" means "prepare" or "make (ready)", either, but it can be replaced with "prepare" or "make" without affecting the association with food one bit, for this association springs from the word "lunch", and not "cook".



And if that were the only argument the association between the word "cook" and food, then you would be right. But unfortunately for you, "I cooked for my wife" also has an association with food, which is much better proof.


----------



## FairOaks

Drink said:


> And if that were the only argument the association between the word "cook" and food, then you would be right. But unfortunately for you, "I cooked for my wife" also has an association with food, which is much better proof.


So mine isn't proof, and yours is? (...). Are you trying to shape meaning according to some vague associations (derived from random sentences, at that) you yourself have? If that's the case, I'd like to have a go at it, too:
_I angrily banged on her door.
I banged her angrily._
Something's wrong here. Apparently, "bang" doesn't mean what it's supposed to. And hey, if one day people start using it primarily in the second sense, then to hell with it… The word might as well never have meant "slam".
(...)


----------



## Maroseika

*Moderatorial:

Dear foreros,
Let me remind you the scope of this thread: 

"Спрос порождает предложение."  Since the context is in the past tense,  I am assuming that the use of the present here means the phrase is  idiomatic - am I correct? 

Before further posting here, please make sure your post is really contributing to this theme.*


----------



## Словеса

Bostan said:


> Если мне память не изменяет (я - выпускник финансового факультета) слова Кейса в переводе на русский звучат именно так  - "спрос *рождает* предложение".


Финансовый факультет, я думаю, здесь ни при чём, переводить можно по-разному: «рождает» и «порождает» – слова из обихода. Впрочем, если бы Вы могли прояснить историю вопроса (где фраза появилась, как она тогда выглядела, кто её переводил, кто её использовал), я думаю, это было бы уместно и интересно…


----------



## Bostan

Словеса said:


> Финансовый факультет, я думаю, здесь ни при чём, переводить можно по-разному: «рождает» и «порождает» – слова из обихода. Впрочем, если бы Вы могли прояснить историю вопроса (где фраза появилась, как она тогда выглядела, кто её переводил, кто её использовал), я думаю, это было бы уместно и интересно.



 Вам стоило бы более внимательно прочитать мой пост. Я там упомянул имя известного британского экономиста Джона Кейнса, т.к. вышеупомянутые слова принадлежат именно ему. Во всех русскоязычных учебниках по экономикe, данная фраза звучит именно так "спрос рождает (а не порождает) предложение". Переводить можно, конечно, по-разному, т.к. оба варианта подходят.


----------

