# disappeared on me



## esperansa

Hi. How would you say it in Russian?

We had amazing chemistry then suddently he *disappeared on* *me*.

_He disappeared on me_" suggests that his disappearance caused problems of some kind. What happened was to the person's disadvantage.


----------



## Vadim K

пропал из виду


----------



## Sobakus

_...взял и пропал/пропал ни с того ни с сего/куда-то делся_, итп. Поскольку роль фразы – придать высказыванию американской выразительности, просто используйте какое-нибудь эмоционально окрашенное выражение в зависимости от контекста.

p.s.:предполагаю, пропущенное слово – teacher.


----------



## Rosett

"Он исчез по моей вине/из-за меня/к моему разочарованию".
Как в песне поётся: "Ко мне он больше не вернётся,
Оставил только карточку свою" (_три на четыре фотку_).


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Actually there's no "teacher" or omitted word here. We had _amazing chemistry_: психологическая совместимость, мы отлично понимали друг друга, взаимная симпатия; взаимопонимание; притяжение, влечение друг к другу - but you're the natives. 

*He disappeared on me*: the "on" is a kind of* emotional/ethical dative* or* dative of interest* (call it what you like!), whose sense can sometimes be reflected to some extent in Russian in imperative scenarios such as _don't hang up on me _- не вздумай повесить трубку; _don't die on me, please! _- смотри, не умирай; не вздумай у меня умереть!, but I'm not sure if this_ on me_ can be reflected in a declarative "he disappeared on me" statement in Russian, but again - you're the natives! Maybe the "emotional colouring" of the statement could be reflected by something like "а вот исчез!", with the "me" element being evident from the context.

As esperansa says, by saying _he disappeared on me_ (instead of simply _he disappeared_), the speaker relates emotionally to the disappearance; the speaker didn't want the person to disappear, either because that had some sort of unpleasant consequence for the speaker, or because the speaker feels bad about the fact that he/she wasn't able to prevent the person from disappearing.

In Czech this dative of interest is rendered using the short form dative personal pronoun, which doesn't exist in Russian. Zmizet: to disappear. (On) zmizel - he disappeared. On mi zmizel - He disappeared on me.


----------



## Sobakus

Enquiring Mind said:


> Actually there's no "teacher" or omitted word here. We had _amazing chemistry_


One of these cases where your brain just locks up on you.


----------



## esperansa

thanks for the answers.


Enquiring Mind said:


> I'm not sure if this_ on me_ can be reflected in a declarative "he disappeared on me" statement in Russian,
> _
> he disappeared on me_ (instead of simply _he disappeared_), the speaker relates emotionally to the disappearance; the speaker didn't want the person to disappear, either because that had some sort of unpleasant consequence for the speaker, or because the speaker feels bad about the fact that he/she wasn't able to prevent the person from disappearing.



Perhaps we can say, "Он, к сожалению, пропал" or "К моему сожалению, он пропал".
The "me" element is reflected by  "_к сожалению" & "к моему сожалению" _that express emotions of the speaker.


----------



## Sobakus

esperansa said:


> Perhaps we can say, "Он, к сожалению, пропал" or "К моему сожалению, он пропал".
> The "me" element is reflected by  "_к сожалению" & "к моему сожалению" _that express emotions of the speaker.


There's a reason "on me" and not "unfortunately/sadly/regrettably" was used, and this reason is deliberate use of expressive language and informal style. "К (моему) сожалению" turns this 180 degrees by making the sentence restrained and official.


----------



## esperansa

Sobakus said:


> There's a reason "on me" and not "unfortunately/sadly/regrettably" was used, and this reason is deliberate use of expressive language and informal style. "К (моему) сожалению" turns this 180 degrees by making the sentence restrained and official.


I agree that the statement with this phrase is rather official. What about "увы"?

Мы отлично понимали друг друга. Увы, он внезапно пропал.


----------



## Sobakus

esperansa said:


> I agree that the statement with this phrase is rather official. What about "увы"?
> 
> Мы отлично понимали друг друга. Увы, он внезапно пропал.


Ушаков помечает это слово как риторическое и поэтическое, что сходится с моим пониманием. Посмотрите, пожалуйста, на мои примеры в 3-м сообщении и примеры *Enquiring Mind*а – именно такая разговорная выразительность заключена в английском выражении.

p.s.: то же касается и предложенного ниже «горе мне», только в ещё большей степени – слабо представляю нериторическое использование оного.


----------



## Vadim K

Затем, горе мне, он внезапно пропал.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Perhaps this (with the _сейчас взял) _comes pretty close to the emotional colouring, though the "on me" isn't really there:
_"Все хорошо было, а сейчас взял, и пропал..."_ (source: otvet.mail.ru)
Everything was (BE) tickety-boo, and  then all of a sudden off he goes and disappears!
Everything was fine, and now he's gone and disappeared on me!


----------



## esperansa

Хорошо, спасибо.


----------



## esperansa

Vadim K said:


> Затем, горе мне, он внезапно пропал.


звучит как насмешка или издевательство над пропавшим (человеком). :-( То есть на самом деле звучит так, что никому нет дела до того, что он пропал.


----------



## Vadim K

esperansa said:


> звучит как насмешка или издевательство над пропавшим (человеком). :-( То есть на самом деле звучит так, что никому нет дела до того, что он пропал.



Да? Ок. Тогда, может быть - "Затем, черт возьми, он внезапно пропал".


----------



## esperansa

Vadim K said:


> Да? Ок. Тогда, может быть - "Затем, черт возьми, он внезапно пропал".


ну теперь это действительно выражает явную досаду, но звучит слишком грубо


----------



## Vadim K

esperansa said:


> ну теперь это действительно выражает явную досаду, но звучит слишком грубо



А так - "Затем, боже мой/господи боже мой/бог ты мой, он пропал"?


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> А так - "Затем, боже мой/господи боже мой/бог ты мой, он пропал"?


В обсуждаемом выражении нет ни пафоса, ни трагедии или потрясения – просто некоторая досада.


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> В обсуждаемом выражении нет ни пафоса, ни трагедии или потрясения – просто некоторая досада.



В выражении "Боже мой, какие мы нежные" тоже нет ни пафоса, ни трагедии или потрясения. Мне кажется эти выражения, связанные с богом, у нас уже давно перестали выражать какие-либо сильные эмоции, а именно выражают досаду, изумление или небольшое разочарование.


----------



## Nino83

Enquiring Mind said:


> In Czech this dative of interest is rendered using the short form dative personal pronoun, which doesn't exist in Russian. Zmizet: to disappear. (On) zmizel - he disappeared. On mi zmizel - He disappeared on me.


Interesting. The use of the dative case (_dativus incommodi_) to remark that a thing happened on you, on the detriment of you, is a common feature of Romance languages, German and some Slavic languages (like Czech).
I didn't know that Russian didn't have this construction. 
"On me" doesn't mean "oh my God", but it points out that what happened caused some trouble to me.


----------



## Vadim K

Кстати, а почему нельзя просто сказать "а потом он у меня внезапно пропал"? Ведь можно сказать "У меня внезапно пропал кот/слух/аппетит".

Я, кстати, вспомнил недавний тред, в котором обсуждался вопрос разницы между фразами "у меня" и "у меня есть". И там один форумчанин как раз и сказал, что когда мы используем фразу "у меня", то это как по-английски сказать "оn me". Вот его цитата.



Icetrance said:


> With the "green eyes" example, it's more about a description than a possession (That's all I ever needed to hear to clear things up). You're literally saying "*On me [are] *green eyes." Russian views this general idea not as a possession but as a description. If you use_ есть_, although unusual, it emphasizes that you HAVE green eyes (someone doubting you big time, etc.). The example about a factory producing green eyes makes perfect sense, but it's not a description per say.


----------



## Nino83

Vadim K said:


> Кстати, а разве нельзя сказать "а потом он у меня внезапно пропал"?


If "внезапно" is an adverb of time, I doubt it could mean the same thing. 
It's not a matter of surprise. 
The car broke down. 
The car broke down *on me* (the car broke down and now I'm in a bad situation). 
For example, "Yesterday I had to go to uni(versity) to take an exam but the car broke down *on me*!" (and consequently I couldn't go to uni).


----------



## Vadim K

Nino83 said:


> If "внезапно" is an adverb of time, I doubt it could mean the same thing.
> It's not a matter of surprise.
> The car broke down.
> The car broke down *on me* (the car broke down and now I'm in a bad situation).
> For example, "Yesterday I had to go to uni(versity) to take an exam but the car broke down *on me*!" (and consequently I couldn't go to uni).



I mean "_у меня_", not "_внезапно_". "_Внезапно_" is the word "suddenly" which exists in the original phrase of this thread.

Yesterday I had to go to uni(versity) to take an exam but the car broke down *on me*! - Вчера я должен был ехать в университет на экзамен, но машина у меня/на мою беду сломалась!


----------



## Vadim K

Или "А потом, *на мою* _беду_, он внезапно пропал".


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Vladim K. 
I'm sorry, I can't speak Russian, _у меня_ is _to_-_of me_(genitive) and  на мою беду "to-my(accusative)-misfortune(accusative)"?


----------



## Vadim K

Nino83 said:


> Thank you, Vladim K.
> I'm sorry, I can't speak Russian, _у меня_ is _to_-_of me_(genitive) and  на мою беду "to-my(accusative)-misfortune(accusative)"?



I think that "_на мою беду_" can just be literally translated as "_to the detriment of me_".


----------



## Nino83

Thank you! 
And what about a simple dative, Мне (as in Czech)?
но машина *Мне* сломалась! 
It would be meaningless?


----------



## Vadim K

Nino83 said:


> Thank you!
> And what about a simple dative, Мне (as in Czech)?
> но машина *Мне* сломалась!
> It would be meaningless?



Sorry, no. We don't say that.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> В выражении "Боже мой, какие мы нежные" тоже нет ни пафоса, ни трагедии или потрясения. Мне кажется эти выражения, связанные с богом, у нас уже давно перестали выражать какие-либо сильные эмоции, а именно выражают досаду, изумление или небольшое разочарование.


This use is obviously expressing sarcasm and is outright mocking, which is pretty emotional if you ask me. Certainly on an entirely different level of expressiveness than the discussed phrase. The literal meaning, as in "Боже мой, он пропал" has a very straight-forward parallel in English "God almighty/dear Lord, he disappeared!" I see no use for it other than to express genuine distress or excitement, unless it's pathetic sarcasm once again. It has nothing to do with Dative of interest.


Vadim K said:


> Кстати, а почему нельзя просто сказать "а потом он у меня внезапно пропал"? Ведь можно сказать "У меня внезапно пропал кот/слух/аппетит".


Because this simply specifies the patient of the action ("and then I lost it all of a sudden") and has nothing to do with expressive devices. An example of this construction actually serving as an expressive device was given by *Enquiring Mind *(«смотри мне/у меня, не делай этого!»).


Vadim K said:


> Я, кстати, вспомнил недавний тред, в котором обсуждался вопрос разницы между фразами "у меня" и "у меня есть". И там один форумчанин как раз и сказал, что когда мы используем фразу "у меня", то это как по-английски сказать "оn me". Вот его цитата.


*Icetrance* didn't mean to say that this is a grammatically correct English sentence that makes any sense – it's neither. (S)he simply gave a literal, word-for-word translation assuming "on" to be the closest equivalent to the Russian preposition «у» and drawing a parallel with the grammatically and logically correct "on the wall there was a rug", "on the tree there are branches" etc.


Vadim K said:


> Или "А потом, *на мою* _беду_, он внезапно пропал".


на мою беду = sadly, to my misfortune. There's no outright sadness or misfortune in the English expression, the sentiment is quite different (лёгкая досада, разочарование). All of your suggestions miss the point by some way, I'm afraid, which is perplexing given the perfectly illustrative examples by me and *Enquiring Mind*.


----------



## igusarov

Nino83 said:


> And what about a simple dative, Мне (as in Czech)?
> но машина *Мне* сломалась!
> It would be meaningless?


Well, dative could be used in Russian to express emotion and speaker involvement. The following pairs are almost equivalent, the phrase with dative being more colloquial and emotional:

"Русский - это не чешский" --> "Русский - это *тебе* не чешский".  (declarative, with negation)
"Только попробуй сломаться!" --> "Только попробуй *мне* сломаться!"  (imperative, threat)
However, this pattern sounds wrong with your particular example and with original phrase "disappeared on me"...
See http://rusgram.ru/Дательный_падеж#2343 for more classification and examples of that expressive dative.


----------



## Rosett

Есть такое предложение: "...внезапно исчез, оставив меня в недоумении/непонятках".


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> на мою беду = sadly, to my misfortune. There's no outright sadness or misfortune in the English expression, the sentiment is quite different (лёгкая досада, разочарование). All of your suggestions miss the point by some way, I'm afraid, which is perplexing given the perfectly illustrative examples by me and *Enquiring Mind*.



How is it possible that there is no "_misfortune_" in the phrase which means "_to my misfortune_"?


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> Because this simply specifies the patient of the action ("and then I lost it all of a sudden") and has nothing to do with expressive devices. An example of this construction actually serving as an expressive device was given by *Enquiring Mind *(«смотри мне/у меня, не делай этого!»).



"All of a sudden" = "suddenly". And the word "suddenly" exists in the original phrase of this thread (We had amazing chemistry then suddenly he disappeared on me). So I do not mean "_у меня внезапно_" as a equvivalent "_on me_". I just mean "_у меня_" as its equvivalent.

And I personally feel the difference between two phrases in Russian "_Мы отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он внезапно пропал_" and "_Мы отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он у меня внезапно пропал_". And the difference is that in the second phrase "_the speaker relates emotionally to the disappearance"_, how it was pointed out by *Enquiring Mind *above (I had him before, and I do not have him now). And what's more, "_у меня_" is literally a match to "_on me_".

In order to emphazise my point, may I ask you to provide me with the translation of two different Russian phrases. The first is "_Жил-был в моем доме кот. Потом он внезапно пропал._", and another one is "_Жил-был в моем доме кот. Потом он у меня внезапно пропал_". How would you do that?


----------



## Vadim K

Rosett said:


> Есть такое предложение: "...внезапно исчез, оставив меня в недоумении/непонятках".



Тоже вариант. Или просто "... внезапно исчез, оставив меня".


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> How is it possible that there is no "_misfortune_" in the phrase which means "_to my misfortune_"?


Indeed it isn't. "To my misfortune" is the literal translation of «на мою беду» which you proposed as an equivalent to "on me" (the subject of this thread), and it's the latter which lacks the misfortune sentiment, hence my objection.


Vadim K said:


> "All of a sudden" = "suddenly". And the word "suddenly" exists in the original phrase of this thread (We had amazing chemistry then suddenly he disappeared on me). So I do not mean "_у меня внезапно_" as a equvivalent "_on me_". I just mean "_у меня_" as its equvivalent.


My translation included "all of a sudden" because your phrase included «внезапно». «У меня пропал» corresponds to "I lost".


> And I personally feel the difference between two phrases in Russian "_Мы отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он внезапно пропал_" and "_Мы отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он у меня внезапно пропал_". And the difference is that in the second phrase "_the speaker relates emotionally to the disappearance"_, how it was pointed out by *Enquiring Mind *above (I had him before, and I do not have him now). And what's more, "_у меня_" is literally a match to "_on me_".


I'm sorry but this makes as much sense in Russian as **_«машина мне сломалась»_. «У меня», when it's impossible to replace with «мне», is nothing more than a possessive construction, as in _«у меня сломалась машина»_, _«пропал кот у меня»_, _«у меня зелёные глаза»_, or specifying the patient as in _«у меня твой диск не запускается»_. It doesn't add any emotion to the phrase and it doesn't make sense when the patient is already specified, as in your example.


> In order to emphazise my point, may I ask you to provide me with the translation of two different Russian phrases. The first is "_Жил-был в моем доме кот. Потом он внезапно пропал._", and another one is "_Жил-был в моем доме кот. Потом он у меня внезапно пропал_". How would you do that?


It's obvious that for some reason you're trying to equate the English "on me" with the Russian «у меня». I can assure you that in no context are they equivalents of each other. _«Кот у меня пропал»_ means nothing more than _"my cat disappeared"_ as opposed to _«кот пропал»_ – _"the cat disappeared"_. It doesn't mean _"the cat disappeared on me"_. Likewise I feel it's worth repeating that _«у меня зелёные глаза»_ cannot be translated as _"green eyes are on me"_ – this phrase is nonsense. Just like with the cat, it simply means _"I have green eyes"_.

«У меня» comes close to "on me" only when it can (generally) be replaced by «мне» and doesn't imply ownership: _«поговори мне/у меня!»_, _«ты у меня/мне попляшешь!»_, _«он мне/у меня вчера такое вытворил!»_ etc. Still, it *cannot *be translated with "on me" in these cases, the only case I can think of where it can is with dying – where the main sentiment expressed is still different: authoritarian prohibition in Russian vs. personal involvement in English. My last example can be too if you tinker enough with it, but not **_"Do you know what he did on me"?_

Conversely, "on me" *cannot* be translated with «у меня» or «мне» (with the above exception). You can think of it as a general intensifier, similar to «ведь», «же» or «ну» (I'm not saying they're equivalent in any way). Its main function is to add expressiveness to the utterance, and when it specifies the patient that's otherwise not specified: _"He simply walked out on me!" – «Он просто взял и вышел/слинял/отказался! (я же весь такой из себя, как он смел?!)»_.

This meaning cannot be expressed by any fixed Russian construction (*certainly not* _**«он у меня отказался/пропал/умер/заболел/психанул»_).


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> It's obvious that for some reason you're trying to equate the English "on me" with the Russian «у меня». I can assure you that in no context are they equivalents of each other. _«Кот у меня пропал»_ means nothing more than _"my cat disappeared"_ as opposed to _«кот пропал»_ – _"the cat disappeared"_. It doesn't mean _"the cat disappeared on me"_. Likewise I feel it's worth repeating that _«у меня зелёные глаза»_ cannot be translated as _"green eyes are on me"_ – this phrase is nonsense. Just like with the cat, it simply means _"I have green eyes"_.



Could you please show me that part of Russian sentence "_Жил-был в моем доме кот. Мы отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он у меня внезапно пропал" _where it is said that it was "*my* cat"?

I think it would be better if you could just provide me with your translation of both sentences from my previous post instead of giving so many reasons why it does not fit here. For the moment I am pretty sure that  using the construction "disseapared on me"  is the only possibility to provide the difference between these two sentences and not inventing at the same time the stories that it was "*my* cat" or not switching attention from the cat to the speaker with using such construction like "I have..." and so on.


----------



## Rosett

Vadim K said:


> I mean "_у меня_", not "_внезапно_". "_Внезапно_" is the word "suddenly" which exists in the original phrase of this thread.
> 
> Yesterday I had to go to uni(versity) to take an exam but the car broke down *on me*! - Вчера я должен был ехать в университет на экзамен, но машина у меня/на мою беду сломалась!


Yes, we can say that, likewise. Just put "У меня..." in the first place. Examples in the dating context:

*Мужчина уходит от женщины без объяснений или почему*
dating-zamuzh.ru/.../muzhchina-uxodit-ot-zhenshhiny...
Aug 31, 2012 - *У меня* в один прекрасный день без всяких явных причин мужчина _*исчез*_.

*Пропал муж. Нашелся! | vladmama.ru*
vladmama.ru › ... › Добрые дела › Найдутся все
Jul 14, 2012 - Девочки, голова не соображает вообще. _*У меня пропал муж*_. Завтра 3-е суток будет. Куда звонить, что делать. Ступор прямо. Трубку не ...

*Женщина пришла в милицию. - У меня пропал муж, его ...*
anekdotov.net/anekdot/all/vchrdchtmmnprdt.htm
_*У меня пропал муж*_, его нет вот уже 4-й день. - Пишите заявление. Написала, подает, прочли. - Что ему передать, если мы его найдем? - Передайте в ...


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> Could you please show me that part of Russian sentence "_Жил-был в моем доме кот. Мы отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он у меня внезапно пропал" _where it is said that it was "*my* cat"?
> 
> I think it would be better if you could just provide me with your translation of both sentences from my previous post instead of giving so many reasons why it does not fit here. For the moment I am pretty sure that  using the construction "disseapared on me"  is the only possibility to provide the difference between these two sentences and not inventing at the same time such stories like that it was "*my* cat" or not switching attention from the cat to the speaker.


If you say "у меня" about a cat that lived in your house, you postulate your ownership of the cat. Theoretically it can be registered to someone else, but pragmatically it makes no difference – you say you felt as if it was _yours_, you feel responsible for it. The fact that it does actually postulate (temporary) ownership and responsibility is clearly seen in your other example _«Мы [с моим другом] отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он у меня внезапно пропал»_ – it's wrong exactly because the double possessive _«[мой] друг у меня»_ implies ownership and robs the friend of free will, sort of like "I lost my friend somewhere".

Another example: **_«У меня босс моей подруги психанул»_ prompts the question _"So was it your boss or your friend's?"_ because pragmatically, «у меня» is equal to «мой».

I repeat: _"my cat disappeared on me"_ doesn't mean the same as _«у меня кот пропал»_. It means _«мой кот куда-то делся/взял и пропал»._ You may think the reason behind my explanations is just to disagree with you instead of helping you understand, but in fact it's you who refuses to take this for a fact. I try to make it as clear as possible in my previous post, and I also provide translations, and if it's not clear enough for you – there's just nothing I can do about it. If you understand what I'm saying and refuse to believe it – just say it outright.


----------



## Vadim K

Sobakus said:


> If you say "у меня" about a cat that lived in your house, you postulate your ownership of the cat. Theoretically it can be registered to someone else, but pragmatically it makes no difference – you say you felt as if it was _yours_, you feel responsible for it. The fact that it does actually postulate (temporary) ownership and responsibility is clearly seen in your other example _«Мы [с моим другом] отлично понимали друг друга, а потом он у меня внезапно пропал»_ – it's wrong exactly because the double possessive _«[мой] друг у меня»_ implies ownership and robs the friend of free will, sort of like "I lost my friend somewhere".
> 
> Another example: **_«У меня босс моей подруги психанул»_ prompts the question _"So was it your boss or your friend's?"_ because pragmatically, «у меня» is equal to «мой».
> 
> I repeat: _"my cat disappeared on me"_ doesn't mean the same as _«у меня кот пропал»_. It means _«мой кот куда-то делся/взял и пропал»._ You may think the reason behind my explanations is just to disagree with you instead of helping you understand, but in fact it's you who refuses to take this for a fact. I try to make it as clear as possible in my previous post, and I also provide translations, and if it's not clear enough for you – there's just nothing I can do about it. If you understand what I'm saying and refuse to believe it – just say it outright.



You continue to invent new details of the sentences provided by me. It is not said in the sentences that it was my cat or somebody else' cat. It is no even said whether it was a detached house or a many-storied dwelling. So "theoretically" it could just be a stray cat from the nearest basement. In these sentences it *doesn't matter* what kind of cat it was and whom it belonged to. These sentences deal with its existence and its disappearance, without any additional details about the cat. The only difference between these two sentences is that it is described the situation which happened with the cat in the first one, and it is showed an emotional response of the speaker to this situation in the second. And this emotional response in the second Russian sentense is formed with help of the phrase "у меня". That's all, there is no any other additional information in both sentences.

I asked you two times to provide me with your vision of how these two sentences should be translated into English. You have not still provided them. I am sorry to say them but I can only see the point of continuing our nice discussion after getting these translation. I can feel that without them, our discussion begins to turn to general arguments.


----------



## esperansa

Sobakus said:


> _...взял и пропал/пропал ни с того ни с сего/куда-то делся_, итп. Поскольку роль фразы – придать высказыванию американской выразительности, просто используйте какое-нибудь эмоционально окрашенное выражение в зависимости от контекста.


I made up this example.

_Я ехала по своей полосе, внезапно черный рендж ровер сначала подрезал меня, *а потом взял и пропал*. А я подумала, что это вообще было? _ 

*Enquiring Mind* says that a speaker relates emotionally to someone's disappearance; a speaker feels bad about it as she did not prevent the disappearance. You proposed some translations. However, my example shows that *взял и пропал *doesn't express disappointment.The female driver doesn't feel bad about it. She was surprised that the black range rover pulled into her lane in front of her at a closer distance and then disappeared. So we cannot use "on me" here. She didn't care that it disappeared.

_I was in my lane, all of a sudden a black range rover cut me off and then disappeared [on me], and I am like, "What is that?"._


----------



## esperansa

May I give another example in Russian here?

_Какой-то мужчина неприятной наружности разглядывал людей в метро. А потом *куда-то делс*я. Ну и ладно.  _

The speaker doesn't feel affection for the unattractive man in the underground, quite the opposite, the speaker feels relief that this man disappeared.


----------



## Vadim K

Еще один вариант "disappeared *on me*" - "скрылся/сбежал *от меня*".


----------



## esperansa

Vadim K said:


> Еще один вариант "disappeared *on me*" - "скрылся/сбежал *от меня*".



Вадим, к сожалению, Вы не вполне понимаете значение выражения _disappeared _*on me. *
Имеется в виду, что говорящий вовлечен в ситуацию в эмоциональном плане, то есть ему грустно, что человек исчез.
Говорящий может быть не в таких близких или дружеских отношениях с пропавшим человеком , чтобы говорить, что тот от него сбежал.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> You continue to invent new details of the sentences provided by me. It is not said in the sentences that it was my cat or somebody else' cat. It is no even said whether it was a detached house or a many-storied dwelling. So "theoretically" it could just be a stray cat from the nearest basement. In these sentences it *doesn't matter* what kind of cat it was and whom it belonged to. These sentences deal with its existence and its disappearance, without any additional details about the cat. The only difference between these two sentences is that it is described the situation which happened with the cat in the first one, and it is showed an emotional response of the speaker to this situation in the second. And this emotional response in the second Russian sentense is formed with help of the phrase "у меня". That's all, there is no any other additional information in both sentences.
> 
> I asked you two times to provide me with your vision of how these two sentences should be translated into English. You have not still provided them. I am sorry to say them but I can only see the point of continuing our nice discussion after getting these translation. I can feel that without them, our discussion begins to turn to general arguments.


Firstly, as I already said, «у меня пропал кот» *specifies that you consider the cat yours or yourself responsible for it.* You cannot say it without specifying your *special relation to the cat.* The same as with «у меня есть машина, зелёные глаза и воображение» – pragmatically, it's understood you own them even though you may not. This is why if you don't own them, you don't use «у меня». Most importantly, it cannot serve as an expressive device.

Secondly, the translation is given in the third post of this thread as well as in the post you were replying to:


Sobakus said:


> _...взял и пропал/пропал ни с того ни с сего/куда-то делся_





Sobakus said:


> It means _«мой кот куда-то делся/взял и пропал»._


If you absolutely need me to translate the variant without "on me", here you go: _«кот пропал»._


----------



## Sobakus

@esperansa, you seem to be suggesting that since phrase A can serve as a translation for phrase B, this means that phrase B will always serve as a translation for phrase A. This is obviously not the case: meaning is context-dependent, and this is especially true for emotionally coloured language.

In any case, you aren't saying that «взял и пропал» doesn't express disappointment in _«Мы с ним так хорошо ладили, а потом он взял и пропал»,_ are you? I'm not quite sure about the reasoning behind your last posts.


----------



## Vadim K

esperansa said:


> Вадим, к сожалению, Вы не вполне понимаете значение выражения _disappeared _*on me. *
> Имеется в виду, что говорящий вовлечен в ситуацию в эмоциональном плане, то есть ему грустно, что человек исчез.
> Говорящий может быть не в таких близких или дружеских отношениях с пропавшим человеком , чтобы говорить, что тот от него сбежал.



А откуда Вы это знаете? У Вас есть контекст? Если да, то не могли бы Вы представить его для изначального ограничения представления о том, что же всё-таки имел ввиду говорящий?

Относительно же понимания и непонимания, то если кто-то не вполне понимает перевод выражения "disappeared on smb", то это не я, а профессиональные переводчики, переводящие субтитры художественных и документальных фильмов. Ниже приведены примеры их переводов.

She up and disappeared on me again - Она опять куда-то скрылась от меня.

You disappeared on me, Aviva - Ты скрываешься от меня, Авива

You remember you disappeared on me that night - А помнишь, ты от меня тогда сбежал?

Plus, the time printed on the photos is exactly the same time ollie disappeared on me that same night. - Плюс время на фотографиях точно такое же, когда Оливер исчез от меня ночью.

I disappeared on you, Zoe darling. - Я улизнула от тебя, Зоуи, дорогая

Thomas just disappeared on him like that - Томас просто исчез от него так.


----------



## Rosett

Vadim K said:


> Thomas just disappeared on him like that - Томас просто исчез от него так.


Следует признать, что "(он) исчез от меня/него" звучит несколько криво. Видимо, переводчик зарапортовался.
Зато "он у меня исчез" может быть адекватно ситуации.


----------



## Vadim K

Rosett said:


> Следует признать, что "(он) исчез от меня/него" звучит несколько криво. Видимо, переводчик зарапортовался.
> Зато "он у меня исчез" может быть адекватно ситуации.



На первый взгляд - да, и кажется более адекватным глагол "улизнул/сбежал/скрылся".  Но в то же время еще важен и контекст, которого, к сожалению, в этом случае не найти.


----------



## Sobakus

Vadim K said:


> АОтносительно же понимания и непонимания, то если кто-то не вполне понимает перевод выражения "disappeared on smb", то это не я, а профессиональные переводчики, переводящие субтитры художественных и документальных фильмов. Ниже приведены примеры их переводов..


I don't know your reason for assuming these to be professional translations, but you can rest assured they have nothing to do with the original sense of the utterance – most likely, they were done by amateurs just like 90% of translations found online. The last one even looks like machine translation.

I think it might be a good idea to start a thread on the English Only forum asking to explain the difference between the original "disappear on smb" and the back-translations of your reverso.net results "escape/hide/vanish/disappear from smb".


----------



## esperansa

Vadim K said:


> Относительно же понимания и непонимания, то если кто-то не вполне понимает перевод выражения "disappeared on smb", то это не я, а профессиональные переводчики, переводящие субтитры художественных и документальных фильмов. Ниже приведены примеры их переводов.


Sorry, I can't agree with you, Vadim. They are not professionals.



Sobakus said:


> @esperansa,
> In any case, you aren't saying that «взял и пропал» doesn't express disappointment in _«Мы с ним так хорошо ладили, а потом он взял и пропал»,_ are you? I'm not quite sure about the reasoning behind your last posts.



The expression «взял и пропал» *doesn't* express disappointment. In my opinion, that Russian expression is neutral. 
The context itself makes it sound as if it expresses disappointment. 
But if you consider the Russian sentence _«Мы с ним так хорошо ладили, *а потом он пропал*», _the neutral phrase "a потом он пропал" sounds sadly too in that context.
This is not because _*«а потом он пропал*» _expresses disappointment, but due to the context that implies sadness.


----------



## Sobakus

esperansa said:


> The expression «взял и пропал» *doesn't* express disappointment. In my opinion, that Russian expression is neutral.
> The context itself makes it sound as if it expresses disappointment.
> But if you consider the Russian sentence _«Мы с ним так хорошо ладили, *а потом он пропал*», _the neutral phrase "a потом он пропал" sounds sadly too in that context.
> This is not because _*«а потом он пропал*» _expresses disappointment, but due to the context that implies sadness.


That's pretty much what I'm trying to say. "On me", being an intensifier, serves the same purpose as «же» – to emotionally augmenty an already existing sentence with an already existing meaning, but with the additional function of making the person it points to the malefactor of the situation. It's not like _"We had amazing chemistry, then suddently he disappeared" _doesn't express disappointment either – it does, but the subject of the thread further augments it. It doesn't express anything, disappointment or otherwise, on its own as it cannot make a sentence.

It still sounds to me that you're looking for an abstract full equivalent of "on me" regardless of context, and if this is the case – I can only repeat myself by saying that it's equivalent is _«какое-нибудь эмоционально окрашенное выражение в зависимости от контекста»._


----------



## Nino83

If it can help you, the English sentence "my car broke down *on* me" is equal to "Samochód *mi* się zepsuł" in Polish.
Here, Polish uses the dative case "mi", the same construction used in Romance languages, Czech, Slovak and Slovenian.
Source here.


----------



## Sobakus

Nino83 said:


> If it can help you, the English sentence "my car broke down *on* me" is equal to "Samochód *mi* się zepsuł" in Polish.
> Here, Polish uses the dative case "mi", the same construction used in Romance languages, Czech, Slovak and Slovenian.
> Source here.


I wouldn't say the Polish expression is exactly the same – I'm not an expert in Polish, but it seems to me this is closer to the Russian «у меня» in expressing the patient of the action with no additional expressive meaning. In Balkanic languages, including South Slavic, this Dative even replaces the Genitive in most cases: _majka mi _"my mother" etc. In English, the patient is already expressed by the possessive _me _or _the_ + previous context.


----------



## Nino83

Sobakus said:


> I wouldn't say the Polish expression is exactly the same – I'm not an expert in Polish, but it seems to me this is closer to the Russian «у меня» in expressing the patient of the action with not additional meaning.


In  this thread it is said that:


> In Polish it is perfectly normal to say "Babcia *nam* zmarła", although it is a colloquial expression.
> The expression is also more personal and emotional than "Nasza babcia zmarła". It also suggests being personally affected by the fact, although not in all cases (can be also just a figure of speech).


The dative case "nam" in _Babcia *nam* zmarła_ is more personal and emotional than _*Nasza* babcia zmarła_, and it works the same in Romance languages, German and other Western Slavic languages.


Sobakus said:


> In Balkanic languages, including South Slavic, this Dative even replaces the Genitive in most cases: _majka mi _"my mother" etc. In English, the patient is already expressed by the possessive _me._


In English this happens also with "his dog died on him", i.e in English possessive adjective is always present and indicates possession, while the West Slavic dative case indicates emotions, it is a dative of interest, in this case dative of disadvantage.

In fact, sentences like these are possible:
Rozbili (they broke)* mi* (to me)* twój *(your) samochód (car) (Polish)
*Mi* (to me) hanno rotto (they broke) la *tua* (your) macchina (car) (Italian)
As you can see, this dative of interest doesn't indicate only possession.


----------



## Sobakus

Nino83 said:


> The dative case "nam" in _Babcia *nam* zmarła_ is more personal and emotional than _*Nasza* babcia zmarła_, and it works the same in Romance languages, German and other Western Slavic languages.


This is also true for _моя́ бабушка умерла́ _vs _у меня́ ба́бушка умерла́._ This is probably because _у меня_ underlines a personal connection to the grandmother – and, as explained in my previous posts, it's exactly why it can't be used with some cat from a nearby basement that you feel no connection to. If this is also true for Polish, then this might be how the Polish expression is close to the Russian one and different from the English one.


> In English this happens also with "his dog died on him", i.e in English possessive adjective is always present and indicates possession, while the West Slavic dative case indicates emotions, it is a dative of interest, in this case dative of disadvantage.


I'm not sure I understand, but this is exactly what doesn't happen in South Slavic – there, the Dative alone expresses possession typical for the Genitive. In English, **_dog on him_ cannot be used to express possession. The Russian _у меня соба́ка умерла_ expresses both possession and personal involvement. In Russian, I may not have been present when it happened, but in English I feel direct involvement in the situation is necessary.


> In fact, sentences like these are possible:
> Rozbili (they broke)* mi* (to me)* twój *(your) samochód (car) (Polish)
> *Mi* (to me) hanno rotto (they broke) la *tua* (your) macchina (car) (Italian)
> As you can see, this dative of interest doesn't indicate only possession.


This looks to me to be the most generic use of the Dative: that of indirect object. It functions the same in Russian that doesn't seem to have a Dative of interest: _«Мне слома́ли/разби́ли твою́ маши́ну, да [мне] ещё и по ноге́ прое́хались»_ lit. "They broke [me] your car and then ran my foot over in addition". English deviates here by not allowing the use of an indirect object with _to break_.


----------



## Nino83

Sobakus said:


> This is also true for _моя́ бабушка умерла́ _vs _у меня́ ба́бушка умерла́._ This is probably because _у меня_ underlines a personal connection to the grandmother – and, as explained in my previous posts, it's exactly why it can't be used with some cat from a nearby basement that you feel no connection to. If this is also true for Polish, then this might be how the Polish expression is close to the Russian one and different from the English one.


We'd have to ask some Polish native speaker. I'll ask this in the Polish thread.


Sobakus said:


> This looks to me to be the most generic use of Dative: that of indirect object. It functions the same in Russian that doesn't seem to have a Dative of interest: _«Мне слома́ли твою́ маши́ну, да [мне] ещё и по ноге́ прое́хались»_ lit. "They broke [me] your car and then ran my foot over in addition". English deviates here by not allowing the use of an indirect object with _to break_.


Because, as it was said in this  thread  (see comment #31) the construction "on me" works only with those *intransitive* verbs that normally don't take the preposition "on" or with *passive constructions*. 
So "his car *broke down on* him" is possible while "*they broke* his car *on* him" is not possible in English. It's a colloquial and exceptional construction.


----------



## Sobakus

Nino83 said:


> Because, as it was said in this  thread  (see comment #31) the construction "on me" works only with those *intransitive* verbs that normally don't take the preposition "on" or with *passive constructions*.
> So "his car *broke down on* him" is possible while "*they broke* his car *on* him" is not possible in English. It's a colloquial and exceptional construction.


I meant the Dative of indirect object, as in _I fixed you the car_, but not **_I broke you the car._ Thanks for starting the threads on other language forums, by the way, it looks like we've got ourselves a cross-linguistic research going. Maybe someone can sum it up later in the All Languages forum.

p.s.: I wouldn't completely exclude the usage of "on me" with transitive verbs (as with "went and dug up the whole garden on me").


----------



## Nino83

Sobakus said:


> I wouldn't completely exclude the usage of "on me" with transitive verbs (as with "went and dug up the whole garden on me").


Yes, in that thread it was said that in Hiberno English and some other dialects sentences like "One year he (the fox) took the half of them (chickens) on me." are possible. But these cases are not so frequent.
It was casual, I started a thread on German language some day before this thread was opened.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

> I wouldn't completely exclude the usage of "on me" with transitive verbs (as with "went and dug up the whole garden on me").


 Yes, this is certainly a possibility, even if the garden doesn't belong to me. Let's say I live in a flat and in the courtyard there is a garden. It doesn't belong to me, it is maintained by the local council, but I love to look out of the window and admire the flowers, and maybe sit on a bench in the garden and read. Then one day it was all dug up. "They went and dug up the whole garden on me." Even though the garden was not my possession, I had an emotional attachment to it, and now I am suffering the consequence that there is nothing left to enjoy.

Here, it's not even dialectical. Just expressively charged.  The original poster's "disappeared on me" is exactly the same usage.


----------



## Sobakus

I had added this to one of my previous posts, but I'm not sure if *Nino83* read it, so instead I'll post it separately:

I propose translating this couple of sentences into Polish (or Czech for that matter @Enquiring Mind ) and Italian to see if the expression can be used when both the owner and the patient are evident:
*English*: _"I borrowed my friend's car, but it broke down on me." _(idiomaitc, disappointment)
*Russian*: _«Я взял у дру́га маши́ну, но она́ у меня́ слома́лась.» _(works as an excuse, removing the blame from oneself – it was already going to break, I just happened to be using it when it did).

*English*: _"I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me."_ (idiomatic, unhappiness)
*Russian*: _«Я присма́тривал за сосе́дской соба́кой на выходны́х, а она́ у меня́ умерла́.» _(not idiomatic, not emotional, possibly excuse as above, ambiguous – implies special relation to the dog).


----------



## Nino83

In the Polish forum confirmed what Anna Wierzbicka says in this book


> Dative can also be used if a spontaneous, agentless, change occurs in a person's possessions. It appears, however, that in sentences of this kind the change has to be seen as "bad"
> Samochód *mi* się zepsuł
> car me: Dat broke
> My car broke down (on me)


From this  thread:


> *Jego* (my) samochód się zepsuł. Normal, neutral.
> *Jemu* (to me) zepsuł się samochód. A more personal attitude. More common than the latter, as people tend to be emotionally involved in such cases, or at least pretend to be.


----------



## Drink

The way I see it, is that "on me" indicates that, not only did he do something, but he did it to me! But since the semantics of "to disappear" can not function transitively in any way that affects the speaker of the sentence in this situation, the phrase "on me" is used instead. In other words "he disappeared on me" means that he disappeared and affected me by his disappearance.


----------



## Rosett

Из того, что удалось нарыть из разных источников по данному вопросу за время дискуссии, прояснилось, что on me употребляется, когда говорящий желает подчеркнуть, что описываемое действие происходит помимо его воли или его способности/возможности повлиять на происходящее.
Естественно, что конкретный перевод будет практически всегда ситуативным.


----------

