# "У меня ..." Structure



## PorFavorDama

*Hi everyone,*

I was studying genitive case in Russian and I came across this sentence below :


> _У меня очень болит горло._


I have just seen "_У меня есть ..._" sentences which means "_I have ..._" so I am a little bit confused about this structure.
What does actually mean "_У меня ..._" structure when it is used with other verbs?
Could you please explain me with a few examples? Sources explaining this structure would be also appreciated since it is hard to find English sources about Russian. 

Other examples that I have seen formed by using this structure.

• спроси у моего друга. (_For example in this sentence why did we use "у"? Couldn't we simply say "моего друга" to mean "to my friend"?_)

like this sentence : "_А как я могу найти твоего друга Олега?_"

Could you tell me what is the difference between both?
_*
Thanks in advance!*_


----------



## Drink

PorFavorDama said:


> *Hi everyone,*
> 
> I was studying genitive case in Russian and I came across this sentence below :
> 
> I have just seen "_У меня есть ..._" sentences which means "_I have ..._" so I am a little bit confused about this structure.
> What does actually mean "_У меня ..._" structure when it is used with other verbs?
> Could you please explain me with a few examples? Sources explaining this structure would be also appreciated since it is hard to find English sources about Russian.
> _*
> Thanks in advance!*_



Grammatically you can understand it as something like "At me, the throat hurts." But really it just means "My throat hurts." It's a common way to express something that happened to something that is yours. Some more examples:
У меня жена потеряла работу = My wife lost her job
У меня пропал кошелек = My wallet disappeared
У меня компьютер заработал = My computer started working (i.e. after I thought it was broken)


----------



## abracadabra!

Hello,


PorFavorDama said:


> I have just seen "_У меня есть ..._" sentences which means "_I have ..._" so I am a little bit confused about this structure.


Please don't take it too literally! "У меня" means what it seems to mean: "at me". That is: close to me, in my neighborhood, even in my control. "У тебя никогда не случалось такого, чтобы почта не принимала письмо, написанное другим человеком?" -- literally: "at you didn't it ever happen that the post office didn't accept a letter that someone else wrote?" "У меня сейчас гости веселятся" -- literally: "at me (i.e. in my house) the guests are taking fun." "Где писать письмо будем?" -- "у вас" -- literally: "where shall we write the letter" -- "at you" (on your desk, in your office, in your house, whatever). "У меня есть собака" -- literally: "at me a dog is".

That's really what the latter phrase means. Only the truth is, we use the latter expression when Europeans use the constructions with "have", and we relatively seldom use verbs that have meanings close to the meaning of "have".


----------



## PorFavorDama

Drink said:


> Grammatically you can understand it as something like "At me, the throat hurts." But really it just means "My throat hurts." It's a common way to express something that happened to something that is yours. Some more examples:
> У меня жена потеряла работу = My wife lost her job
> У меня пропал кошелек = My wallet disappeared
> У меня компьютер заработал = My computer started working (i.e. after I thought it was broken)



Hi Drink, 
Firstly thank you. 
So, is there any other way to say it? I mean, could we form the same sentence by using "possessive adjectives" instead of "У меня жена"  ?


----------



## Drink

PorFavorDama said:


> Hi Drink,
> Firstly thank you.
> So, is there any other way to say it? I mean, could we form the same sentence by using "possessive adjectives" instead of "У меня жена"  ?



Yes, you can, but sometimes it sounds less natural.


----------



## Sobakus

It's a locative construction that expresses the patient. On practice, most of the time the patient of something existing is the person in possession of it («у меня́ есть кот», «у немцев заба́вный ацке́нт»), other times they're the benefactor or malefactor of it («у меня пропа́л кот, зацвёл ка́ктус»), a sub-case of which is detachment, which was its primary meaning («взять кни́гу у дру́га», «укра́сть козла́ у сосе́да»). Thus the meaning likely developed as following: detachment -> location -> ownership.

Concerning the verb _проси́ть_ and its derivatives the Accusative is used to mean "to ask somebody", while any locative construction, including the discussed one, is used to mean the source of information when the direct object in the Accusative means the object of inquiry. Thus:
«Спроси́ть дру́га, почему́ греми́т гром» but «Спроси́ть э́то у дру́га/в спра́вочной». They are only interchangeable when the direct object is substituted by a clause («Спросить у друга, почему..», which also implies a less direct question), but aren't when the direct object is present – there can't be two direct objects, after all.


----------



## PorFavorDama

abracadabra! said:


> Hello,
> 
> Please don't take it too literally! "У меня" means what it seems to mean: "at me". That is: close to me, in my neighborhood, even in my control. "У тебя никогда не случалось такого, чтобы почта не принимала письмо, написанное другим человеком?" -- literally: "at you didn't it ever happen that the post office didn't accept a letter that someone else wrote?" "У меня сейчас гости веселятся" -- literally: "at me (i.e. in my house) the guests are taking fun." "Где писать письмо будем?" -- "у вас" -- literally: "where shall we write the letter" -- "at you" (on your desk, in your office, in your house, whatever). "У меня есть собака" -- literally: "at me a dog is".
> 
> That's really what the latter phrase means. Only the truth is, we use the latter expression when Europeans use the constructions with "have", and we relatively seldom use verbs that have meanings close to the meaning of "have".



Hi abracadabra,
Actually I don't really take it too literally, I am just trying to find an understandable and logical way not to forget it and to use it correctly.  Not in English, in my native language. Because my native is similar to Russian and in Russian not every word can be corresponded fittingly in English.


----------



## abracadabra!

PorFavorDama said:


> Hi abracadabra,
> Actually I don't really take it too literally, I am just trying to find an understandable and logical way not to forget it and to use it correctly.


If you count on my advice, gloss "у меня есть кот" as "in my possession is a cat".  Just keep in mind that this construction may relate the action to you in ways other than possession. Say, "у Кати потерялся кошелек" does not say the wallet is in Katia's possession, but still it relates the lost thing to Katia. It was Katia who lost it. (Hope she finds it.)


----------



## Sobakus

By the way, sometimes the verb _есть_ is dropped in this construction, for further details see these threads:
у меня / у меня есть
У меня есть


----------



## Tigrena

• спроси у моего друга. (_For example in this sentence why did we use "у"? Couldn't we simply say "моего друга" to mean "to my friend"?_).

Yes, we can use like this also: "СПРОСИ МОЕГО ДРУГА".  
From the point of view of the speaker, I would say, the first question just specifies WHO you must ask exactly (my friend or my father, my parents....)  But their meaning is the same.
1) спроси у моего друга.
2) спроси моего друга.

* In sentence : "А как я могу найти твоего друга Олега." *_should be a question at  the end and the verb is different.
This verb without the preposiition means that  we need a friend Oleg and we don't need to take anything from Oleg.
_


----------



## PorFavorDama

Sobakus said:


> By the way, sometimes the verb _есть_ is dropped in this construction, for further details see these threads:
> у меня / у меня есть
> У меня есть



Thank you so much. So with this case ( у меня ... ) we can also imply locative cases right?




abracadabra! said:


> If you count on my advice, gloss "у меня есть кот" as "in my possession is a cat".  Just keep in mind that this construction may relate the action to you in ways other than possession. Say, "у Кати потерялся кошелек" does not say the wallet is in Katia's possession, but still it relates the lost thing to Katia. It was Katia who lost it. (Hope she finds it.)



Oh, yes this is exactly what I meant! A key which can remind me the meaning of this structure or at least help me not to forget it  By the way, hope she finds it ehehe.


----------



## Sobakus

PorFavorDama said:


> Thank you so much. So with this case ( у меня ... ) we can also imply locative cases right?


They all can be seen as locative meanings, but if you're asking if it can be translated by "I have" as well as by a possessive ("my/his/my grandma's"), then yes. It depends on the context. But «у меня есть» can only be translated by "I have", I think.


----------



## PorFavorDama

Tigrena said:


> • спроси у моего друга. (_For example in this sentence why did we use "у"? Couldn't we simply say "моего друга" to mean "to my friend"?_).
> 
> Yes, we can use like this also: "СПРОСИ МОЕГО ДРУГА".
> From the point of view of the speaker, I would say, the first question just specifies WHO you must ask exactly (my friend or my father, my parents....)  But their meaning is the same.
> 1) спроси у моего друга. у кого?
> 2) спроси моего друга. кого? что?
> 
> * In sentence : "А как я могу найти твоего друга Олега." *_should be a question at  the end and the verb is different.
> This verb without the preposiition means that  we need a friend Oleg and we don't need to take anything from Oleg.
> _



Hi Tigrena,
Thank you, the question mark is my mistake, sorry I've edited it.
Oh so, I think Oleg is the direct object in this question and that is why, right? 

For example in @Drink 's sentence :
_У меня жена потеряла работу._
Here the wife is the indirect object, right?

So let's say there is this sentence, "Oleg's wallet is stolen" I would have to use "У ..." structure right? (I don't know how to form this sentence and that is why I couldn't complete the sentence ehehe so I would appreciate your help to form this sentence, if my thinking is right.)


----------



## PorFavorDama

Sobakus said:


> They all can be seen as locative meanings, but if you're asking if it can be translated by "I have" as well as by a possessive ("my/his/my grandma's"), then yes. It depends on the context. But «у меня есть» can only be translated by "I have", I think.



Oh so this makes more sense in my native language, thank you  Could you please take a look at my answer to Tigrena?


----------



## abracadabra!

Sobakus said:


> But «у меня есть» can only be translated by "I have", I think.


Most of the times, I agree. But see, my example about the post office could be rewritten with the verb "бывало" instead of "случалось". Of course, this is an exceptional case.


----------



## Sobakus

PorFavorDama said:


> Oh so, I think Oleg is the direct object in this question and that is why, right?
> 
> For example in @Drink 's sentence :
> _У меня жена потеряла работу._
> Here the wife is the indirect object, right?


Yes, if the direct object is what you're asking/what the wife lost, you need a prepositional indirect object to express whom you're asking/whose wife it is. In the other case the direct object means whom you're asking.


> So let's say there is this sentence, "Oleg's wallet is stolen" I would have to use "У ..." structure right? (I don't know how to form this sentence and that is why I couldn't complete the sentence ehehe so I would appreciate your help to form this sentence, if my thinking is right.)


Yes, that would be «у Оле́га укра́ли кошелёк», the verb agreeing with the indefinite "they".



abracadabra! said:


> Most of the times, I agree. But see, my example about the post office could be rewritten with the verb "бывало" instead of "случалось". Of course, this is an exceptional case.


I meant only the cases where the verb _есть_ is dropped. _Бывать_ is a completely separate verb from _быть_ and is indeed often translated as "to happen".


----------



## abracadabra!

PorFavorDama said:


> Oh so, I think Oleg is the direct object in this question and that is why, right?


He is. Just the verb "спросить" can be used in two ways. Можно спросить жену, можно спросить у жены, they may mean the same thing: спроси жену, когда она вернется с работы. Or they may not: если Ванюши не будет дома, спроси его жену. (If Ivan is not at home, ask for his wife -- it probably means, you call their house by phone.)


> _У меня жена потеряла работу._
> Here the wife is the indirect object, right?


No. The wife is the subject.


> So let's say there is this sentence, "Oleg's wallet is stolen" I would have to use "У ..." structure right? (I don't know how to form this sentence and that is why I couldn't complete the sentence ehehe so I would appreciate your help to form this sentence, if my thinking is right.)


You could. У Олега украден кошелек. У Олега украли кошелек. Кто-то украл у Олега кошелек. (Which is what I would say, probably.) But you could also in principle say "Олегов кошелек украден". Not exactly what a language learner would be supposed to say, because "Олегов" is not a usual word. It works better with "его": "его кошелек украден".


----------



## PorFavorDama

Sobakus said:


> Yes, if the direct object is what you're asking/what the wife lost, you need a prepositional indirect object to express whom you're asking/whose wife it is. In the other case the direct object means whom you're asking.
> 
> Yes, that would be «у Оле́га укра́ли кошелёк», the verb agreeing with the indefinite "they".



So, I think I got the main idea for now untill I finish all cases in Russian. 



abracadabra! said:


> No. The wife is the subject.
> 
> You could. У Олега украден кошелек. У Олега украли кошелек. Кто-то украл у Олега кошелек. (Which is what I would say, probably.) But you could also in principle say "Олегов кошелек украден". Not exactly what a language learner would be supposed to say, because "Олегов" is not a usual word. It works better with "его": "его кошелек украден".



Oh yes you are right, sorry, then my direct-indirect object theory is not applicable on this example but I think I got the idea, at least if there is an indirect object in the sentence.


----------



## Sobakus

The reason why nobody would say «у Олега украден кошелёк» is because two meanings clash in it, the verbal (from him) and the possessive (his; he has) since _кошелёк_ is grammatically the subject but logically part of the compound predicate, resulting in "Oleg has a wallet which is stolen from him". On practice, Oleg no longer has a wallet when it is stolen. Besides, describing the state of a stolen wallet rarely has practical use, people will normally use a verb (_украли_) to describe what happened, not the participle (_украден_) describing what the state of the stolen thing is.


----------



## PorFavorDama

Sobakus said:


> The reason why nobody would say «у Олега украден кошелёк» is because two meanings clash in it, the verbal (from him) and the possessive (his; he has) since _кошелёк_ is grammatically the subject but logically part of the compound predicate, resulting in "Oleg has a wallet which is stolen from him". On practice, Oleg no longer has a wallet when it is stolen. Besides, describing the state of a stolen wallet rarely has practical use, people will normally use a verb (_украли_) to describe what happened, not the participle (_украден_) describing what the state of the stolen thing is.



Thanks again, helped me a lot !


----------



## abracadabra!

Sobakus said:


> I meant only the cases where the verb _есть_ is dropped. _Бывать_ is a completely separate verb from _быть_ and is indeed often translated as "to happen".


I'd say бывать is "to be sometimes", it's the same to быть as поглядывать is to глядеть. A couple of examples: у меня бывают припадки: sometimes I have attacks; есть у меня такое: прихожу домой, не могу найти ключ: it happens to me: I come home, can't find a key. But it's a subtlety, and you could even argue that the English verb "happen" is not very distant from "have". After all, "have" is such an universal verb, just try to find an object that you can't "have".  A daughter, a dinner, a cold, a hope, a laughter, fun, anything...

An actual case where we don't really talk about possession is where "у меня" really means "in my case" or "at my place". "Я бывал у Скотининых" does not really mean Skotinins possessed me, nor does "я у Маши, перезвони позднее" mean anything similar. "У меня в доме прохлада" means the same "у меня в доме прохладно". "У тебя сейчас химия?" -- "Нет, математика" means a class; no possession either.


> The reason why nobody would say «у Олега украден кошелёк» is because two meanings clash in it, the verbal (from him) and the possessive (his; he has) since _кошелёк_ is grammatically the subject but logically part of the compound predicate, resulting in "Oleg has a wallet which is stolen from him".


I don't really believe in this theory. No ambiguity to be seen, and I also have the general impression that people never care for ambiguity as long as it does not manifest itself in wrong actions. Just we in Russian don't use the passive voice as they do in English, it's a general thing. I really would never get the "Oleg has a wallet" part from the sentence. Perhaps, the bilingual over-analysis should be blamed for this interpretation. But one doesn't analyze as one talks. Nor does everyone speak English who speaks Russian.


----------



## Tigrena

Oh so, I think Oleg is the direct object in this question and that is why, right?

Yes, in the sentence "_А как я могу найти твоего друга Олега?_" Oleg is a direct object.

_У меня жена потеряла работу._
As Abracadabra said, it is a subject. The point that may confuse you is "у меня жена..." and  it means "the wife that I have"="my wife". Abracadabra provided a good explanation: this is "in my case".

So in the sentence, "Oleg's wallet is stolen" I would have to use "У ..." structure, right?

Again Abracadabra gave you the variant: У Олега украли кошелек. Олег - indirect object. He was stolen a wallet. And the person who stole is subject that is not present in the sentence.


----------



## abracadabra!

Sobakus said:
			
		

> The reason why nobody would say «у Олега украден кошелёк» [...]


On second thoughts, I think Oleg is to blame.  No, I mean: "у тебя украден кошелек" is fine. "У тебя украден кошелек, твои действия?" "У меня украден паспорт, что мне теперь делать?" (It is the ID card's state, not mine, and I am clearly interested in it.)


----------



## Sobakus

abracadabra! said:


> On second thoughts, I think Oleg is to blame.  No, I mean: "у тебя украден кошелек" is fine. "У тебя украден кошелек, твои действия?"


I can't see any reason to use the participle here. An action could prompt a reaction, but a state? «У тебя красивые глаза, твои действия?»


----------



## abracadabra!

Sobakus said:


> I can't see any reason to use the participle here.


There is no reason, it just works. Like with most examples, it's a matter of reading the sentence from the correct angle. There is also a more obvious example in my previous message that I have just edited in. Say, you need your ID card to complete some operation, but you don't have it currently, so you discuss the state of your ID card with someone else. You can postpone the entire operation until you have a new ID card, or you can do a part of the job now and postpone the rest. We use the passive voice only when we really mean it, and it's a rare situation when it's the case. Yet the dialectics of action vs. state don't enter in the discussion, I would say.


----------

