# а то что



## az09

_Эту ведь я психологию-то изучал всю на практике-с. Этак ведь иногда человека из окна али с колокольни соскочить тянет, и ощущение-то такое соблазнительное. Тоже и колокольчики-с… Болезнь, Родион Романович, болезнь! Болезнию своей пренебрегать слишком начали-с. Посоветовались бы вы с опытным медиком, *а то что у вас этот толстый-то*!.. Бред у вас! Это всѐ у вас просто в бреду одном делается!.._

Garnett: what’s the good of that fat fellow?
Katz: and not that chubby fellow you see!

пожалуйста, поясните мне, какой из них правильный.
Спасибо большое!


----------



## Maroseika

Both seem right, however better to check the first parts of both.


----------



## Vovan

I may be missing something, as I read the novel years ago, but if they're referring to the man behind the front door of the old woman's flat, the meaning of the phrase is this:

"*Because it's for a reason* that you imagined that man to be fat. (And the reason is that) you're suffering from paranoia".

_(Cross-posted.)_


----------



## HotIcyDonut

I don't remember Dostoevsky much since school, hard to tell without context.

Maybe Porfiriy says Rodion has a doctor (who is also a fat man) and Porfiriy doubts his competence as a doctor, and Rodion needs a competent one.

Or maybe Rodion is hallucinating/paranoid about some old guy supposedly being around (and doing something while lurking).


----------



## az09

But at last the High Court of Appeal went into it and the poor fellow was acquitted and put under proper care. Thanks to the Court of Appeal! Tut-tut-tut! Why, my dear fellow, you may drive yourself into delirium if you have the impulse to work upon your nerves, to go ringing bells at night and asking about blood! I’ve studied all this morbid psychology in my practice. A man is sometimes tempted to jump out of a window or from a belfry. Just the same with bell-ringing.... It’s all illness, Rodion Romanovitch! You have begun to neglect your illness. You should consult an experienced doctor, what’s the good of that fat fellow? You are lightheaded! You were delirious when you did all this!

Garnett.


----------



## pimlicodude

Please excuse me if I butt in with ignorant comment, but I wonder if this is connected to this meaning of а то in Sophie Lubensky's dictionary of Russian idioms:


> [coord Conj, contrastive] used to indicate that the state of affairs expressed by the statement that follows is, in the speaker’s opinion, abnormal, bad, or contrary to the way it should be, whereas the state of affairs expressed by the preceding context reflects the way things should be: *but (instead 〈on the contrary〉); rather than; instead (of); while instead; as it is.*


Lubensky doesn't show a version with а то+что, but it may be connected.

Lubensky gives this example:


> «Ты уж меня выручи, старика, Вить. В последний раз, а? Вить? Чего молчишь?» — «Не буду выручать, Архип Иваныч. Завязал». — «…Чего тебе завязывать-то? Если б ты какой бандит… был, а то — трудяга, шофёр» (Семёнов 1). “Do me a favour, Vic, do it for an old man. For the last time. Eh, Vic? Why don’t you say something?” “I won’t do you a favour, Arkhip  Ivanich. I’ve quit.” “What’s the matter, Vic…. It would be different if…you had been some sort of crook, but you’re a hard worker, a driver”.


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, this explanation looks quite relevant.
By the way, usually что in such cases is spelled with stress - что́, to distinguish from the conjunction что.


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> Lubensky doesn't show a version with а то+что, but it may be connected.


"Что" is just a continuation, meaning "почему" in this particular case. Let's create another - more natural - example:
_Купи ей нормальный альбом для рисования, а то что́ она на обрывках каких-то рисует._ (Что = почему = какого черта)​


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> "Что" is just a continuation, meaning "почему" in this particular case. Let's create another - more natural - example:
> _Купи ей нормальный альбом для рисования, а то что́ она на обрывках каких-то рисует._ (Что = почему = какого черта)​


I see. But in that example а то means "since", right? I know all the meanings of а то must seem to a native speaker to be fundamentally similar, but to a foreigner а то "since", а то "or else", and as above а то "while instead" are confusing, and quite different in meaning...


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> But in that example а то means "since", right?


It means "since (what we now have is)" in all three examples - #1, your post, my example.
Actually it's hard to translate, and conjunctions like "as" and the literary "for" come to mind as more accurate.


----------



## Vovan

*pimlicodude, *that particular example in your dictionary is just a little bit elliptic, and "а" is more like "but":
_Если б ты какой бандит… был, __(то тогда...)__, а то — трудяга, шофёр._​​And - by the way! - it is well reflected in the translation provided:
_It would be different if you had been some sort of crook..._​​​(It goes without saying that "а то - трудяга, шофёр" is also elliptic, with that dash standing for "ты".)


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> *pimlicodude, *that particular example in your dictionary is just a little bit elliptic, and "а" is more like "but":
> _Если б ты какой бандит… был, __(то тогда...)__, а то — трудяга, шофёр._​​And - by the way! - it is well reflected in the translation provided:
> _It would be different if you had been some sort of crook..._​​​(It goes without saying that "а то - трудяга, шофёр" is also elliptic, with that dash standing for "ты".)


Thank you. I think these may be more a case of getting a feel for the construction without thinking about the translation so much. Sometimes the need to think up a one-for-one translation can impede grasping the internal sense of a construction.


----------



## Vovan

*pimlicodude*, okay, I fully get it.

Just remember that:
1. "то" here means something like "the case/fact/thing/situation... (is)";​2. "a" here can be somewhere between "and" and "but" (actually, more like "as" or the literary "for");​3. when meaning "or else", the construction can also go as "а не то".​​And feel free to ask whenever in doubt.


----------



## Vovan

I also have to add, just in case, that "а то" and "а не то" belong to colloquial Russian and shouldn't be used in more or less formal writing/speeches.


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> I also have to add, just in case, that "а то" and "а не то" belong to colloquial Russian and shouldn't be used in more or less formal writing/speeches.


OK, I didn't really realise that. I hadn't thought about the register of speech. I suppose you can use иначе/в ином случае for more formal texts?


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> I suppose you can use иначе/в ином случае for more formal texts?


Certainly (in the meaning "or else"!). "В ином случае" sounds rather formal, whereas "иначе" is stylistically neutral.


----------



## nizzebro

pimlicodude said:


> I suppose you can use иначе/в ином случае for more formal texts?


I guess the reason is that the opposed things are ordinary actions, not ideas.

_Надо поспешить, а то мы опоздаем._ ( =or we'll be late;  =иначе (otherwise) sounds formal).

_Уходи, а то убью!_ (...or I kill you; but If we use _или_, even with restoring the pronoun "или я ...",  it would sound pompous, like "now choose - ....".)

Still the use above differs from the discussed one (which is even more colloquial) - as the basis for the opposition there is current state of affairs:
_Вы бы получше кормили своего мужа, а то он совсем худой._

There is also such thing as  _а так_ - which is about situations:
_Если бы у меня был телефон, я бы позвонил, а так я вообще не знаю, что мне делать._


----------



## pimlicodude

nizzebro said:


> I guess the reason is that the opposed things are ordinary actions, not ideas.
> 
> _Надо поспешить, а то мы опоздаем._ ( =or we'll be late;  =иначе (otherwise) sounds formal).
> 
> _Уходи, а то убью!_ (...or I kill you; but If we use _или_, even with restoring the pronoun "или я ...",  it would sound pompous, like "now choose - ....".)
> 
> Still the use above differs from the discussed one (which is even more colloquial) - as the basis for the opposition there is current state of affairs:
> _Вы бы получше кормили своего мужа, а то он совсем худой._
> 
> There is also such thing as  _а так_ - which is about situations:
> _Если бы у меня был телефон, я бы позвонил, а так я вообще не знаю, что мне делать._


а так = whereas, as it is

All these may seem to Russians very obvious, but require different translations in English.


----------



## Sobakus

We're talking about interactional discourse markers, which are highly language-specific. The gist of _а то́_ is expressing a causal justification for the speaker's previous statement. The speaker points out a past, present or future state of affairs which they regard as unquestionable, thus making sure they and the addressee are on the same page.

This justification can be of a future-consequence, negative contrasting nature - "because otherwise" - in which case it's translated with "or(/)else"; or it can be of a past/present-evidential supporting nature, in which case it comes close to "I mean" and "like", and maybe "you know, remember how". There surely are more types of evidentiality it can express.

All in all, the closest English parallel is perhaps _*'*_*cause,* which is however substandard in a way the Russian discourse marker isn't; then there's the outdated *for, *as in 'for otherwise we shall be late'. Standard written English has no general equivalent, other options (such as _since, because)_ being causal conjunctions and not discourse markers. This is the reason why neither translastion in the OP translates it.

For those fluent in Latin, _nam(que)_ comes very close in usage but even this isn't a full match.


----------



## pimlicodude

Sobakus said:


> We're talking about interactional discourse markers, which are highly language-specific. The gist of _а то́_ is expressing a causal justification for the speaker's previous statement. The speaker points out a past, present or future state of affairs which they regard as unquestionable, thus making sure they and the addressee are on the same page.
> 
> This justification can be of a future-consequence, negative contrasting nature - "because otherwise" - in which case it's translated with "or(/)else"; or it can be of a present-evidential supporting nature, in which case "I mean" and "like" can serve as equivalents. There surely are more types of evidentiality it can express.
> 
> All in all, the closest English parallel is perhaps _*'*_*cause,* which is however substandard in a way the Russian discourse marker isn't; then there's the outdated *for, *as in 'for otherwise we shall be late'. Standard written English has no general equivalent, other options (such as _since, because)_ being causal conjunctions and not discourse markers. This is the reason why neither translastion in the OP translates it.
> 
> For those fluent in Latin, _nam(que)_ comes very close in usage but even this isn't a full match.


'Cause is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I've never seen it in England. The pronunciation is different from "cause".


Sobakus said:


> We're talking about interactional discourse markers, which are highly language-specific. The gist of _а то́_ is expressing a causal justification for the speaker's previous statement. The speaker points out a past, present or future state of affairs which they regard as unquestionable, thus making sure they and the addressee are on the same page.
> 
> This justification can be of a future-consequence, negative contrasting nature - "because otherwise" - in which case it's translated with "or(/)else"; or it can be of a past/present-evidential supporting nature, in which case it comes close to "I mean" and "like", and maybe "you know, remember how". There surely are more types of evidentiality it can express.
> 
> All in all, the closest English parallel is perhaps _*'*_*cause,* which is however substandard in a way the Russian discourse marker isn't; then there's the outdated *for, *as in 'for otherwise we shall be late'. Standard written English has no general equivalent, other options (such as _since, because)_ being causal conjunctions and not discourse markers. This is the reason why neither translastion in the OP translates it.
> 
> For those fluent in Latin, _nam(que)_ comes very close in usage but even this isn't a full match.


"For" is not outdated as such. "For otherwise we'll be late" can be heard in native speech. Thank you for your examples, including the Latin.


----------



## Sobakus

pimlicodude said:


> 'Cause is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I've never seen it in England. The pronunciation is different from "cause".
> 
> "For" is not outdated as such. "For otherwise we'll be late" can be heard in native speech.


Huh, unexpected on both counts (especially for the former)!


----------



## pimlicodude

Sobakus said:


> Huh, unexpected on both counts (especially for the former)!


Well, maybe cause and what you wrote as 'cause would be pronounced identically and thus found in writing in the US?
Cause in the UK /kʰɔ:z/ and coz /kʰɐz~k(ʰ)əz~kz/ have different pronunciations. But yes, you were right, 'cause is in the MW dictionary, so I learnt something.


----------



## Sobakus

pimlicodude said:


> Well, maybe cause and what you wrote as 'cause would be pronounced identically and thus found in writing in the US?
> Cause in the UK /kʰɔ:z/ and coz /kʰɐz~k(ʰ)əz~kz/ have different pronunciations. But yes, you were right, 'cause is in the MW dictionary, so I learnt something.


Well, _because _is likewise pronounced with a reduced vowel when the word is unstressed, which is most of the time. I thought the usage of the shortened form as a discourse marker existed in Britain as well, even if marginally.


----------



## pimlicodude

Sobakus said:


> Well, _because _is likewise pronounced with a reduced vowel when the word is unstressed, which is most of the time. I thought the usage of the shortened form as a discourse marker existed in Britain as well, even if marginally.


It is down to my lack of knowledge. I don't understand the difference between "because to mean because" and "because as a discourse marker". Maybe it is an academic distinction made that I just don't know anything about. The reduced "because" is commonly written "coz" or "'coz", or at least in the sources I've come across, which is something that is necessarily limited.

There are numerous threads on this in the English forum, and they seem to agree that 'coz is a British spellling and 'cause is an American one. And 'cuz is an American one too.


----------



## Sobakus

pimlicodude said:


> It is down to my lack of knowledge. I don't understand the difference between "because to mean because" and "because as a discourse marker". Maybe it is an academic distinction made that I just don't know anything about. The reduced "because" is commonly written "coz" or "'coz", or at least in the sources I've come across, which is something that is necessarily limited.
> 
> There are numerous threads on this in the English forum, and they seem to agree that 'coz is a British spellling and 'cause is an American one. And 'cuz is an American one too.


So the shortened form does exist in Britain, but is usually spelled _'coz_ while in the US _'cause_ is preferred. I mistook you to be talking about the existence of the word itself, while you only meant its spelling. It didn't occur to me that someone used to two strictly different spellings could be surprised by the American usage.

It's not difficult to see the problem with a native speaker trying to understand how "because" can mean something different from "because". But if you define it using synonymous complex conjunctions _'because to mean "for the reason that, the reason for this is that",_ then it becomes possible to employ substitution tests in examples such as _'Be careful! Coz I don't know what I'm gonna do if something happens to you.'_ or _'#1 Let's go shoppin'! #2 Coz we don't have enough garbage already?'._ In both of these the speaker gives justification for saying something, themselves in the first example and their interlocutor in the second one, speaking rhetorically/with sarcasm; it can be rephrased as _"I'm/You're/(S)he's saying this because..."._ If you want to learn about discourse markers, there's a wealth of information and examples in google (check images).


----------



## pimlicodude

Sobakus said:


> So the shortened form does exist in Britain, but is usually spelled _'coz_ while in the US _'cause_ is preferred. I mistook you to be talking about the existence of the word itself, while you only meant its spelling. It didn't occur to me that someone used two strictly different spellings could be surprised by the American usage.
> 
> It's not difficult to see the problem with a native speaker tring to understand how "because" can mean something different from "because". But if you phrase it as _'because to mean "for the reason that, the reason being",_ then it becomes possible to employ substitution tests such as _'Be careful! Coz I don't know what I'm gonna do if something happens to you.'_ or _'#1 Let's to shoppin'! #2 Coz we don't have enough garbage already?'._ In both of these the speaker gives justification for saying something, themselves in the first example and their interlocutor in the second one, rhetorically/sarcastically. If you want to learn about discourse markers, there's a wealth of information and examples in google (check images).


OK, thank you.


----------

