# в / у



## Anita hk

My book gives this sentence: *в* Сибири есть красивые озера - why is B used and not у?  Is y used only with person like y нас  and y меня?

Another sentence in the book:
возможностей изучать его *у нас в школах* мало - Can I say 'у наших школ'  and 'в наших школах' instead?  If so, is there any difference in meaning or nuance?

Any help appreciated.


----------



## Vovan

Anita hk said:


> why is B used and not у


The primary meaning of "у" is "near", so it generally doesn't refer to "physical (material) possession" with nouns denoting "areas of land/water; territories, spaces, etc.".
_Мы встретились у реки. (We met by a/the river.)_​_У реки есть название? (Does the river has a name?)_​_У дома есть красивая беседка. (  There's a beautiful gazebo near the house. The house has a beautiful gazebo.)_​​Surprisingly enough, "у" may (and most often does) refer to "physical (material) possession" in geometry(!):
_У треугольника ABC есть прямой угол. Это прямоугольный треугольник._​


Anita hk said:


> возможностей изучать его *у нас в школах* мало - Can I say 'у наших школ' and 'в наших школах' instead? If so, is there any difference in meaning or nuance?


Yes, you can. Without some special context, all three sentences would mean pretty much the same.


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> Yes, you can.


You clearly haven't read it to the end, I am afraid. 
"Изучать его у нас в школах возможностей мало" is indeed roughly equal to "изучать его в наших школах возможностей мало" (the latter is slightly less idiomatic and potentially more formal, but otherwise I can see no difference). Still it's by no means equal to "изучать его у наших школ возможностей мало" (here the schools have some possibilities, not the students; of course, another possibility is that the activity occurs "beside our schools").

Anyway, "у кого-л./чего-л." (literally meaning "at/near someone/something") participates in a lot of different constructions of possessive nature (in the broadest sense of the word - e.g. "my school" isn't usually "a school which I own", but "the school where I am somehow engaged", etc.) and is an extensive topic.


----------



## Anita hk

Thank you for your replies Vovan and Awwal 12.  
Will it be correct to say  'y + place (eg. house, river, Siberia etc) + есть + something' means there is something at / near a place, 
whereas 'y + personal pronoun + есть + something ' refers to somebody is in possession of something?


----------



## Awwal12

Anita hk said:


> Thank you for your replies Vovan and Awwal 12.
> Will it be correct to say  'y + place (eg. house, river, Siberia etc) + есть + something' means there is something at / near a place,
> whereas 'y + personal pronoun + есть + something ' refers to somebody is in possession of something?


Actually even a place can 'have' something. Compare:
У любо́й реки́ е́сть исто́к.
However, you are right that ["у" + personal pronoun + form of "быть"] always has some kind of possessive meaning, even despite the fact that formally a 3rd person pronoun may have an inanimate denotate. In the spatial meaning "у" normally cannot co-occur with a personal pronoun; if there is one, "у" must be replaced with some other preposition or an adverb. E.g.:
Мы́ вы́шли к бе́регу о́зера.
У о́зера стоя́л небольшо́й до́мик.
*У него стоя́л небольшо́й до́мик. 
Во́зле о́зера/него́ стоя́л небольшо́й до́мик.
Неподалёку от о́зера/него́ стоя́л небольшо́й до́мик.
Ря́дом с о́зером/ни́м стоя́л небольшо́й до́мик.


----------



## Anita hk

Thanks Awwal12 for the examples. I guess I had mixed up existence and possession when I learnt the construction  'y ... есть  ...'.  
The construction  'y ... есть  ...' means somebody / something has something, with 'has' referring to existence and not possession.  Correct?
If I want to say 'there is fish in the river', it will be 'B реке есть рыбы' , correct?


----------



## Maroseika

Anita hk said:


> The construction  'y ... есть  ...' means somebody / something has something, with 'has' referring to existence and not possession.  Correct?


Sometimes (often) it is really possession: У меня есть деньги.



> If I want to say 'there is fish in the river', it will be 'B реке есть рыбы' , correct?


Yes, в реке есть рыба (here рыба - collective noun).
But:
У реки два берега.
У этой реки быстрое течение (В этой реке быстрое течение is also possible).


----------



## Awwal12

As for the distribution between possessive constructions with some forms of "быть" and without them, it's pretty complex.
Note that "быть" usually reappears in the past or in the present tense anyway as long as the predicate allows it:
У меня грипп. - У меня был грипп. (Having a disease normally goes without "есть".)
У меня много денег. - У меня будет много денег.
У этой реки быстрое течение. - У этой реки было быстрое течение.
У меня нет денег. - У меня не было денег.
vs., for example:
У меня хватает денег. - У меня хватало денег.
( "У кого-л. где-л." type of phrases, where "у кого-л." essentially modifies some part of an adverbial phrase, obviously doesn't take "быть" by itself - although, of course, "быть" may appear as usual in the predicate which the whole construction is attached to.)

Regarding phrases like "у этой реки быстрое течение", note that only the word order hints at the predicate here (cf. "течение у этой реки быстрое"), and, anyway, the message is essentially just that the flow is fast ("течение у этой реки быстрое" is normally contrastive in some way, not an unmarked statement). Compare:
"У неё длинные ноги." (~"Ноги у неё длинные"; it's initially presupposed that she does have some legs, although their length is a new piece of information.)
"У неё есть длинные ноги." (May be used contextually to stress the fact of this inalienable possession, answering the questions "what does she have", like in "what good does she have at all?")
Note that in some cases "есть" may be added simply to stress the possession a bit (again, as long as the predicate allows):
"У меня _достаточно_ оснований для вашего увольнения." vs. "У меня _есть_ достаточно оснований для вашего увольнения."


----------



## Anita hk

Maroseika, thank you for the additional examples.  I have further questions.  
Is 'есть' optional in your 3 examples?
Do 'У этой реки быстрое течение' and 'В этой реке быстрое течение' mean exactly the same thing with no difference in nuance?  Which one is more commonly used among natives?


----------



## Anita hk

Thanks Awwal12.   So "У меня достаточно оснований для вашего увольнения'' and "У меня есть  достаточно оснований для вашего увольнения." mean exactly the same thing, only that the latter with  есть stress the possession?
And I can insert есть in these sentences with no basic change in meaning?  ''У меня (есть) много денег'' , 'У этой реки (есть) быстрое течение ', 'У меня (есть) хватает денег', 'У меня (есть) хватало денег'?
In normal usage for possession, is есть usually omitted?

I'm a beginner and my book gives simple examples like 'у вас есть кофе?' , 'у меня есть сын' and 'у нас есть время'.  Can I omit 'есть' in these sentences?


----------



## Awwal12

Anita hk said:


> Do 'У этой реки быстрое течение' and 'В этой реке быстрое течение' mean exactly the same thing with no difference in nuance?


"В этой реке быстрое течение" sounds somewhat strange to me; normally "течение" exists "у реки", as if the river posesses it (likely because the flow is its inalienable property). Compare "в этой трубе быстрое течение" (while "у этой трубы быстрое течение" is possible only with the spatial meaning of "у", i.e. when you speak about some flow in the area _near_ the pipe).


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> изучать его у наших школ возможностей мало
> here the schools have some possibilities, not the students


Possibilities to do do what? "Изучать"?
This particular sentence looks elliptical ("У наших школ мало возможностей (, чтобы нам) изучать его (в этих школах).").
So, all three sentences mean more or less the same in practice.

But I certainly agree with your comment _in general_.


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> This particular sentence looks elliptical ("У наших школ мало возможностей (, чтобы нам) изучать его (в этих школах).").


What?   How could it even work? "У меня мало возможностей, чтобы ты изучал английский" (or something like that) is not proper Russian at all in the first place. "Возможностей" of what? And do you think that "возможность" or "мало" can attach sentential arguments introduced by "чтобы"? (No, it cannot, certainly not in standard Russian.) And if it's not an argument but a simple adverbial clause of purpose attached to the predicate, then what in the world does it all mean? (Yes, "слишком мало" can attach an argument introduced by "чтобы", meaning that it makes the content of the argument clause impossible, but not "мало" alone.)

Moreover, it's universal that the semantic subject of an infinitive clause is forced by the upper-level syntactical structures according to pretty strict patterns. Consider:
У меня есть возможность купить машину.
 Do you really believe that it's possible to interpret this sentence as if it's someone else and not the speaker who will be buying the car?


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> And do you think that "возможность" or "мало" can attach sentential arguments introduced by "чтобы"?


OK, let's expand it to "для того, чтобы" and, by the way, retain the OP's phrasing:
Возможностей [для того, чтобы нам / мы могли] изучать его, у наших школ мало.


----------



## Awwal12

Better, but not enough. (The punctuation is also wrong, but that's irrelevant.)
"Возможность" doesn't attach arguments introduced by "чтобы" in standard Russian at all (as much as "мочь" doesn't), only bare infinitive clauses. And those have pretty restricted semantic subjects, as it was noted above. I still don't see how your proposed understanding is possible.


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> "Возможность" doesn't attach arguments introduced by "чтобы" in standard Russian at all


It depends on the meaning. If "возможность" = "ресурс", you _can _add "для того, чтобы".
And "возможности" (pl.) often means "(финансовые) ресурсы".


----------



## Awwal12

Anita hk said:


> So "У меня достаточно оснований для вашего увольнения'' and "У меня есть достаточно оснований для вашего увольнения." mean exactly the same thing, only that the latter with есть stress the possession?


They mean exactly the same thing, and even the difference is pretty subtle, frankly speaking.


Anita hk said:


> And I can insert есть in these sentences with no basic change in meaning? ''У меня (есть) много денег'' , 'У этой реки (есть) быстрое течение ', 'У меня (есть) хватает денег', 'У меня (есть) хватало денег'?


Of all these, only in the one with "много" in its predicate. 
- "Хвата́ть" is a verb itself (even though in the meaning "to suffice" it never takes grammatical subjects, forming impersonal constructions instead) and therefore its finite forms don't take "быть" at all.
- I frankly cannot imagine the appropriate context for "??У реки есть быстрое течение". Actually I cannot imagine "у реки есть что-л." in the possessive meaning at all as long as "река" remains referential (i.e. as long as we speak about some actual river); note that in "у любой реки есть исток" "река" obviously lacks referentiality.


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> It depends on the meaning. If "возможность" = "ресурс", you _can _add "для того, чтобы".
> And "возможности" (pl.) often means "(финансовые) ресурсы".


You can add the argument introduced by "для" indeed (not necessarily sentential, e.g. "возможности для решения задач"). What you cannot do, though, is to go that wild with deletions. You cannot outright delete two structural levels with the overt "dative subject" altogether and act as if nothing happened at all. "У наших школ есть возможности изучать его", or "у наших школ достаточно возможностей изучать его", or "у наших школ не хватает возможностей изучать его" all mean that the study is to be made by the schools, not by someone else. For a comparison, "у нас нет воды залить радиатор" or "не хватает воды залить радиатор" (with an essentially free semantic subject of the infinitive) may work in colloquial speech, but only because the noun in the parent clause works as an instrument in the infinitive phrase ("залить водой"). Note that "мы построили дом жить" or even "мы построили дом жить в нём" are both positively ungrammatical, whatever you might mean by that. "Средства" or "возможности", in turn, aren't instruments of the infinitive verb grammatically: you don't "изучаете что-л. возможностями"  , so even the colloquial instrumental usage of the infinitives is impossible here.


----------



## Vovan

*Awwal*, let's take another example, with a wider context:
_Мы с братом не поехали во Францию, как другие дети, - *денег*[, чтобы мы с братом могли] *съездить туда*[,] *у родителей было недостаточно*._​In my view, it's passable in colloquial speech. All ellipses (except for those in parallel structures) are far from being ideal grammatically.

The problem with "Возможностей изучать его у наших школ мало" is with "изучать": pragmatics tells us that "изучать" relates to the students.


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> In my view, it's passable in colloquial speech.


Well, in my view it isn't. The subject of the infinitive clause remains an issue.


----------

