# To be, to have



## mikasa_90

Can you tell me the present simple in russian of to be and to have?

Thanks


----------



## Thomas1

mikasa_90 said:


> Can you tell me the present simple in russian of to be and to have?
> 
> Thanks


Hi,

Can you give the infinitives you have in mind?
The verb _to be_ is the same for all persons in the present tense, and the verb _to have_ is most often rendered by a construction y+person:
_I have everything I want. — У меня есть все, что я хочу._
You may find this site useful. 

Tom

PS: As far as I know there isn't such tense as present simple in Russian.


----------



## mikasa_90

I want to uderstand:
i have = _У меня
__everything =__есть все
(that)=__что
I =__я
want=__хочу

_


----------



## Maroseika

mikasa_90 said:


> I want to uderstand:
> i have = _У меня есть _
> _everything =__есть все*,*_
> _(that)=__что_
> _I =__я_
> _want=__хочу._


----------



## mikasa_90

For example 
1) I have got  a cat.
1) _У меня есть _кот
?


----------



## Maroseika

mikasa_90 said:


> For example
> 1) I have got a cat.
> 1) _У меня есть _кот
> ?


Correct.


----------



## mikasa_90

and for the cat is black (=кот оно чёрньiи) or in other form?


----------



## Maroseika

mikasa_90 said:


> and for the cat is black (=кот оно чёрньiи) or in other form?


Кот чёрный.


----------



## mikasa_90

So ''is'' in russian is implicit meaning?


----------



## Maroseika

mikasa_90 said:


> So ''is'' in russian is implicit meaning?


Yes, usually it's not necessary.


----------



## Ptak

mikasa_90 said:


> For example
> 1) I have got a cat.
> 1) _У меня есть _кот
> ?


Noi non diciamo "io ho" (I have, я имею). Non diciamo "я имею".
"У меня есть" letteralmente significa "_da me_ c'è...":
_Da me c'è un gatto. _
NON diciamo "*io ho* un gatto".


----------



## Piotr_WRF

mikasa_90 said:


> For example
> 1) I have got  a cat.
> 1) _У меня есть _кот
> ?





Maroseika said:


> Correct.



In Polish you say "_Mam kota_" if you want to say that you own a cat.
"U mnie jest kot" means that there's a cat in your house, room etc.

Am I right in assuming that "_У меня есть кот_" would be "_Mam kota_" in Polish?
How would you translate my second phrase into Russian?


----------



## Ptak

Piotr_WRF said:


> Am I right in assuming that "_У меня есть кот_" would be "_Mam kota_" in Polish?


Yes. We don't say "я имею кота", but ONLY "*у меня есть* кот".


----------



## Thomas1

Ptak said:


> Yes. We don't say "я имею кота", but ONLY "*у меня есть* кот".


How would you say "U mnie jest kot"* then?

Tom

*Literally it means _At my place is a cat_, and more idiomatically: _There is a cat at my place_.


----------



## Sibenik

*у меня есть

*Do you pronounce it " Y myena yest " or ?


----------



## Thomas1

Sibenik said:


> *у меня есть*
> 
> Do you pronounce it " Y myena yest " or ?


Rather:
u myenya yest 
p*u*t

Tom


----------



## Ptak

Thomas1 said:


> How would you say "U mnie jest kot" then?


_У меня есть кот (the same)._
_У меня дома есть кот._
_Я держу кота._
_Я держу дома кота._




Sibenik said:


> *у меня есть*
> 
> Do you pronounce it " Y myena yest " or ?


*[У миня йэсть]*
*Ooh min'a yest'*
(_Oo_ as in look, n' and t' are soft.)



Thomas1 said:


> Rather:
> u myenya yest
> p*u*t
> 
> Tom


No, it doesn't sound "m*ye*nya". This *e* is unstressed, so it's pronounced just like *и*.


----------



## Sibenik

It would be also good to conjugate;
I have a cat
You have a cat
He, she has a cat 

We have a cat
You have a cat 
They have a cat

For the begenning;

*у меня есть* кот.....


----------



## Ptak

Sibenik said:


> It would be also good to conjugate;
> I have a cat
> You have a cat
> He, she has a cat
> 
> We have a cat
> You have a cat
> They have a cat
> 
> For the begenning;
> 
> *у меня есть* кот.....


 
у *тебя* есть
у *него* / у *неё* есть

у *нас* есть
у *вас* есть
у *них* есть


----------



## Sibenik

Ptak, please help me with this.

у тебя есть................y tyebja yest
у него / у неё есть......y nyego/ y ???

у нас есть.......y nas yest
у вас есть.......y vas yest
у них есть.......y nih jest


----------



## Thomas1

Ptak said:


> [..]
> No, it doesn't sound "m*ye*nya". This *e* is unstressed, so it's pronounced just like *и*.


Thanks for the correction. So I guess it would more or less be:
u mynya yest 

Tom


----------



## mikasa_90

_У меня есть _кот si pronuncia : *yu menià yescerf

e letteralmente y cosa vuol dire( =what mean it?)
*


----------



## Sibenik

Thomas, thanks for the help.


----------



## Ptak

Thomas1 said:


> Thanks for the correction. So I guess it would more or less be:
> u mynya yest


Sorry, but it's not m*y*nya at all, but m*i*nya (m is soft)!



mikasa_90 said:


> _У меня есть _кот si pronuncia : *yu menià yescerf*
> 
> *e letteralmente y cosa vuol dire( =what mean it?)*


_У меня есть _кот si pronuncia: u mini*a* i*e*st' k*o*t.
"Y" è il suono russo Ы. Or English *y* (depending on the context).


----------



## Ptak

Sibenik said:


> Ptak, please help me with this.
> 
> у тебя есть................ u tiby*a* yest'
> у него / у неё есть......u niv*o*/ y niy*o*
> 
> у нас есть.......u nas
> у вас есть.......u vas
> у них есть.......u nih


----------



## Thomas1

Ptak said:


> Sorry, but it's not m*y*nya at all, but m*i*nya (m is soft)!
> [...]


Perhaps I should have added the way it's pornounced as I didn't write it in phonetic alphabet I meant y as in cand*y*.

Tom


----------



## Ptak

Thomas1 said:


> Perhaps I should have added the way it's pornounced as I didn't write it in phonetic alphabet I meant y as in cand*y*.


I'd say it's softer.


----------



## mikasa_90

Sorry but i have a 'dubbio' with the pronunciation of it:

 у них есть.......u nih

nih how is it 'h'?


----------



## Ptak

mikasa_90 said:


> Sorry but i have a 'dubbio' with the pronunciation of it:
> 
> у них есть.......u nih
> 
> nih how is it 'h'?


It's almost like the German *ch* in "Buch", the Spanish *j* in "trabajo"...


----------



## Thomas1

Ptak said:


> I'd say it's softer.


In spite of that they are both transcripted as _ in IPA they are also be allophones of the same phoneme, aren't they?

Tom_


----------



## Ptak

Thomas1 said:


> In spite of that they are both transcripted as _ in IPA. They are also be allophones of the same phoneme, aren't they?
> 
> Tom_


_
Sorry, my English is not so good, so I didn't understand your question... Especially the first sentence... "In spite"?... You mean malice; rage, anger; grudge?..
What is IPA?

And I'm not an expert in the "allophones" and "phonemes". _


----------



## Thomas1

Ptak said:


> Sorry, my English is not so good, so I didn't understand your question... Especially the first sentence... "In spite"?... You mean _malice; rage, anger; grudge_?..
> What is IPA?
> 
> And I'm not an expert in the "allophones" and "phonemes".


In spite of = несмотря на
IPA is International Phonetic Alphabet, shortly a phonetic transcription of sounds, and the _y_ from _candy_ as well as Russian _и_ are both _ in IPA.

As to phonemes and allophones I am not sure I am able to explain it, but I will give it a try (someone correct me please if I have tripped up somewhere):
Phoneme - the samllest unit of sound (e.g. p, b, i, k, q); a phoneme can have allophones--variations of this sound. Thus we have the phoneme /i/ which has, in this case, two allophones the way it is pronounced in English, i.e. cand*y*; and the way it is pronounced in Russian м*е*ня which sounds here like Russian и and is softer as you said.

Tom_


----------



## mikasa_90

*I have a question:

I have cat=*_У меня есть _кот

but i haven't cat?


----------



## Ptak

I don't think that International Phonetic Alphabet is an indisputable authority in the Russian language. But maybe I'm wrong.
I just can say that FOR ME the *y* in "Candy" doesn't sound properly as the Russian и. And this *dy* doesn't sound to me as Russian *ди*; it closer to *ды*.

And I'm a native speaker, by the way.


----------



## Ptak

mikasa_90 said:


> *I have a question:*
> 
> *I have cat=*_У меня есть _кот
> 
> but i haven't cat?


У мен*я* нет кот*а*.
_(Da me non c'è un gatto.)_

Un oggetto si usa nel genitivo in tal caso ("кота").


----------



## mikasa_90

_*I have some black cats=ho dei gatti neri

In russo c'è qualche declinazione per vedere il caso di una parola, come in rumeno o il latino ad esempio?
*_


----------



## Ptak

Scusa, non ho capito "declinazione per vedere il caso".
Intendi qualcosa del genitivo latino? Come: _mater, *matris*; ratio, *rationis*_... O cosa?


----------



## sokol

mikasa_90 said:


> And I'm a native speaker, by the way.


Me, I'm no native speaker of Russian, but I am a linguist and familiar both with IPA and general principles of phonology, and I know at least the basics of Russian phonology - so I will try to help:

Phoneme = the smallest _distinctive _phonetic unit
Allophones = are only phonetic _varieties _of phonemes, they're not phonemes themselves but only typical realisations of phonemes in a given language
Phon = the _exact _sound and (supposedly) universal (not language specific), though this is not precisely correct, but for our purpose this definition should suffice

If you make a phonological analysis of a language you're comparing minimal pairs in which _only one sound makes for different meanings,_ like Slovene: /polž - polh/ -> so, /ž/ and /h/ both have the function to differentiate both words, both are phonemes.
Allophones you have with e. g. German /diç - dax/: although both /ç/ and /x/ are different sounds, these two words (written 'dich - Dach') are a perfect minimal pair, and /ç ~ x/ are only allophones of one phoneme /x/.

With Russian, one would _have to differ_ in some way hard and soft consonants or hard and soft vowels; however, for the phonological analysis, both variants are possible, meaning: one could attribute 'softness - hardness' to the consonants or, rather, to the vowels - whereas in fact both consonant and vowel phonetically are affected.

What does this mean?
The Russian syllables /ти - ты/ ~ /те -тэ/ ~ /та - тя/ all are only (phonemically) distinct by one phoneme. But is it the consonant or is it the vowel? It's an either-or, as it would be _redundant _to represent the distinctiveness in both letters (even though phonetically it is present in both, if I am not mistaken - I know that being the case for sure only in the opposition /ти - ты/ and am not sure of the other two; by the way, the sound of /ы/, though not exactly - not even closely - representing the second /y/ in 'Cindy', certainly, phonetically, is closer to the /y/ than to the /i/ in 'Cindy').

Strictly phonetically, one could write (in approximation) /t'i - t''y/ (with ' representing softness, '' representing hardness, and y representing the 'dark' i-vowel of Russian: both vocal quality and consonant quality would be represented).
But phonologically, this is not necessary. It would suffice to write /t'i - ti/ (meaning: /t'i/ is with soft consonant and 'light' i, whereas /ti/ is with hard consonant and therefore the vowel should be 'dark').
But better, I think, would be the solution the Russians chose with their script, i. e. /ti - ty/ meaning 'before-i-consonant-is-soft' and 'before-y-consonant-is-hard' and additional markers (ьъ) in cases where there are exceptions.

So, the gist of this is: in phonology, you only do write what is necessary, you eliminate redundency.

IPA would certainly be able to correctly transcribe Russian, but then IPA is a _phonetical _tool, basically, even though (of course) for scientific phonological descriptions oftentimes IPA signs are used.
Although there are some deficiencies in IPA especially referring to Slavic languages (and to German dialects, too, but that's beside the point in this context), I think that a phonetical standard is very good for all of us in order to understand each other despite language barrieres.

Read Nikolaj Trubetzkoj if you're interested in Phonology; though he wrote one of his main oevres when living in Austria [in German language] I'd guess that a Russian version should be available.


----------



## mikasa_90

Ptak said:


> Scusa, non ho capito "declinazione per vedere il caso".
> Intendi qualcosa del genitivo latino? Come: _mater, *matris*; ratio, *rationis*_... O cosa?




si esatto

per esempio per kot=gatto come è?


----------



## Ptak

Da noi non c'è qualcosa di questo tipo... Può darsi che è anche il genetivo. Ma non posso dirtelo precisamente.
Il genetivo per gatto è _кот*а*_.

nominativo - к*о*т
genetivo - кот*а*
dativo - кот*у*
accusativo - кот*а*
strumentale - кот*о*м
prepositivo - о кот*е*


----------



## ayupshiplad

Ptak said:


> I just can say that FOR ME the *y* in "Candy" doesn't sound properly as the Russian и. And this *dy* doesn't sound to me as Russian *ди*; it closer to *ды*.


 
For me, the y in candy sounds more like 'ay' actually. Maybe candy is a bad example because it is a word we don't use we are likely to put on an american accent when using it, but generally a lot of words ending in -y and pronounced closer to -ay than -ee (eg, comedy, funny, history).


----------



## mikasa_90

Quindi dovrebbe essere cosi:
quando il gatto è soggetto della frase è kot
ma nell'esempio di prima ho un gatto= doveva quindi essere usato kota?


----------



## Ptak

mikasa_90 said:


> Quindi dovrebbe essere cosi:
> quando il gatto è soggetto della frase è kot
> ma nell'esempio di prima ho un gatto= doveva quindi essere usato kota?


_Ho un gatto - У меня есть КОТ (non КОТА!)._
_Non ho un gatto - У меня нет КОТ*А*._

La negazione in russo richiede il genetivo (in proposizioni di questo tipo).


----------

