# уже



## pimlicodude

From Solzhenitsyn:           


> В Берлине же вышла «Всемирная история еврейского народа» С. Дубнова, 10-томником на немецком, а по-русски – в течение 30-х годов, уже в Риге.


уже is a problematic word, as the dictionary definition "already" rarely seems to fit. What does уже mean in this sentence?


----------



## Vovan

It means "теперь", "на этот раз" in that sentence, but you can translate it along the lines of "...and it was (already) in Riga during the 1930s that it was published in Russian".

Here's this meaning in a dictionary:


> *1. *<...> || Указывает на происшедшую перемену, изменение места, обстоятельства и т. п. происходящего действия.
> _Елена дружелюбно встретила Берсенева, уже не в саду, а в гостиной._ Тургенев, Накануне.​https://classes.ru/all-russian/dictionary-russian-academ-term-82867.htm


​


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> It means "теперь", "на этот раз" in that sentence, but you can translate it along the lines of "...and it was (already) in Riga during the 1930s that it was published in Russian".
> 
> Here's this meaning in a dictionary:
> 
> ​


"Already" is not an appropriate translation in English. The sentence from Turgenev appears to mean "by that time".

Maybe - speaking tentatively here - "already" refers to one step back in time in English (i.e. a present perfect relationship). Whereas these sentences above refer to two steps back in time (a past perfect/pluperfect relationship). i.e. in the 1930s (already one step back in the past), something had happened (a second step back in the past). But already is not used for pluperfect meanings (as far as I can see without investigating the matter too deeply) in English. Maybe someone here has looked more carefully into it?


----------



## Maroseika

How would you translate на этот раз in this context?


----------



## pimlicodude

Maroseika said:


> How would you translate на этот раз in this context?


Well, I'm thinking that в течение 30-х годов, уже в Риге could be "by the 1930s, in Riga", but that approaches two phrases, separated by a comma, as a single whole.


----------



## pimlicodude

pimlicodude said:


> "Already" is not an appropriate translation in English. The sentence from Turgenev appears to mean "by that time".
> 
> Maybe - speaking tentatively here - "already" refers to one step back in time in English (i.e. a present perfect relationship). Whereas these sentences above refer to two steps back in time (a past perfect/pluperfect relationship). i.e. in the 1930s (already one step back in the past), something had happened (a second step back in the past). But already is not used for pluperfect meanings (as far as I can see without investigating the matter too deeply) in English. Maybe someone here has looked more carefully into it?


I'm not sure about this explanation, as you can say "they had already finished their homework when I got there". There must be a better explanation. Maybe it relates to the fact that at the time of Solzhenitsyn's writing, the publishing house in Riga no longer existed? I'm clearly not sure what the difficulty is, but many uses of уже appear confusing.

Or with the imperfect? By the 1930s it was already being published in Riga?/was already coming out in Riga? 

а по-русски – в течение 30-х годов, уже в Риге cannot be directly translated. "And in Russian, in the course of the 1930, it was already in Riga" sounds very non-idiomatic.


----------



## Maroseika

Just "in Riga" doesn't contain anything of this уже. On the other hand, the very уже in the original text looks stylistically bad for me, so maybe better omit it at all, indeed.


----------



## pimlicodude

Maroseika said:


> Just "in Riga" doesn't contain anything of this уже. On the other hand, the very уже in the original text looks stylistically bad for me, so maybe better omit it at all, indeed.


I suspect you are right there!


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> The sentence from Turgenev appears to mean "by that time".


No, just "that time". Another way to see "уже" in the meaning under discussion is "not anymore... but":
_уже не в саду, а в гостиной _(=not anymore in the garden but in the living room)​_уже в Риге _(=not anymore at the above-mentioned place but in Riga)​


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> By the 1930s it was already being published in Riga?/was already coming out in Riga?


"Уже" refers to Riga only, not the whole sentence. The idea is that the book, which consists of ten volumes, was (being) published in Russian during the 1930s - volume after volume. AND it happened (was (being) published) in Riga that time (~"now in Riga"); that's _additional _info.


----------



## Maroseika

pimlicodude said:


> Well, I'm thinking that в течение 30-х годов, уже в Риге could be "by the 1930s, in Riga".


Not by, but during / on the course of 30s.


----------



## Rosett

Необходимое значение находится в словаре I 2.:
уже
I нареч. качеств.-обстоят.; = уж
1. Употребляется при указании на окончательное совершение, наступление, выполнение чего-либо.
2. Употребляется при указании на смену места, времени, обстоятельств действия.
II част.; = уж
1. Употребляется при подтверждении чего-либо в начале реплики, соответствуя по значению сл.: право же, в самом деле, действительно.
2. Употребляется при подчеркивании или усилении значения местоимений и наречий.

Можно перевести как: “by then in Riga.”


----------



## Vovan

Rosett said:


> Можно перевести как: “by then in Riga.”


...но не в указанном вами значении. 

В базовом - да, можно в каких-то случаях:
_Он был уже в Риге. He was by then in Riga._​
Рассматриваемое же нами значение, по-видимому, не имеет однозначного эквивалента в английском. Как электронные переводчики, так и живые зачастую просто опускают это слово в переводе или, как в случае с приведенным выше предложением из "Накануне" Тургенева в классическом переводе на английский, подменяют его чем-то близким, но иным. Если и переводить это "уже" в собственном смысле, то для разных предложений способы будут разные.


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> ...но не в указанном вами значении.
> 
> В базовом - да, можно в каких-то случаях:
> _Он был уже в Риге. He was by then in Riga._​
> Рассматриваемое же нами значение, по-видимому, не имеет однозначного эквивалента в английском. Как электронные переводчики, так и живые зачастую просто опускают это слово в переводе или, как в случае с приведенным выше предложением из "Накануне" Тургенева в классическом переводе на английский, подменяют его чем-то близким, но иным. Если и переводить это "уже" в собственном смысле, то для разных предложений способы будут разные.


Не знаю почему я запутался в чтении этого предложения. может быть, из-за "в течение 30х годов"? это звучит процессно, т.е. imperfect (it was being published during the 1930s), no "уже в Риге" звучит как пункт (by 1930 - an exact date - it was already in Riga). Вот почему я придумал ложное объяснение этого, но как Маросейка уже сказал, может быть это звучит странно и по-русски тоже.


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> "Уже в Риге" звучит как пункт (by 1930 - an exact date - it was already in Riga).
> <...> Может быть, это звучит странно и по-русски тоже.


Не возьмусь судить о предложении в целом, но "рамка" в виде "В Берлине ... ..., а .... уже в Риге" - совершенно нормальная, в т.ч. для повседневного языка. Например:
_В Москве мы просто встречались _(=у нас были любовные свидания)_, а поженились уже в Риге._​


pimlicodude said:


> Не знаю, почему я запутался в чтении этого предложения. Может быть, из-за "в течение 30-х годов"?


Скорее всего, именно поэтому.


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> Не возьмусь судить о предложении в целом, но "рамка" в виде "В Берлине ... ..., а .... уже в Риге" - совершенно нормальная, в т.ч. для повседневного языка. Например:
> _В Москве мы просто встречались _(=у нас были любовные свидания)_, а поженились уже в Риге._​


Но по-английски, никто бы не сказал we married ALREADY in Riga.
We simply met in Moscow, but got married in Riga - наверное Маросейка прав, не надо перевести "уже".... Or, but it was in Riga that we got married. Or, we were already living in Riga by the time we got married. Or - this is a good alternative - we met in Moscow, but Riga was where we got married.


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> We simply met in Moscow,


_Dated_, not just _met_.



pimlicodude said:


> Or, but it was in Riga that we got married.


Do you mean you, as a native speaker, could never add "already" before "in Riga" there? Would the sentence below sound unidiomatic?
_It was already in Riga that we got married._​


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> _Dated_, not just _met_.


Thank you. I didn't realise that!


----------



## pimlicodude

Vovan said:


> Do you mean you, as a native speaker, could never add "already" before "in Riga" there? Would the sentence below sound unidiomatic?
> _It was already in Riga that we got married._​


I don't think that's right in English, but I've learnt on Wordreference not to anticipate the forms other native speakers say they use. I think "already" needs a clause: it was when we were already living in Riga that we got married.


----------



## nizzebro

In this sort of "уже", the point is that there is something common, that is stretched in time; and what is opposed, is the initial and the final part of that thing - even if these are formally independent actions. In Vovan's example, the common thing is the history of their relations - where dating is the natural prologue and marriage is the outcome. In the OP sentence, it is the history of publication of "World History of the Jewish People", where the German edition appears as some preliminary part, and the Russian one - as something more prominent and so culmination-like:  "по-русски" is the focused idea there, a topic that is being switched - and presented by change of both locations and stages of the same complex of actions.


----------



## Awwal12

Maroseika said:


> Just "in Riga" doesn't contain anything of this уже. On the other hand, the very уже in the original text looks stylistically bad for me, so maybe better omit it at all, indeed.


I may be missing something, but why not just "that time in Riga"?


nizzebro said:


> In this sort of "уже", the point is that there is something common, that is stretched in time; and what is opposed, is the initial and the final part of that thing - even if these are formally independent actions. In Vovan's example, the common thing is the history of their relations - where dating is the natural prologue and marriage is the outcome. In the OP sentence, it is the history of publication of "World History of the Jewish People", where the German edition appears as some preliminary part, and the Russian one - as something more prominent and so culmination-like: "по-русски" is the focused idea there, a topic that is being switched - and presented by change of both locations and stages of the same complex of actions.


I must admit I find this explanation overcomplicated and difficult to comprehend. It would be sufficient to say that in some cases уже just denotes the change (in a subject, an object, an adverbial, whatever, normally as a part of the rheme) opposed to the previous state of events; the fact that it mostly can be replaced with теперь  (or they can be combined in "теперь уже") is quite telling, though теперь ("now as opposed to before") as an separate word is more typically used regarding the current state at the moment of speech.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> It would be sufficient to say that in some cases уже just denotes the change (in a subject, an object, an adverbial, whatever, normally as a part of the rheme) opposed to the previous state of events; the fact that it mostly can be replaced with теперь (or they can be combined in "теперь уже") is quite telling, though теперь ("now as opposed to before") as an separate word is more typically used regarding the current state at the moment of speech


Well, I agree, but this conception is way too general. Yes, the sense of "now" is roughly of the same category (as e.g. "now in Riga/in a blue shirt/whatever else" - and, I believe in English it as well could be applied to past events as "present in the past"). But anyway, our "уже" suggests something like a final stage in its rheme - that is to say, we have not a simple opposition "before and now", but rather "a preliminary part versus the essential part or like that ("published in Russian"). In principle, we can replace "уже в Риге" with "теперь (уже) в Риге" in the original sentence - but the result would be "on this occasion" - which is about multiple occasions of the same thing. The opposition we deal with, is not only based on "that before" versus "that after".


----------

