# из or c



## Thomas1

Hello, 



Setwale_Charm said:


> Was the actual meaning behind it :Что ты делаешь на Украине? or
> Почему ты не уезжаешь из Украины?
> Split from here.


Could I use in this sentence either of the following prepositions: *из *or *c*, please?
If so, is it the same story as with в/на?

Thank you in advance,
Thomas


----------



## cyanista

I am as curious as you to know if there's any rule to regulate the usage.  I would always say  "Почему ты не уезжаешь *из* Украины?" but "Нет вестей *с* Украины?".

Мне тоже было бы интересно узнать, есть ли правило, когда что употреблять. Я бы в любом случае сказала: "Почему ты не уезжаешь *из* Украины?", но: "Нет вестей с Украины?"


----------



## Thomas1

I found in one dictionary that people started to use both since the partition of the Soviet Union (at least how I understood the explanation). The dictionary says that the Russian speakers used _*с* Украины_ before Ukraine became a separate country and now after 1991 some of them started to use _*из* Украины_. Do you think you heard anyone saying _Почему ты не уезжаешь *с* Украины_? Can you discern any difference between them, please?

How about this one:
я из Украины.
Is it correct?


----------



## jester.

Thomas1 said:


> How about this one:
> я из Украины.
> Is it correct?



Wouldn't you just say "Я украиский." in that case? Or am I misunderstanding something here?


----------



## clapec

This is what I have been taught:
- When the idea of motion _towards_ a place is expressed by *в + accusative* case, the correspondent idea of motion _from_ that place is expressed by *из + genitive*. 
e.g. Я иду в университет / Я иду из университета.
- On the other hand, when the idea of motion _towards_ a place is expressed by *на + accusative* case, the correspondent motion _from_ that place is expressed by *с + genitive*.
e.g. Я иду на почту / Я иду с почты.


----------



## beclija

Not a very productive contribution, but:  
In Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, _u/у_ (corresponding to в) _always _goes hand in hand with _iz/из_ and _na/на _with _с(а)/sa._ But there are also a few geographical terms where people seem to disagree. For example Pale used to be a mountain village before the war and everybody said "na Palama/на Палама". Know it has about five times the population of before and some people insist that it is a town and not a mountain slope with a few hotels, and therefore it should be "u Palama/у Палама". "Balkan/Балкан" seems to be another one where there is disagreement.

For Ukrajina it would always be u/У and iz/из. Same for Krajina (as the historical borderland between then Habsburg and Ottoman empire; if you wanted to say "on the border", it would be "na", but you would use another word because "krajina" is archaic in it's original meaning).


----------



## papillon

clapec said:


> This is what I have been taught:
> - When the idea of motion _towards_ a place is expressed by в + accusative case, the correspondent idea of motion _from_ that place is expressed by из + genitive.
> e.g. Я иду в университет / Я иду из университета.
> - On the other hand, when the idea of motion towards a place is expressed by на + accusative case, the correspondent motion from that place is expressed by с + genitive.
> e.g. Я иду на почту / Я иду с почты.


This explains the с / из dichotomy when dealing with Ukraine. You need to make a decision whether you say _в Украине_ or _на Украине._ If you live в Украине, then уезжаешь из Украины. However, if you live на Украине, then уезжаешь с Украины. Other than that, there is no difference in the meaning.

The recent shift from на то в resulted from the perception by some that the на in the Russian language geographically implies a region/area, often a part of Russia, not an independant country. When discussing Russia's various _oblasti_, people often use на: на Кубани, на Псковщине. Similarly, small island nations sometimes get this designation: на Кубе, на Цейлоне <but в Шри Ланке>. Consequently, if you accept this logic, the use of на undermines the concept of Ukraine as a country. It is probably also related to the recent shift in English from the Ukraine to just Ukraine.

I personally don't subscribe to this move and will probably always continue saying на Украине and с Украины, but we'll see what happens with the new generation.


----------



## cyanista

papillon said:


> I personally don't subscribe to this move and will probably always continue saying на Украине and с Украины, but we'll see what happens with the new generation.



Then I probably belong to the intermediate generation of 'confused'.


----------



## bwex562

in general, you have to use V to express motion. But - this is not a rule, but just a general indication - if more than a place, it is an occasion or an open field, you use NA. Then, keep in mind that NA means on, so if you can be NA KRYSHE and hardly V KRYSHE.
The opposite are IZ for V and S for NA.
The most common NA place
yna ukraine, na ploshchadke, na kuchne, na peregovorah, na vechere, na spektakle...


----------



## beclija

I'm sorry to intervene with some off-topic languages again, but in case of the Island states, would it make a difference wether you refer to the island itself (say, its geography, vegetation, or what not), or to the state (say its political history and administrative structures), in that you would use на in the first case and в in the second? Because some time ago I asked in a Croatian forum wether to say "na Puerto Riku" or "u Puerto Riku" and someone explained me it would depend on wether I mean the island or the state. To me personally, the "na" variant sounds more natural in this case, but I am not a native speaker.

Ispričam/Извинјавам se što ponovo upadam s nekim petnaestim jezicima, ali postoji li u slučaju otočnih/острвних država razlika u tome da li se odnosi na sam otok/само острво (recimo, zemljopis/географију, vegetaciju ili što već) ili na državu (njenu političku povijest/историју i administrativne strukture) u tome što u prvome slučaju uporabi/употребља "на" dok je u potonjem "в"? Pitam jer sam se prije neko vrijeme raspitao na nekom hrvatskom forumu treba li da kažem "u Puerto Riku" ili "na Puerto Riku" i netko/неко mi je objasnio da zavisi od toga da li mislim na otok/острво ili na državu. Meni varijanta s "na" prirodnije zvuči, ali nisam izvorni govornik.


----------



## papillon

beclija said:


> ... in case of the Island states, would it make a difference wether you refer to the island itself (say, its geography, vegetation, or what not), or to the state (say its political history and administrative structures) ...in that you would use на in the first case and в in the second? Because some time ago I asked in a Croatian forum wether to say "na Puerto Riku" or "u Puerto Riku" and someone explained me it would depend on wether I mean the island or the state


In Russian there is usuallly no difference. If it's v for the island, then it's v for the state/country. If it's na, then it's na.
в Пуэрто Рико
на Багамах
на Филипинах
на Гаити
в Новой Зеландии


----------



## Thomas1

Thanks everyone for your contribution. 


jester. said:


> Wouldn't you just say "Я украиский." in that case? Or am I misunderstanding something here?


I was rather trying to say _I'm from Ukraine._ Thanks for the suggestion, anyway. 

Could someone, please, confirm if _я из Украины_ is correct or otherwise (or perhaps both are fine--although, the version with _c_ sounds a bit strange to me my non-native ears)?



clapec said:


> This is what I have been taught:
> - When the idea of motion _towards_ a place is expressed by *в + accusative* case, the correspondent idea of motion _from_ that place is expressed by *из + genitive*.
> e.g. Я иду в университет / Я иду из университета.
> - On the other hand, when the idea of motion _towards_ a place is expressed by *на + accusative* case, the correspondent motion _from_ that place is expressed by *с + genitive*.
> e.g. Я иду на почту / Я иду с почты.


Sorting the things out I came to the similar conclusions but thanks for clarifying that , I would mechanically use both, i.e.:
_Почему ты не уезжаешь из/с Украины?_
However, cyanista, and other natives I guess, confirm that they use the _из_ version.


As for на/в distinction we have something similar in Polish too though we just have _z_ as the _leaving_ counterpart.


----------



## papillon

jester. said:


> Wouldn't you just say "Я украинский." in that case? Or am I misunderstanding something here?


You would never say that. Русский is rather an exception, as this is a rare case where an adjective is used to describe nationality/ethnicity warning: note: Russian definition of nationality differs from that of the Western countries). 
Я русский _but_
Я украинец
Я белорус


Thomas1 said:


> I was rather trying to say _I'm from Ukraine._


Both я с Украины and я из Украины are correct. The former is the traditional form, and most older people tend to use it. However, nowadays, you will hear both, and if you have to choose one, my recommendation (one I don't follow myself ) is to use я *из* Украины, since this is probably the form that will become dominant.


----------



## jester.

papillon said:


> You would never say that. Русский is rather an exception, as this is a rare case where an adjective is used to describe nationality/ethnicity warning: note: Russian definition of nationality differs from that of the Western countries).
> Я русский _but_
> Я украинец
> Я белорус



I had no idea, but this is an important piece of advice. Thanks a lot


----------



## Etcetera

cyanista said:


> I would always say  "Почему ты не уезжаешь *из* Украины?" but "Нет вестей *с* Украины?".


I've asked my Father (he's of Ukrainian origin, but left Ukraine about 25 years ago), and he tends to agree with Cyanista.


----------



## papillon

I wonder if this is different for приезжать and уезжать. I usually say:
Ко мне племянник _с_ Украины приезжает.


----------



## klopp

( both answers in english and italian are well accepted, with russian examples  )



Hi guys!

I up this thread because *I really don' t get when to use << из >> and when << с >>  
*
( +  genitiv of course )

 ( В - на  difference is not a problem I got it)


I understand that the "couples" are  в / из  and на / c , but what happens if I don' t have this information?


thanks


----------



## Maroseika

klopp said:


> I up this thread because *I really don' t get when to use << из >> and when << с >>  *


*

If your question refers to Ukraine, the only standard modern variant is на Украину and с Украины. However nowadays there is a tendency to use the same prepositions with this country like with all other countries, i.e. в Украину and из Украины. Maybe some time this variant will become standard, but so far it is wrong.
The reason of this exception is the same why in the past they used to say "the Ukraine", i.e. historical and etymological reasons.*


----------



## Ёж!

Generally, you use "из" with something that goes from 'inside' (in a great lot of meanings), and "с" with something from a "surface" (again, in a great lot of meanings). For example: «убери тарелки со стола» means the request to collect the plates from the surface of the table, while somewhat strange «убери тарелки из стола» would mean a request to take away the plates from the table's box, for example.

Specifically, your question is way too broad.


----------



## klopp

thank  you guys!


no, it is not about Ukraine, sorry. I know it is an exception. My teacher said that it is (was, I hope) dispregiative, against Ukranians...

 I just was looking for a *general rule*: looks like it is the same difference between "ve" and "na" . I think I got it now. Problem is that there are many exceptions and interpretations...


----------



## Maroseika

klopp said:


> no, it is not about Ukraine, sorry. I know it is an exception. My teacher said that it is (was, I hope) dispregiative, against Ukranians...


Your teacher was absolutely wrong. Usage of в and на with Ukraine has appeared long before appearnace of Ukrainians as separate nation. So such usage is not more disparaging, than The Netherlands or the Kongo or на Гоа.



> I just was looking for a *general rule*: looks like it is the same difference between "ve" and "na" . I think I got it now. Problem is that there are many exceptions and interpretations...


Yes, you are right, there is no general rule applicable in all cases. But Ёж! gave you the rule, applicable in most cases.


----------



## klopp

ok 

for the *В *- *на * distinction, is it correct to say as general rule that:

if with the question implies  "ГДЕ?" you will have to use  "НА"
ES> Я нахожусь (ГДЕ?) НА море, НА улице, НА площади, НА Луне, НА берегу

instead if the question implies "КУДА?" you have to use usa la preposizione << В >>
ES: Я иду (КУДА?) В Рим, В лес, В офис, В магазин 
Куда ты идёшь? В баню



is it correct?


----------



## Maroseika

klopp said:


> is it correct?



Unfortunately, this rule is wrong:
Куда идешь (собираешься)? На площадь, на войну, на отдых, на завод, на фабрику, на представление, на спектакль...
Где ты это нашел? В школе, в столе, у себя в голове... Где ты был? В институте, в кино, в бане, в магазине... 

So very general rule, based on etymology, is that в implies some interior and на - some surface. But too many nouns contradict this rule. More or less reliably it works only with simple objects (в столе and на столе, в шкафу and на шкафу, в голове and на голове).


----------



## klopp

thank you!


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> Yes, you are right, there is no general rule applicable in all cases. But Ёж! gave you the rule, applicable in most cases.


    Actually, we very seldom use the combination "с" + genitive; usually, we use "от" instead, which alludes not to the "surface", but just to the "outer part" in general. Consider this sequence of examples: "С Мити надо получить пятьсот рублей", "Пятьсот рублей прислано из дома Мити", "Пятьсот рублей получено от Митиного брата". The first construction is rather special.

 The quirk with these rules is that they do not allow to securely construct phrases, since for a foreigner it is impossible to know in most cases whether the "surface", the "inner part" or the "outer part" _should be_ meant on a certain occasion. But it does allow to reliably understand what kind of notion appears in a native speaker's imagination when the native listens to a certain phrase. These are the rules for reading and listening, not for writing and speaking.


----------



## klopp

Ёж! said:


> *Actually, we very seldom use the combination "с" + genitive; usually, we use "от" instead*, which alludes not to the "surface", but just to the "outer part" in general. Consider this sequence of examples: "С Мити надо получить пятьсот рублей", "Пятьсот рублей прислано из дома Мити", "Пятьсот рублей получено от Митиного брата". The first construction is rather special.
> 
> The quirk with these rules is that they do not allow to securely construct phrases, since for a foreigner it is impossible to know in most cases whether the "surface", the "inner part" or the "outer part" _should be_ meant on a certain occasion. But it does allow to reliably understand what kind of notion appears in a native speaker's imagination when the native listens to a certain phrase. These are the rules for reading and listening, not for writing and speaking.



for what I know << c >> + gen. is used for physical places (from some place), << ot >> + gen. when you get something from somebody, a human being. (and emotions as well)


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> Actually, we very seldom use the combination "с" + genitive; usually, we use "от" instead, which alludes not to the "surface", but just to the "outer part" in general. Consider this sequence of examples: "С Мити надо получить пятьсот рублей", "Пятьсот рублей прислано из дома Мити", "Пятьсот рублей получено от Митиного брата". The first construction is rather special.


But even in this case "получите с меня" or "Сколько с меня?" is the only natural way to say and far not special or seldom.



klopp said:


> for what I know << c >> + gen. is used for physical places (from some place), << ot >> + gen. when you get something from somebody, a human being. (and emotions as well)



In the first case instead of "с" often "из" is used: с Москвы, со школы are usable, but low colloquial, из Москвы, из школы are literal.
I'm afraid for many nouns you should just remember correct preposition.


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> But even in this case "получите с меня" or "Сколько с меня?" is the only natural way to say and far not special or seldom.


 Sure. But the construction itself, i.e. the use of the preposition, feels special — this is what I meant.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> Sure. But the construction itself, i.e. the use of the preposition, feels special — this is what I meant.



Not sure what do you mean "special", but it seems to me quite natural: с этого гуся мы много пуха не получим, взял с него слово, снять с клиента мерку and so on.


----------



## Ёж!

I meant that it is not used for many similar things. For example, "получил письмо от брата". Somehow, the "с" in these examples reminds to me more an idiom than normal usage of the preposition. If something that you receive does not go to your material advantage, then the "с" seems not to be used.


----------



## Dimka

из - for example from forest
с -  for example from the roof


----------



## alexkouz

klopp said:


> My teacher said that it is (was, I hope) dispregiative, against Ukranians...



 You shouldn’t get confused. Russian and Ukrainian are two different languages. In Ukrainian correct to write «*в Україну*», «*з України*», but in Russian the same will be: «*на Украину*» и «*с Украины*».


----------



## klopp

thanks guys

speaking of the *В - на *distinction, i was studying grammar and ai really don't understand this: << Я ужинаю тоже в столово*й* >>

why that desinence?! shouldn' it be << B >> + prepositional? That word is feminine, столовая , the desinence should be << e >> , what am I mistaking?


thanks


----------



## Lotto74

klopp said:


> speaking of the *В - на *distinction, i was studying grammar and ai really don't understand this: << Я ужинаю тоже в столово*й* >>
> 
> why that desinence?! shouldn' it be << B >> + prepositional? That word is feminine, столовая , the desinence should be << e >> , what am I mistaking?



Sorry, what is "desinence"? Both Lingvo and Google translator do not know this word. Do you mean "ending"?

"Я ужинаю в столовой" - subject ("я") + predicate ("ужинаю") + adverbial modifier of place ("в столовой"). The adverbial modifier consists of preposition ("в", "in") and noun ("столовая").

Cases of nouns have different forms for different words. For example, "в столовОЙ" (feminine), but "в ресторанЕ" (masculine), "на кораблЕ" (masculine) or "в квартирЕ" (feminine). Don't ask why.  You just need to remember those forms.

Maybe the cause of it is that the word "столовая" initially was an adjective ("столовая комната", "dining room") which accidentally became a noun used on its own. So, "в столовой" actually means "в столовой комнатЕ" where the word "комната" (feminine) is changed according to your rule.


----------



## klopp

*Y*es, desinence = ending. (according to google translate as well,  I've just checked, at least if you translate from the italian _desinenza_ to english  )

btw*By the way* your last two lines are very interesting! So, basically, it is an exception to the general rule... which my bloody grammar book doesn't explane... thank you!


----------



## Lotto74

klopp said:


> btw your last two lines are very interesting! So, basically, it is an exception to the general rule... which my bloody grammar book doesn't explane... thank you!



In fact, this is very common case in Russian when an adjective transforms to a noun. The Russian language tends to omit words which could be guessed by the current context. It is synthetic by its nature, i.e. functions of words in a sentence are defined by their form, not by their places in the sentence. Many European languages like English (and Italian, I believe) are analytical, i.e. functions of words are defined by their places in the sentence. That's why Russian words, as opposed to words in English phrases, are very often omitted. Moreover, in literary Russian language it is considered to be a good style to remove as much unnecessary words as possible. For example, a correct English sentence could look like "He put his hand in his pocket", and in Russian it looks like "He put hand in pocket" (it's assumed that he could not put other's hand in the pocket, and the pocket is his own: putting his hand on other's pocket usually is a crime ).

Adjective transformation occurs when the corresponding noun is always could be guessed. A typical example: in names of streets the word "street" is omitted almost always. So, if you have a friend which lives in Green street, and you ask him where he lives ("Где ты живешь?"), he usually answers "На Зеленой". Note that the word "улица" is skipped.


----------



## klopp

Otherwise the complete sentence would have been << на улиц*е* зеленой  >> , right?

So, I don' t just have to learn grammar and many exceptions, I also have to assume when there are adjective transformations in nouns, and then omissions... but the ending in this exceptions is always << й >> like in these two sentences?

P.S. I understand from the dialogues on my book and by your words that despite other languages the words order in a sentence in Russian is quite "free" if you respect declinations, unless you wanna *want to* emphasize something and put it at the very beginning (or end) of a sentence. I don’t know if there are other things to know about it (are there?) but I like this thing!


----------



## Ёж!

klopp said:


> So, I don' t just have to learn grammar and many exceptions, I also have to assume when there are adjective transformations in nouns, and then omissions...


Yes. Just like any other language, including Italian, the Russian language is creative. So, in learning it, you have to be creative as well.


> P.S. I understand from the dialogues on my book and by your words that despite other languages the words order in a sentence in Russian is quite "free" if you respect declinations, unless you wanna *want to* emphasize something and put it at the very beginning (or end) of a sentence. *I don’t know if there are other things to know about it (are there?)* but I like this thing!


Very much. In a sense, the word order in Russian is strict; i.e. sentences with different word orders are perceived either _differently_, or _very differently_ (the latter is common). The word 'emphasis' is, sorry, rather void in meaning, so it's easy to get in trap with it; generally, you just put the word that should make context for the rest in the beginning, and so on with the rest, but you should respect some syntactical bindings between terms as well; for example, nouns and their corresponding adjectives are usually put together.

P.S.: please, put different questions that you have in different threads; the topic of Russian grammar is too vast to be discussed in just one thread.


----------



## klopp

Ёж! said:


> P.S.: please, put different questions that you have in different threads; the topic of Russian grammar is too vast to be discussed in just one thread.



Ok sorry. I will do it, because the order in a sentence is a subject I'm very interested in. And sorry for the chatspeak too.


----------

