# Жили 10 лет or на 10 лет?



## Iknownothing

Hello
I am having real difficulty in differentiating what is a "срок' , a 'процесс' and a 'результат' when talking about time expressions. For example, I think that the following sentence describes a period of time (срок): Мы жили в этом доме 10 лет, so the correct answer should be Мы жили в этом доме НА10 лет, because the question for that answer is surely на сколько?. Can someone put me right please ? Thanks.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

The question (in the intended sense here) is "Cколько лет вы жили в этом доме?", without  "на".  Expressions of time are often (differently) idiomatic in Russian and English, as are prepositions in general. You can't translate word for word.
In English, the "for" is optional in this question.
How long have you lived ...? For how long have you lived ...?  How many years ...?  For how many years ...? 
See also the previous thread for + time.


----------



## Awwal12

1. Bear in mind that the choice of the adverbial construction may directly depend on the aspect of the verb in question (from the purely grammatical perspective).
2. But much more importantly, it would be good to differentiate between different kinds of duration as well. "На сколько-л." invariably refers not to the duration of the verbal action itself (which well may be momentary, as nearly all actions expressed by perfective verbs essentially are by default), but to the duration of its result.
E.g.: "мы зашли́ в па́рк на два́ часа́". Here "мы зашли́" is an instantaneous action with no duration at all, but its result - our presence in the park - will be expressed by the prepositional phrase "на два́ часа́". (That semantics of some lasting result is even more apparent in expressions like "стро́ить на века́" etc.)
And on the other hand, compare it with "мы гуля́ем в па́рке уже два́ часа́", where "два́ часа́" directly refers to the ongoing activity of "гуля́ем" (here that will be its length from the start to the current moment, since we have the present tense).
"Мы жи́ли на 10 ле́т" doesn't make sense, because "жи́ть" is a processual verb which doesn't imply any clear result at all. But the length of the process itself will be measured by "ско́лько-л. (вре́мени)".


----------



## Awwal12

P.S.: "За ско́лько-л. (вре́мени) ", in turn, refers to the time taken in order to achieve some clear result described by the verb (not ANY result, mind you). Naturally it will be used mostly with perfective verbs denoting that achievement, but their imperfective counterparts can be also used - in the iterative sense. (Obviously enough, processual verbs like "жи́ть" won't fit at all.)
E.g.: "мы вы́брались из па́рка за два́ часа́" (as in: we started to seek the way out, and it took us two hours to find it; so only after two hours we finally *got out* - "вы́брались").
Cf. also: "мы ка́ждый ра́з выбира́лись из па́рка за два́ часа́" (i.e. every time it took us not more than two hours).


----------



## nizzebro

To make it some easier, I'd recommend just to think of the concept of 'на' + time as an implied purpose to stay somewhere or when the duration is like destined (e.g. стать другом на долгое время). This idea can be conveyed by a limited set of verbs; note that "жить" is not one of them.

As for the aspects:
Я зашёл в клуб на два часа, но остался там на всю ночь. (The perfective aspect)

Каждый день я заходил в клуб на два часа и оставался там на всю ночь. (The imperfective aspect as a repeated action)

Вчера вечером я заходил в клуб на два часа.
Вчера я оставался в клубе на всю ночь.  (The imperfective aspect as a single action that took place - something close to the concept of the Perfect tenses. Note the last two ideas separated - these typically can hardly be used in one sentence as an enumeration of actions - otherwise,  the perfective aspect would be used for the sequence of events).


----------



## Iknownothing

Awwal12 said:


> 1. Bear in mind that the choice of the adverbial construction may directly depend on the aspect of the verb in question (from the purely grammatical perspective).
> 2. But much more importantly, it would be good to differentiate between different kinds of duration as well. "На сколько-л." invariably refers not to the duration of the verbal action itself (which well may be momentary, as nearly all actions expressed by perfective verbs essentially are by default), but to the duration of its result.
> E.g.: "мы зашли́ в па́рк на два́ часа́". Here "мы зашли́" is an instantaneous action with no duration at all, but its result - our presence in the park - will be expressed by the prepositional phrase "на два́ часа́". (That semantics of some lasting result is even more apparent in expressions like "стро́ить на века́" etc.)
> And on the other hand, compare it with "мы гуля́ем в па́рке уже два́ часа́", where "два́ часа́" directly refers to the ongoing activity of "гуля́ем" (here that will be its length from the start to the current moment, since we have the present tense).
> "Мы жи́ли на 10 ле́т" doesn't make sense, because "жи́ть" is a processual verb which doesn't imply any clear result at all. But the length of the process itself will be measured by "ско́лько-л. (вре́мени)".


Ahhh. Now I am starting to understand. Your last sentence has opened my eyes a little. Thank you.


----------



## Vovan

Iknownothing said:


> На сколько? Сколько? За сколько?


A few clues in brief - in order to help make sense of the previous posts:

*сколько времени* - how much time (does something last)
*на сколько времени* *(на которое время)* - for how much time (is/was... something planned to be happening)
*за сколько времени* *(за которое время)* - in how much time (you manage to complete something)

_Сколько времени тебе понадобится, чтобы сделать эту работу? _(How long will it take you to do the job?)​_На которое время ты планируешь остаться здесь?  _ (For how long are you planning to stay here?)​_За которое время ты справишься с решением задачи?  _(Literally: In how much time will you be able to complete your task?)​


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> *на сколько времени* *(на которое время)* - for how much time (is/was... something planned to be happening)


You can plan your life in the house to be happening for some time, and yet the construction won't be applicable. Because, as I said, it's result-oriented, not process-oriented.


----------



## Iknownothing

Awwal12 said:


> You can plan your life in the house to be happening for some time, and yet the construction won't be applicable. Because, as I said, it's result-oriented, not process-oriented.


Thank you again for the explanations. I am still quite a low-level learner of Russian, so it will take me a while to get this language right. From your explanations it appears that this topic is a little complicated, so I am surprised it was included in the course book at this point. Do you know if there is a course book for A2 level which has some good practise exercises for this grammar topic ?


----------



## Awwal12

Iknownothing said:


> Do you know if there is a course book for A2 level which has some good practise exercises for this grammar topic ?


I'm afraid I don't; after all, I've never actually taught Russian.





Iknownothing said:


> From your explanations it appears that this topic is a little complicated, so I am surprised it was included in the course book at this point.


There are really few UNcomplicated topics when it comes to learning Russian (even simple noun predication finally unfolds into something much more complex than in Germanic or Romance languages). Conditionals and the conjunctive mood, maybe?.. But anyway, if they have touched the adverbial constructions of time, it would be a good idea to give a proper explanation at least, I suppose.


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> You can plan your life in the house to be happening for some time, and yet the construction won't be applicable. Because, as I said, it's result-oriented, not process-oriented.


Consider this:
_Обычно он оставался там целое лето. _(He usually stayed there (during) the whole summer.)​_Обычно он оставался там на целое лето. _(He usually stayed there for the whole summer.)​To me, the explanation using the category of _plans/aims _seems more comprehensible than that with the "result-/process-orientedness". I mean there's no perceptible difference as to the meaning of "на" between:
_Он пришел на обед. (Но решил остаться подольше.)_​_Он пришел на три часа. (Но в итоге ушел гораздо раньше.)_​


----------



## nizzebro

Vovan said:


> To me, the explanation using the category of _plans _seems more comprehensible than that with the "result-/process-orientedness". I mean there's no perceptible difference as to the meaning of "на" between:


However, I think that Awwal12's comment is important. Let's imagine we want to omit the preposition before the time argument. With the perfective aspect and a verb that clearly denotes some _state change_, we cannot do that anyway. It is always present as either "на" ('for' as a purpose of the action) or 'за' ('in' as a time spent for some achievement) or 'в' ('at' as  a moment of time the event happened).

Он покурил ещё 5 минут  (perfective but no state change)
Он закурил 5 минут   (perfective, state change as an event)

On the other hand, with the imperfective aspect:
Он курил 2 часа   (imperfective process)
Он закуривал 5 минут  (imperfective, state change as a slow or iterative process)

Он заходил в клуб 2 часа - means that he was entering into the club really slowly so it took 2 hrs (even though pretty weird)
Он заходил в клуб 2 дня - rather means that he repeatedly visited the club
Он зашёл в клуб 2 часа/дня


----------



## Vovan

Iknownothing said:


> This topic is a little complicated.


Not really. Just note that the English "for" is only translated as "на" when the time period is/was _planned to be used_ in some way, not necessarily _actually used_. Moreover, omitting a preposition before an adverbial argument (in the cases under consideration) simply indicates that the verb itself can roughly be defined as "spend time (that very time period!) doing something" (e.g.: to live somewhere (for) five years ≈ spend five years living somewhere).


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> Consider this:
> _Обычно он оставался там целое лето. _(He usually stayed there (during) the whole summer.)_Обычно он оставался там на целое лето. _(He usually stayed there for the whole summer.)


Because "остава́ться" may mean the continuous process or the iterative chain of events of staying somewhere (also with the continuous periods of staying as the subsequent logical results).
"Óн остава́лся там на це́лое ле́то" comes only from the second meaning, which may be verified:
В э́том году́ о́н бу́дет остава́ться там це́лое ле́то. 
В э́том году́ о́н бу́дет остава́ться там на це́лое ле́то.  ("В э́том году́" plus "на це́лое ле́то" logically remove any possibility of iterative actions, and here we go - "на сколько-л." doesn't work with the verb describing a continuous process again.)


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> В э́том году́ о́н бу́дет остава́ться там на це́лое ле́то.


I don't think that the sentence is incorrect.
_Будешь (сегодня) оставаться на ночь?_​


----------



## Vovan

nizzebro said:


> Он заходил в клуб 2 часа - means that he was entering into the club really slowly so it took 2 hrs (even though pretty weird)


Not weird - if the process was "iterative", as Awwal puts it:
_Он заходил в клуб два часа - его раз двадцать вышвыривали на входе охранники._​


----------



## Awwal12

Vovan said:


> I don't think that the sentence is incorrect.
> _Будешь (сегодня) оставаться на ночь?_


That's because "будешь оставаться" is just an idiomatic figurative usage of imperfective verbs, which formally re-interpretes single events as some sort of processess (cf. "ты будешь ему стрелять в голову или нет?", which actually means just a single shot in the head). It cannot influence the underlying semantics, though, which is reflected by the choice of the adverbial phrase. Note that "Будешь сегодня оставаться ночь?" is impossible at all, which directly points at the fact that the verb here isn't really processual. (And "Будешь сегодня оставаться всю ночь?" is an entirely different sentence already.)


----------



## nizzebro

Vovan said:


> Not weird - if the process was "iterative", as Awwal puts it:
> _Он заходил в клуб два часа - его раз двадцать вышвыривали на входе охранники._


It's true but nevertheless I posted one more sentence there - with 'два дня' - for the sake of clarity. My point is that when the time period is small enough then, pragmatically, the preferable interpretation would be the progressive one. Anyway, for your example, something like "Он целых два часа пытался зайти..." would sound better - as well as  "Он заходил на протяжении двух часов" would do for the iterative sense.


----------



## Vovan

Awwal12 said:


> Just an idiomatic figurative usage of imperfective verbs, which formally re-interpretes single events as some sort of processess [...and] cannot influence the underlying semantics.


The question is "_What exactly _is the intended meaning?". "Буду оставаться/обращаться..." can often mean a plan:
_В этом году я буду обращаться к другому врачу. _(=Планирую обратиться. Буду пытаться обратиться.)​Your sentence above ("В этом году он будет оставаться там на целое лето"), which I consider fine,  can well be understood in the same way (="планирует остаться", "будет пытатьтся остаться", etc.):
_В этом году он будет оставаться там на целое лето, но кто знает, какие сюрпризы преподнесет август._​


----------



## Vovan

nizzebro said:


> Anyway, for your example, something like "Он целых два часа пытался зайти..." would sound better, as well as "Он заходил на протяжении двух часов".


Really? I guess that would strongly depend on a wider context:
_Вначале он четыре часа собирался, потом два часа заходил в клуб (охранники вышвыривали),_ _где еще полчаса что-то искал в туалете. В общем, мы не стали его ждать и начали без него._​


----------



## nizzebro

Vovan said:


> _Вначале он четыре часа собирался, потом два часа заходил в клуб (охранники вышвыривали),_


Мне что-то не заходит


----------



## hopeItSoundsGood

Vovan said:


> Not really. Just note that the English "for" is only translated as "на" when the time period is/was _planned to be used_ in some way, not necessarily _actually used_.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying but the English "for" is not translated as "на". You're just confusing everyone...


----------



## Vovan

hopeItSoundsGood said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying but the English "for" is not translated as "на".





> *for  *
> <...>
> *2.* _prep_
> 1. во временном значении указывает на:
> <...>
> 2) срок, на который рассчитано действие: _на_
> _~ a year - на год _​_this plan is ~ seven years - этот план рассчитан на семь лет_​_~ a long time - надолго _​_~ ever (and ever) - навсегда_​


В треде мы рассматриваем в т.ч. такие предложения, как:
_I think I'll stay for a while longer and have another beer._ (Источник.)​Если же "for" в английской фразе может быть опущен, то в переводе на русский он действительно не передается через "по". (См. пост 2.)


----------



## hopeItSoundsGood

Vovan said:


> В треде мы рассматриваем в т.ч. такие предложения, как:
> _I think I'll stay for a while longer and have another beer._ (Источник.)​Если же "for" в английской фразе может быть опущен, то в переводе на русский он действительно не передается через "по". (См. пост 2.)



Ну вы же понимаете, что это всего лишь дело вкуса, как и что перевести. "_I think I'll stay for a while longer and have another beer._" - Думаю, я останусь чуть дольше и выпью еще пива.

То что дано в словаре, это не перевод, это, так скажем, некоторое пояснение для русскоязычных, напоминающее попытку найти какую то закономерность, которой, вообще говоря, не существует.

1. For a year: I've been living in Berlin for a whole year. Я прожил в Берлине целый год. (Нету тут "на").
2. "this plan is ~ seven years - этот план рассчитан на семь лет." Ну просто тут перевод дается с помощью глагола "расчитывать", который идет с предлогом "на". И плюс, в русском языке словосочетание "План на столько-то лет" достаточно устойчиво. Ну вот пример другой фразы: "I'm going to stay there for one more year." (источник - я). Перевод будет такой: "Я планирую/собираюсь оставаться там еще один год.", а можно перевести как: "Я планирую/собираюсь остаться там еще НА один год.". Но это вовсе не значит, что "for" переводится как "на". Я считаю, что нет ничего более опасного и бессмысленного чем подобный перевод предлогов. 
3. For a long time: необязательно переводить это как "надолго". Пример: "I'm going to live there for a long time." - Я буду долго там жить./Я собираюсь там долго жить.

Ну в общем и так далее.


----------



## Vovan

hopeItSoundsGood said:


> То что дано в словаре, это не перевод, это, так скажем, некоторое пояснение для русскоязычных, напоминающее попытку найти какую то закономерность, которой, вообще говоря, не существует.


Закономерности вполне выделены:


> *2.*
> 1. _во временном значении указывает на: _
> 1) _длительность_ *в течение*
> 2) _срок, на который рассчитано действие_ *на*
> 3) _час, день и т. п., на который что-л. назначено_ *на*
> 
> Подробнее: https://classes.ru/dictionary-english-russian-Apresyan-term-39529.htm


Другое дело, что в ряде случаев границы между значениями могут размываться (как в случае неудачного примера, приведенного мною, - "I think I'll stay for a while longer", так и в вашем предложении - "I'm going to stay there for one more year").

Что же касается русского наречия "надолго", проблема лишь в том, как образовать его сравнительную степень и не потерять при этом "на-". Но к сути дела это не относится.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> That's because "будешь оставаться" is just an idiomatic figurative usage of imperfective verbs, which formally re-interpretes single events as some sort of processess (cf. "ты будешь ему стрелять в голову или нет?", which actually means just a single shot in the head).


I  agree but I'd call this usage not figurative but rather aspectual; I consider it like zooming in of an anyway internally complex event - and, after that, representing it as a flow of its phases - so the imperfective focuses on a formally switch-like event as a 'slo-mo' action;  thus, the semantics of the question is rather if there's a chance to see that person settling in there for the vacation - or to see them during the process of them aiming and pushing the trigger (the latter case could be interpreted as well in the iterative sense -  if that's about some sadists going to keep shooting in the head of an already dead person, or about a dummy head at a shooting range).


----------

