# You Have No Right...



## RhoKappa

This is a very powerful expression that I am certain is available in any language.  To assert, "you have no right...," means that the speaker is disqualifying somebody from doing or saying something.  Here are some examples.

1. You have no right to eat steak if your family is starving.
2. You have no right to buy that car if you cannot even afford the gas.
3. You have no right to ask me how I feel if you have always been so cruel to me.
4. You have no right to tell us how to run our business if you are not a patron.
5. Just because your father is a policeman, you have no right to break the law yourself.

There are millions of more examples we can easily think of.  Как сказать по-русски?


----------



## Lotto74

The Russian expression closely corresponds to the English one:

1) "Ты не име́ешь пра́ва [делать что-то]" / "вы не име́ете пра́ва [делать что-то]"

2) "У тебя́ / у вас нет пра́ва [делать что-то]"


----------



## igusarov

3) "*Ты не впра́ве*"

4) In everyday speech we'd rather use "*не́чего*":

Не́чего жрать (<-- intentionally rude verb) мя́со, когда́ твоя́ семья́ голода́ет.
Не́чего покупа́ть маши́ну, раз нет де́нег да́же на бензи́н.
Не́чего спра́шивать как у меня́ дела́, раз ты всегда́ был со мной груб.
Не́чего учи́ть нас вести́ дела́, раз ты не владе́лец.
Не́чего наруша́ть зако́н то́лько лишь потому́, что у тебя́ па́па полице́йский.

5) In certain context you could use "*не подоба́ет*". This phrase implies mentor tone, as could be adopted by the priests:
"Не подобает вкушать мяса, когда ..."

Edit: If used in this sense, "не́чего" should be the most stressed word in the sentence.


----------



## Ёж!

I have no idea what you are searching for. If you are going to translate any English expression by a combination of Russian words, you'll end up speaking extremely broken Russian, no other effect.


RhoKappa said:


> This is a very powerful expression that I am certain is available in any language.


You are wrong. This is not _an_ expression; these are expressions.


> 1. You have no right to eat steak if your family is starving. Ты не должен есть мясо, когда семья голодает.
> 2. You have no right to buy that car if you cannot even afford the gas. Ты не можешь покупать машину, если у тебя нет денег даже на бензин.
> 3. You have no right to ask me how I feel if you have always been so cruel to me. Как ты смеешь спрашивать меня о моих чувствах, ты всегда был так жесток ко мне.
> 4. You have no right to tell us how to run our business if you are not a patron. Не указывайте нам, как вести бизнес, вы не хозяин.
> 5. Just because your father is a policeman, you have no right to break the law yourself. Если твой батя полицейский, это не повод нарушать закон самому.



 The translations are imprecise, the phrases need more context. But they do show diversity of actual usage. Although this diversity is not something that needs an ever-new proof.


----------



## Ёж!

Lotto74 said:


> The Russian expression closely corresponds to the English one:


   No it does not. The Russian expressions (вы не имеете права, у вас права нет, в честь чего вы это делаете?) are limited to the context of expressing protest when being offended. The phrases involving the word «право» sound often very poor in such contexts, but get used anyway since people have no time to think, or imagine they have not time. The reason is that the assertion «у вас нет права» sounds absurd and self-contradictory: by nature, everyone has the right to do anything, no restriction.


----------



## igusarov

Ёж! said:


> The Russian expressions [...] are limited to the context of expressing protest when being offended.


I agree, being offended is the most often context for using "ты не имеешь права". Not sure whether it is the only possible context, though.



Ёж! said:


> The reason is that the assertion «у вас нет права» sounds absurd and self-contradictory: by nature, everyone has the right to do anything, no restriction.


This is tricky... You can often hear phrases "Ты не имеешь права так со мной разговаривать!" when people are having a quarrel. I don't think that it should be interpreted literally - the phrase is meant to stress that someone is so wrong that he has no (moral) right to do/say things. It's a figure of speech that "deprives" someone of his "right" to be nasty/bad/lawless etc.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> The reason is that the assertion «у вас нет права» sounds absurd and self-contradictory: by nature, everyone has the right to do anything, no restriction.


Isn't our nature limited with the society where we are living?
It seems to me quite evident that "право" in this context is what is presumed by moral, not nature (or even law). Therefore I agree that Russian expressions with ты не вправе, ты не имеешь права closely correspond to the English ones. Other variants with ты не должен, нечего and so on do not match it stylistically, and of course nothing in the original expressions suggests such pairs as father - батя or to eat steak - жрать мясо (the more so that steak is бифштекс, i.e. good sort of meat, rather than just мясо).


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> Isn't our nature limited with the society where we are living?


It is not, why this idea? 


> It seems to me quite evident that "право" in this context is what is presumed by moral, not nature (or even law). Therefore I agree that Russian expressions with ты не вправе, ты не имеешь права closely correspond to the English ones.


  The description of the English phrase does not involve moral imperatives. Instead, it involves disqualifying from doing something, which is a very different thing.

  I must say that the sentence «Ты не имеешь права покупать автомобиль, когда нет денег на бензин» would sound strange to me, and the phrase «Ты не имеешь права кушать мясо, когда семья голодает» would not sound much better; the latter's sense seems more limited than the sense of the English phrase, because it implies a quarrel, or an offence.





> nothing in the original expressions suggests such pairs as father - батя or to eat steak - жрать мясо (the more so that steak is бифштекс, i.e. good sort of meat, rather than just мясо).


 Nothing in the original suggests «отец», «папа», «есть» or «кушать», either. But the quarrel part of the Russian meaning makes expressive variants more expected.


igusarov said:


> This is tricky... You can often hear phrases "Ты не имеешь права так со мной разговаривать!" when people are having a quarrel.


   The tricky part is that we never really believe such assertions. So they're good with loved ones whom you don't have to convince, but bad with those who came to do evil to you; with them, in fact, «в честь чего вы это делаете?» might do a little better, at least this is a concrete question.


----------



## Lotto74

Ёж! said:


> No it does not. The Russian expressions (вы не имеете права, у вас права нет, в честь чего вы это делаете?) are limited to the context of expressing protest when being offended.



I cannot agree with that. This is an universal formula which can be used in any context. Sometimes it could sound kind of official, but it would be correct nonetheless.

Considering your examples above, it is your translations which are not quite correct. For example, one could hardly translate "you have no right to break the law" as "это не повод нарушать закон". It is exactly "у тебя нет права нарушать закон". One could have a valid cause (повод) but still have ho right to break the law. For example, if you friend was murdered by a street gang, you have a very good cause to take a shotgun and shoot all the thugs. But it still gives you no right to do it, and if you do it, you go to prison for a long time.


----------



## Ёж!

Lotto74 said:


> I cannot agree with that. This is an universal formula which can be used in any context. Sometimes it could sound kind of official, but it would be correct nonetheless.


It would be "correct" in any context, but as poor as Google Translate, therefore a bad suggestion. In that any context, it would still imply some form of protest or moralising, which is not always suitable.


> Considering your examples above, it is your translations which are not quite correct. For example, one could hardly translate "you have no right to break the law" as "это не повод нарушать закон". It is exactly "у тебя нет права нарушать закон".


  It might be either way. «У тебя нет права нарушать закон, даже если твой папа — полицейский» is yet another option. Here the expression «это не повод» is equal to, but shorter than, the expression «это не значит, что ты можешь» (~ 'it still does not mean that you may'). However, your option does not quite mean exactly disqualification; it is rather about moralizing.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> It is not, why this idea?


This is so evident, that I even do not know what is there to discuss. Anyway, it is far beyond our scope.



> The description of the English phrase does not involve moral imperatives. Instead, it involves disqualifying from doing something, which is a very different thing.


I think differently. For me moral is the only ground of such kind of questions.




> Nothing in the original suggests «отец», «папа», «есть» or «кушать», either. But the quarrel part of the Russian meaning makes expressive variants more expected.


Отец and есть are as neutral as 'father' and 'to eat' - unlike жрать, кушать and батя. Neutral phrases should be translated neutrally, shouldn't they?


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> This is so evident, that I even do not know what is there to discuss. Anyway, it is far beyond our scope.


This is so evidently false, but ok, let us pass it. (What nature has to do with society? Nothing!)


> I think differently. For me moral is the only ground of such kind of questions.


  Yet in general, this does not have to be the only ground; another ground is that you just don't do or do something for a reason or in absence of such. For example: «не надо обсуждать людей в их присутствии!» This is a moral imperative, not a practical one. In fact, here even in Russian «право» sounds strange, and I guess in English too ('you have no right to discuss people in their presence!' — why?  ; 'it is bad to discuss people in their presence' — understand).


> Отец and есть are as neutral as 'father' and 'to eat' - unlike жрать, кушать and батя. Neutral phrases should be translated neutrally, shouldn't they?


 The gist is that we don't know whether the phrases were supposed to be neutral. They are just examples, and as such, have little meaning. So, no version is less (or more) correct than another, as far as such version is probable.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> For example: «не надо обсуждать людей в их присутствии!» This is a moral imperative, not a practical one. In fact, here even in Russian «право» sounds strange, and I guess in English too


For me Russian phrase is quite natural, although I must admit Ты не имеешь права... is more emotional than Нельзя...



> ('you have no right to discuss people in their presence!' — why?  ; 'it is bad to discuss people in their presence' — understand).


It is implied "you have no moral right". Of course, because it is bad, and moral right tends to avoid anything that is bad for someone.



> The gist is that we don't know whether the phrases were supposed to be neutral. They are just examples, and as such, have little meaning. So, no version is less (or more) correct than another, as far as the version is probable.


My understanding of English phrases may be quite wrong, but accoridng to it they are quite neutral, the more so in respect of such words like 'father' and 'to eat'.
Or let the topic starter or any other English native correct me.
But anyway, it seems to me extremely confusing for the non-Russian natives when they read Russian versions of their English phrases, differing so much in style and expressivity. After all, even having been able to mean very different grades of expressivity, in fact they meant quite definite one, and we scarcely should advance any Russian variant before having clearly realized  what degree of expressivity (if any) is really meant.


----------



## Lotto74

Ёж! said:


> It would be "correct" in any context, but as poor as Google Translate, therefore a bad suggestion. In that any context, it would still imply some form of protest or moralising, which is not always suitable.



And again, I cannot agree with you. Being a native Russian, I fail to see how the expression "у тебя нет права" could be inappropriate in any context. Whether you're moralizing or not, it's up to a listener to decide. This is a matter of listener's interpretation, not of construction of your sentence. You could use any phrase neutral from your point of view, and it still could be considered offensive or somehow inappropriate by the listener.

Anyways, this discussion is pointless. We talk about correct ways of constructing a Russian sentence and selecting words, not about personal ways of getting other's meaning.


----------



## igusarov

Ёж! said:


> The tricky part is that we never really believe such assertions. So they're good with loved ones whom you don't have to convince, but bad with those who came to do evil to you;


So? The phrase is still used in this context to pretty much the same effect as "you have no right", isn't it? That's because the word "right" is more general than "having a technical and legal possibility to do".

Moreover, all your reasoning could be applied to the original English phrase just as well. One may pick on the literal meaning and interpretation of "have no right" just like you did with the Russian phrase. So how does it make the phrases less equivalent?

Maroseika, RhoKappa was talking about "a very powerful expression". That was the reason why my translation was emotional rather than neutral...


----------



## RhoKappa

I was wondering about the literal translation, у тебя нет права.  Would this suffice in most contexts?  To me it seems quite generic, but universally understood.


----------



## Maroseika

RhoKappa said:


> I was wondering about the literal translation, у тебя нет права.



Better Ты не имеешь права.
У тебя нет права is more about juridical context.


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> [...] and we scarcely should advance any Russian variant before having clearly realized  what degree of expressivity (if any) is really meant.


   This is what I meant. Both arguing pro and arguing against any particular variant is baseless.

As for «не имеешь права», as I said, it would sound out of place to me in the phrases like the second and the first, and too much whinning in phrases like the third and the fourth. This is a fact; the reasoning is about why this fact happens to be observed. As for «У тебя права нет обсуждать людей в их присутствии», it'd imply to me that some might have; on the other hand, I realise immediately that in truth everyone has. So yes, strange.

   «Ты не вправе» is more or less okay in all contexts, with the only problem that this expression is seldom used.


igusarov said:


> Moreover, all your reasoning could be applied to the original English phrase just as well. One may pick on the literal meaning and interpretation of "have no right" just like you did with the Russian phrase. So how does it make the phrases less equivalent?


  Possibly right. But one cannot apply a different reasoning to the Russian phrase. The element of frustration is always there, and it is out of place when mere disqualification is meant.


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> It is implied "you have no moral right". Of course, because it is bad, and moral right tends to avoid anything that is bad for someone.


   A note: rights are something that people give and take, this corresponds badly with morals, which people just have without sharing. The difference between English and Russian usage (which is that in Russian the assertion «не имеешь права» cannot refer to mere disqualification, but is instead referred in daily speech to morals and for this reason is never quite believed) lies most likely in how people perceive the exchange of rights. In Russian, this is something that nature gives, and no person or event can disqualify, so the topic of morals often pops up in people's heads instead.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> rights are something that people give and take, this corresponds badly with morals, which people just have without sharing.


Nevertheless expression "моральное право" exists in both languages. Право/right is used here in the sense of permission to do something, like any other right, but a permission granted by your own mind or soul (of course, in close link with the public morals, even when contradicting it).
Therefore I guess "ты не вправе/не имеешь права" is good translation of "you have no right".


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> Therefore I guess "ты не вправе/не имеешь права" is good translation of "you have no right".


     What I know is that the Russian expression does not have the sense of disqualification, which the English expression is told to have (possibly, among other meanings). As for your reasoning, I agree, and this is why «ты не вправе» is a reasonably good translation (by chance...), while «ты не имеешь права» is not. The first describes permission given by one's own mind, the second describes permission given by someone else, which, by the way, sounds wrong in Russian, because is usually perceived in the sense of the morals. As for disqualification, it is not about permissions which can be _given_, it is about conditions which can be _stated_. By 'wrong' I do not mean 'unnatural', only 'untrue'.


----------



## Maroseika

ёж! said:


> what i know is that the russian expression does not have the sense of disqualification, which the english expression is told to have (possibly, among other meanings). As for your reasoning, i agree, and this is why «ты не вправе» is a reasonably good translation (by chance...), while «ты не имеешь права» is not. The first describes permission given by one's own mind, the second describes permission given by someone else, which, by the way, sounds wrong in russian, because is usually perceived in the sense of the morals.



― мне кажется, что ты не имеешь права рисковать своим будущим ради мелкого самолюбия. [вениамин каверин. два капитана (1938-1944)]

― ты не имеешь права так издеваться надо мной! [м. а. шолохов. тихий дон. книга вторая (1928-1940)]

это гениальная идея! ты не имеешь права бросать ее! это необходимо нашей стране! [григорий адамов. тайна двух океанов (1939)]

― но раз ты ничего больше не имеешь возразить, то ты не имеешь права продолжать настаивать на своих взглядах, ты обязан честно и прямо от них отказаться. [в. в. вересаев. воспоминания (1925-1935)]

― если ты меня любишь, вообще любишь кого-нибудь, ― восклицал он, ― ты не имеешь права, нравственного права, выходить за другого! [в. я. брюсов. обручение даши (1913)] 

― но ты не имеешь права ее обманывать, шептал ему другой голос, ты не имеешь права скрывать от нее перемену, происшедшую в твоих чувствах; быть может, узнав, что ты полюбил другую, она не захочет стать твоей женой? [и. C. тургенев. дым (1867)]


----------



## Ёж!

Well then? 

  First, all your examples have the moral sense, which, by chance, coincides in them with the sense of disqualification. I was not saying it is impossible. Second, the expression does not fit RhoKappa's examples. «Ты не имеешь права покупать машину, когда у тебя нет денег на газ» — this does not sound disqualifying. It sounds like someone is starting to shout at somebody.

So, your examples don't prove anything.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> Well then?
> 
> First, all your examples have the moral sense, which, by chance, coincides in them with the sense of disqualification. I was not saying it is impossible. Second, the expression does not fit RhoKappa's examples. «Ты не имеешь права покупать машину, когда у тебя нет денег на газ» — this does not sound disqualifying. It sounds like someone is starting to shout at somebody.
> 
> So, your examples don't prove anything.



As for fitting the RhoKappa's example about the car, my remark referred not to it, but only to your assertion:  "ты не имеешь права» ... describes permission given by someone else, which, by the way, sounds wrong in russian, because is usually perceived in the sense of the morals."

So my examples prove your assertion was not correct: ты не имеешь права doesn't obligatorily describe permission given by someone else, and is therefore rightfully perceived in the sense of the morals in the due context.


----------



## Ёж!

Even in your examples the permission is given by someone else, although not by the speaker. Maybe by the God. I conclude that, because having refers to something that can be received or given out. As for "sounds wrong" — yes, I accompanied this assertion by the word "usually"; I think I had to put this word twice, not once ("usually sounds wrong because is usually perceived in the sense of morals").


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> Even in your examples the permission is given by someone else, although not by the speaker. Maybe by the God. I conclude that, because having refers to something that can be received or given out. As for "sounds wrong" — yes, I accompanied this assertion by the word "usually"; I think I had to put this word twice, not once ("usually sounds wrong because is usually perceived in the sense of morals").



It seems to me quite evident that permission in all my examples is given or not given by the mind of the adressee, influenced by the public moral, providing he recognize this moral.
So I'm afraid there is some confusion. Your "usually" refered to how "ты не имеешь права" is perceived by others rather than to its implied sense:

"The first [ты не вправе] describes permission given by one's own mind, the second [ты не имеешь права] describes permission given by someone else, which, by the way, sounds wrong in russian, because is usually perceived in the sense of the morals".

For me both Russian expressions mean all the same in similar situations, but не вправе is a bit more bookish.


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> It seems to me quite evident that permission in all my examples is given or not given by the mind of the adressee, influenced by the public moral,


I.e., given by the public (which I don't believe; I'd rather say it's a force like the God).


Maroseika said:


> For me both Russian expressions mean all the same in similar situations, but не вправе is a bit more bookish.


 However the case, 'you have no right' and «ты не имеешь права» are so-called false-friends, provided I understood the meaning of the English expression correctly (as for the Russian expression, I see no important points of disagreement). The rest is unimportant.


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> However the case, 'you have no right' and «ты не имеешь права» are so-called false-friends, provided I understood the meaning of the English expression correctly (as for the Russian expression, I see no important points of disagreement).


Yes, we need an English native to explain all the connotations of "you have no right".


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> Yes, we need an English native to explain all the connotations of "you have no right".


  My hypothesis: in these examples, the expression means to say that the person is not in the position of doing something; it is impossible for him to do something reasonfully and in well meaning, i.e. exactly «ты не можешь покупать автомобиль, если у тебя нет денег на бензин» (here in Russian «не можешь» happens to be used in an indirect sense). My hypothesis stems both from RhoKappa's description of the expression and from my own experience with English.

    The first asserts that the expression 'you have no right' states, in his examples, disqualification from doing something; disqualification exactly means putting the person into the position of inability to so something; here, in these examples, what is implied is inability to do something _so that it's done accordingly to the situation_ (I called this by the non-word 'reasonfully' above). No desperate attempts to impose morals, which would sound, in most of these examples, just laughable (but not as laughable in the examples of situations that you provided).

     The second tells me that the English language favours descriptive senses, that correspond well to the situations in the world; Russian tends to couple everything with human reactions as long as it is able to. The moral sense (i.e. moral permission) and the philosophical sense (i.e. everybody's ability and right to do anything) of the Russian word «право» are examples of this attitude.


----------



## Ёж!

Yet another way to say «You Have No Right» in Russian: «{Это} не ваше право!». I don't know, maybe it's the verb «имеете» that sounds to me emotionally loaded, with an emotion that is often appropriate: because of it, in «Вы не имеете права!» a doubt would sound to me. But, of course, «не ваше право» won't work with the car or the fake boss, since it's to be understood literally, in kind of legal sense.


----------



## Lotto74

Ёж! said:


> Yet another way to say «You Have No Right» in Russian: «[Это] не ваше право!».



Sorry, it doesn't look like Russian to me.


----------



## Ёж!

Don't be sorry.  Better be happy.


----------

