# To Fit In (People & Things)



## RhoKappa

Fitting in means to be consistent with surroundings, whether or not they are people or things.  Here are some examples.

1. Suppose there is a funeral and everyone wears black, and Незнайка shows up wearing bright yellow and orange.  In this clear case, Незнайка does not fit in.
2. We can also consider the example of a high-class night club where everybody looks beautiful, and when an unattractive and fat girl shows up, she is easily noticed because she is not as attractive as everyone else.  Sergei tells his friend, "Look at that gibbon!  She certainly does not fit in."
3. In a crate of oranges, a man returns an apple.  The apple certainly does not fit in with the oranges.
4. A short young man feels very uncomfortable hanging around a group of older, tall basketball players.  The basketball players invite him to a social event with other basketball players, but the short man declines because he tells them, "I wouldn't fit in if I went with you."

Как сказать по-русски?


----------



## Drink

I don't think there are any really good translations. The way I see it, there are two parts to the meaning of "fit in": "to feel comfortable" and "to not stand out". You might have better luck translating those parts separately, depending on which one you really mean.

To apply this to one of your examples:

- Незнайке было очень *неудо́бно* из-за того, что его одежда не подходи́ла. (= Незнайка felt very *uncomfortable* because his clothes were unfitting.)
- Из-за его одежды, Незнайка сильно *выделя́лся* в толпе. (= Because of his clothes, Незнайка strongly *stood out* in the crowd.)

In the case of misplaced objects (or clothes), you could also say the following, which incidentally is the same thing I said about Незнайка's clothes above:

- Яблоко *не подхо́дит* в ящике апельсин. (= The apple *is out of place* in the crate of oranges.)


----------



## igusarov

RhoKappa said:


> Fitting in means to be consistent *with surroundings*,  whether or not they are people or things.


Looking at your  examples I conclude that this verb is intransitive, right? You can use  it without an object, and it would imply that the object is "the  surroundings". Then we have a problem. All Russian verbs with close  meaning are _transitive_; they require an explicit direct object: "соотве́тствовать чему-то", "подходи́ть к чему-то". Had you asked about "fit in _with something_",  these verbs would do. But without an object... no. (Well, they can be  used without an object, but it must be a special context.)

Thinking about _intransitive_  predicates, I can come up with several equivalent phrases, but they are  _not_ direct translations of "fit in"... And each one of them would sound  good only in one or two of your situations. Green marks the sentences which I could have said myself.

"неуме́стный", "некста́ти", "не в те́му" =~ "inappropriate". The latter option "не в тему" is highly colloquial.
1. Незнайка оделся *неуместно*. (formal)
2. Она здесь явно *неуместна*. (dismissive, down-the-nose)
3. Яблоко *неуместно* в коробке апельсинов. (sounds poor)
4. Я буду там *неуместен*. (very formal)

"не́чего де́лать" =~ "has nothing to do with". This is *NOT* a precise translation for "does not fit in"! But, surprisingly, it _fits in_  all your examples. "Не ме́сто" ("does not belong") can also be used to  the same effect, though it may sound dogmatic and sometimes pompous. 
1. Незнайке *нечего делать* на похоронах в таком наряде.
2. Ей здесь точно *нечего делать*.
3. Яблоку *нечего делать* в коробке апельсинов.
4. Мне *нечего делать* в вашей компании.

"впи́сываться"  =~ "blend with". This translation conveys the desired literal  meaning of "fitting in", but it is a colloquial and figurative option.  And it is transitive. Also, in some cases it sounds borderline to slang,  or even unnatural. Yet, as verbs go, this is a better option than  "соответствовать, подходить" in your context.
1. Незнайка не *вписывается* в общую картину.
2. Она сюда точно не *вписывается*.
3. Яблоко не *вписывается* в коробку апельсинов. (sounds poor)
4. Я плохо *вписываюсь* в вашу компанию.


----------



## punctuate

Drink said:


> - Яблоко *не подхо́дит* в ящике апельсин. (= The apple *is out of place* in the crate of oranges.)


Sorry, what does this mean?  Even if I correct the case of the word апельсинов, the verb подходить is out of place there.
I would agree with igusarov. As a non-explaining explanation of the reason why I should not put an apple in the crate of oranges (why would I want to, anyway), "нечего делать" is fine, just like "does not fit in" in English.


----------



## Drink

punctuate said:


> Drink said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Яблоко *не подхо́дит* в ящике апельсинов. (= The apple *is out of place* in the crate of oranges.)
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, what does this mean?  Even if I correct the case of the word апельсинов, the verb подходить is out of place there.
> I would agree with igusarov. As a non-explaining explanation of the reason why I should not put an apple in the crate of oranges (why would I want to, anyway), "нечего делать" is fine, just like "does not fit in" in English.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the correction, but I don't see a problem with the sentence otherwise. "Подходить" is not out of place at all in this sentence. "Нечего делать" works as well, but it is a less literal translation and I see no advantage to it over mine.


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> "Подходить" is not out of place at all in this sentence.



The word itself may be not out of place, but the government is wrong. The word подходить in the sense "to fit" combines with preposition "к": *подходить к* *чему-либо*.
So gramatically it should have been Яблоки не подходят к ящику апельсинов. Or more natural: Яблоки не подходят к апельсинам (like Зеленая брошка не подходит к синему платью).


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> The word itself may be not out of place, but the government is wrong. The word подходить in the sense "to fit" combines with preposition "к": *подходить к* *чему-либо*.
> So gramatically it should have been Яблоки не подходят к ящику апельсинов. Or more natural: Яблоки не подходят к апельсинам (like Зеленая брошка не подходит к синему платью).



But that changes the sentence. You can think of it like this: Яблоко здесь не подходит. Где? В ящике апельсинов.


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> But that changes the sentence.



Why it changes? Яблоки не подходят к апельсинам (by color, size, price, whatever), that is why they are out of place in the box of oranges, or, coming back to the topic starter's explanation, it is inconsistent with the orange surroundings.

Yet another option for the word подходить is *подходить куда-либо* (but not подходить во что-либо): 
Эта деталь сюда не подходит.
Эта деталь в радиоприемник не подходит. 



> You can think of it like this: Яблоко здесь не подходит. Где? В ящике апелсинов.


*Подходить где-либо* is correct word combination, but only где-либо and not в чем-либо:
Эта деталь здесь (там) не подходит.
Эта деталь в станке не подходит.

You may also say подходить для чего-либо (кого-либо).


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> Эта деталь в радиоприемник не подходит.
> Эта деталь в станке не подходит.



I have to say that those sound perfectly fine to me. I would only use "к" when talking about matching _with_ something, not _in_ something.


----------



## decabrine

In the context that you provided "fit in" means "вписываться".  For example: "Я не вписываюсь в вашу компанию" (cause I'm not stylish, not well-educated and too old for ex.).  Look at the fourth meaning of this word in bold: 
_вписываться_ несов. 1) а) Включаться в состав чего-л. б) перен. Запечатлеваться в памяти кого-л. 2) а) Полностью входить, вмещаться во что-л. при соблюдении определенных условий. б) Входить в ряд движущихся машин, совершать какой-л. маневр (обычно в речи водителей). 3) Оказываться включенным в общее целое создаваемого произведения.* 4) а) перен. Гармонически сочетаться (по виду, характеру и т.п.) с окружающим. *б) Свободно входить, органически включаться в какой-л. коллектив, в какое-л. общество. 5) Страд. к глаг.: вписывать (1-4).


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> I have to say that those sound perfectly fine to me.


But nevertheless this is incorrect. Here is opinion of the authoritative Russian dictionary of government:

  Подходить (быть годным, удобным, приемлемым) кому, для кого-чего и к кому-чему. 
_Это прозвище ему подходит. 
Цена для нас вполне подходит. 
Как__ ты думаешь, кремовый воротничок к этому платью подходит? _


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> But nevertheless this is incorrect. Here is opinion of the authoritative Russian dictionary of government:
> 
> Подходить (быть годным, удобным, приемлемым) кому, для кого-чего и к кому-чему.
> _Это прозвище ему подходит.
> Цена для нас вполне подходит.
> Как__ ты думаешь, кремовый воротничок к этому платью подходит? _



Well that doesn't mention the relevant cases of "где" and "куда" (which are always replaceable by "в чем" and "в чего", respectively).


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> Well that doesn't mention the relevant cases of "где" and "куда" (which are always replaceable by "в чем" and "в чего", respectively).



No, "где" и "куда" are not always replaceable by "в чем" and "во что", because they may also very well refer to на чём and на что, под чем and подо что, между чем и чем and so on and so forth. That is why:

Куда эта деталь подходит? Сюда. 
В этот приемник этот резистор не подходит.

Здесь нам это резистор не подходит.
В наш приемник этот резистор не подходит.


----------



## punctuate

decabrine said:


> In the context that you provided [...]


Well, there is none, I would say. No real context and no real question. It was: "how do you say 'to fit in'" in Russian?" The real answer is: we don't say that, unless we're talking in English. Then, one might try to correct the question (there is such thing as a wrong question, since any question contains some statements as well), but with different and mostly very imperfect results...


Drink said:


> Maroseika said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Эта деталь в радиоприемник не подходит.
> Эта деталь в станке не подходит.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that those sound perfectly fine to me. I would only use "к" when talking about matching _with_ something, not _in_ something.
Click to expand...

The first phrase of these two seems to me, after analysis but not before, a "contamination" of the phrase "эта деталь не подходит", meaning "this part is of no use for my business", and the phrase "эту деталь не получается вставить в радиоприёмник", but in casual speech it's absolutely fine (unlike in the case with the oranges that you can't save by changing the case of ящик to accusative because no such useful phrase for contamination appears in the mind); the second phrase is fine on the condition that it is additionally said what it does not compose to; it contains a subject (эта деталь в станке), and a verb, but no kinds of objects, so the phrase appears incomplete. It may be fine if the completion (like the kind of business that the person is currently doing) is obvious from the context.


----------



## decabrine

The context is the examples given by the topic starter. The meaning of the verb was also given. So what's wrong? For each of these sentences we can find a better expression to translate "fit in" into Russian, but in general, the verb "вписываться" is a correct translation.


----------



## punctuate

decabrine said:


> The context is the examples given by the topic starter.


Each of these examples could be posed in a million of different  contexts; that's not to mention that some of the examples themselves look to me  overly stretched, that is they provoke no viable context by default (why  should I want to put an apple into a crate of oranges, for example), so  the only way of translating them is in a phrasebook way… which could be  useful, but only if anybody implied to ask exactly these questions as a  tourist, or if one was willing to make a huge (really huge) theoretical  analysis of how Russians express fitness. I do not question your ideas,  I just make a little note that their usefulness in this case is not great.


Drink said:


> Well that doesn't mention the relevant cases of "где" and "куда" (which are always replaceable by "в чем" and "в чего", respectively).


"Где" and "куда" are different words than "в чём" and "во что" ("в чего" does not exist, "в" does not take the genitive case; a typo, right?). Logically, they may well be replaceable, but this does not mean that linguistically, they should be the same thing with the same implications, even when the physical reality that the two express is the same: there are quite some cases, where the reality is the same, but the grammar is deeply different.


----------



## Drink

punctuate said:


> "Где" and "куда" are different words than "в чём" and "во что" ("в чего" does not exist, "в" does not take the genitive case; a typo, right?). Logically, they may well be replaceable, but this does not mean that linguistically, they should be the same thing with the same implications, even when the physical reality that the two express is the same: there are quite some cases, where the reality is the same, but the grammar is deeply different.



(As you probably know, "чего" is also the colloquial accusative, and sometimes even nominative. So you're right that I was wrong, but it has nothing to do with the genitive case.)
And what I meant was that they are linguistically replaceable, because they are not always logically interchangeable. Any question with "где" can be answered by replacing "где" with a prepositional phrase such as "в радиоприемнике" or "на радиоприемнике", of course with precondition that it would make sense logically. Likewise with "куда" a prepositional phrase such as "в радиоприемник" "на радиоприемник".


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> And what I meant was that they are linguistically replaceable, because they are not always logically interchangeable. Any question with "где" can be answered by replacing "где" with a prepositional phrase such as "в радиоприемнике" or "на радиоприемнике", of course with precondition that it would make sense logically. Likewise with "куда" a prepositional phrase such as "в радиоприемник" "на радиоприемник".



That's right. But then how it helps with подходить? If we can say подходить где, it doesn't mean we can also say подходить в, because in quite similar fashion it would mean that we can say подходить на, подходить между, подходить за, all of which are evidently incorrect.


----------



## Drink

punctuate said:


> This is one argument. But even without this argument, I'll just simplify the case; где appeared here out of nothing, so it is simpler to do without it: that you can say подходить сюда does not mean that you can say подходить в кассу in the same meaning. The two are unrelated; nothing connects them except some logical similarity and except that the second may be an answer to the question где? with the similar meaning than in сюда, but neither is an argument for grammar; the second is not, because it is a way too far link.



"Где" did not "appear here out of nothing":
Яблоко здесь не подходит. > Яблоко где не подходит? > Яблоко в ящике апельсинов не подходит.


----------



## punctuate

Drink said:


> "Где" did not "appear here out of nothing":
> Яблоко здесь не подходит. > Яблоко где не подходит? > Яблоко в ящике апельсинов не подходит.


Thank you for the diagram. This does not work this way.
Яблоко здесь не подходит. > Яблоко где не подходит? > Яблоко в этой ситуации не подходит.
Ящик апельсинов is unrelated with this.

(That post of mine was messy; I am sorry I got interrupted while writing it, and I was completing it mechanically then).


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> Яблоко здесь не подходит. > Яблоко где не подходит? > Яблоко в ящике апельсинов не подходит.



Why can't we say then: Яблоко за ящиком апельсинов не подходит? or Яблоко под ящиком апельсинов не подходит?


----------



## Drink

Maroseika said:


> Why can't we say then: Яблоко за ящиком апельсинов не подходит? or Яблоко под ящиком апельсинов не подходит?



Because they don't make much logical sense. The oranges are _in_ the crate, not behind it or under it; so it is _in_ the crate where the apple может не подходить.


----------



## Maroseika

Drink said:


> Because they don't make much logical sense. The oranges are _in_ the crate, not behind it or under it; so it is _in_ the crate where the apple может не подходить.



_- Где апельсины?
- На столе.
- Думаю, яблоки на них не подходят. На них подошли бы лимоны, они тоже желтоватые._
What's wrong here following your logic?

The point is that there is no grammatical connection between где and в чем-либо. Где and здесь are generalized expression of location, while в чем-либо, на чем-либо, подо что-либо and so on are particular expression of location, and the fact that a verb combines with the formers by no means automatically allows it to combine with the latters.
This was theoretical substantiation (or better say an attempt of such). But maybe better to look at it from the practical point of view and just agree with the opinion of the natives and of the authoritative grammar references: подходить во что-либо is nothing but wrong.

Correct government:
подходить к чему-кому;
подходить кому;
подходить для чего-кого;
подходить где, куда.


----------



## punctuate

An intervention: when something не подходит где-либо, then где-либо can mean only a situation, a collection of circumstances, but never a physical location. Otherwise, Drink's logic is good.


----------

