# Short-form adjective in the past tense.



## Dryan

I am trying to translate this excerpt from an English article:
"After onboarding, I met my new manager and team. I was joining the developer tools team, but that team was huge."

This is my first attempt:
"После ориентировки мы встретились с командой и манаджером. Я соединялся с командой для инструментов разработчика, но эта команда была *огромной*."

Would the adjective in bold be better suited to a short form in this context (эта команда была *огромна*)? I also welcome any other corrections.


----------



## Vadim K

Dryan said:


> "After onboarding, I met my new manager and team. I was joining the developer tools team, but that team was huge."


I would translate this excert into Russian that way: _После оформления на работу я встретился с новым менеджером и командой. Я присоединился к команде разработчиков инструментария, хотя команда была огромна._


----------



## Dryan

Vadim K said:


> После оформления на работу я встретился с новым менеджером и командой. Я присоединился к команде разработчиков инструментария, хотя команда была огромна.


Спасибо!


----------



## Awwal12

"Огромной" sounds better, in my opinion. However:
1. If I understand it correctly, the team mentioned in the first sentence is not the huge team. In that case, you should use "та́" instead of "э́та" (which would refer to the first team).
2. "Manager" is "ме́[н]еджер" (cf. ironic colloquial "мана́гер").
3. "Соединя́ться" certainly isn't the verb to use here.
4. If "was joining" means "was supposed to join", it's better to be more descriptive, the past tense alone doesn't convey the idea well enough.
5. I'm not entirely sure what "the developer tools team" is, but "кома́нда для инструме́нтов разрабо́тчика" isn't proper Russian either (since "кома́нда" isn't a kind of tool and therefore normally won't take an argument "для́ чего́-л.").
6. I don't think "my" and especially "new" should be omitted in the first sentence during translation. Of course, English speakers are prone to excessive usage of possessive pronouns in Russian (especially in the case of body parts and the like, you know), but in this particular case it looks like a necessary specification, and even if the situation is clear from a wider context, "new" looks like some necessary point of reference anyway.


----------



## Xavier61

Awwal12 said:


> ...
> 5. I'm not entirely sure what "the developer tools team" is, but "кома́нда для инструме́нтов разрабо́тчика" isn't proper Russian either (since "кома́нда" isn't a kind of tool and therefore normally won't take an argument "для́ чего́-л.")...


But... some people say it, and even write it: "приезжала команда для дезинфекции помещений". Are they broking some rule?


----------



## Vovan

Dryan said:


> командой для инструментов разработчика


"Команда разработки инструментов программиста" would be better.


Dryan said:


> Would the adjective in bold be better suited to a short form in this context (эта команда была *огромна*)?


"Огромна" sounds fairly expressive (~ very, very big). So if you're going to expand on the idea of the hugeness (or your reaction to it, etc.) in your next sentence(s), "огромна" is okay.


----------



## Maroseika

Xavier61 said:


> But... some people say it, and even write it: "приезжала команда для дезинфекции помещений". Are they broking some rule?


This is quite different structure, as preposition *для *refers to the verb: _Команда приезжала для дезинфекции помещений._
Cf.: _Для обработки здания вызвали команду дезинфекции помещений_ (although команда sounds a bit weird in this context).


----------



## Xavier61

Maroseika said:


> This is quite different structure, as preposition *для *refers to the verb: _Команда приезжала для дезинфекции помещений._
> Cf.: _Для обработки здания вызвали команду дезинфекции помещений_ (although команда sounds a bit weird in this context).


I'd say that the preposition refers to its argument, not to the verb. Another example, without verb :
"Сегодняшняя сборная Украины ― не команда *для битья*! Конечно, Бразильцы, Аргентинцы, Немцы повыгоднее смотрятся, но это же футбол! Одно могу сказать точно ― Украина выступит достойно!!!"
But I agree that "кома́нда для инструме́нтов разрабо́тчика" doesn't sound right and is hardly understandable.


----------



## Vovan

Xavier61 said:


> "приезжала команда для дезинфекции помещений"


A/the team (of specialists) came (in order) to disinfect the premises.

_Команда для дезинфекции помещений была в полном составе. _(No such thing as "команда для дезинфекции помещений"; the wording should be altered, e.g. "команда специалистов по дезинфекции помещений")​


----------



## Xavier61

Vovan said:


> A/the team (of specialists) came (in order) to disinfect the premises.
> 
> _Команда для дезинфекции помещений была в полном составе. _(No such thing as "команда для дезинфекции помещений"; the wording should be altered, e.g. "команда специалистов по дезинфекции помещений")​


Thank you for answering, Vovan, I appreciate your contributions very much, but I am not sure in this case; for example:  
"Есть тут прямо и пожарная команда для тушения начавшихся лесных пожаров."
Is not right?


----------



## Vovan

*Xavier61*, thank you!


Xavier61 said:


> "Есть тут прямо и пожарная команда для тушения начавшихся лесных пожаров."
> Is not right?


It's correct. But, as Maroseika said, when reading phrases like "команда для тушения/дезинфекции...", Russians immediately look for the verb (which, in some sentences, may be "weakly" expressed). These verbs include (among others) "собрать(ся)",  "создать", "образовать", "сформировать", "пригласить", "привезти". That is, the main idea is that a group of people was created/invited... for doing something. In your sentence, the verb is "есть".
_У вас есть люди для тушения лесных пожаров?_​_Люди для тушения пожаров должны быть осторожны в ходе работы._​


----------



## Awwal12

Xavier61 said:


> "Сегодняшняя сборная Украины ― не команда *для битья*!


That plays on the set phrase "ма́льчик для битья́" (~a whipping boy) in the first place. And anyway, in "команда для битья" "команда" is an object (patient) of the activity described by the noun, not a subject or an instrument. I can imagine, for example, at least occasional usage of "команда для самых трудных ситуаций", but then "трудные ситуации" would represent the surrounding in which the team should be employed, not its intended product.


----------



## Vadim K

Awwal12 said:


> 1. If I understand it correctly, the team mentioned in the first sentence is not the huge team. In that case, you should use "та́" instead of "э́та" (which would refer to the first team).



Yes, agree. I have overlooked the fact that it had been two different teams. Then it can be translated something like that

_После устройства на работу, я встретился с моим новым менеджером и командой. Ранее я уже [ присоединялся к команде / был членом команды] разработчиков инструментария, но та команда была огромна(я). _

I think that the main message of the second sentence is that the author could not meet with each team member of the previous team because the team was huge. And he can do it at the moment because the whole new team is probably relatively small.


----------



## Xavier61

Vovan said:


> A/the team (of specialists) came (in order) to disinfect the premises.
> 
> _Команда для дезинфекции помещений была в полном составе. _(No such thing as "команда для дезинфекции помещений"; the wording should be altered, e.g. "команда специалистов по дезинфекции помещений"​​


Indeed there are such things as "команда для тушения/дезинфекции/участия...", and more like that, I'm sure. Are you saying that native russians, who speak and write like that, should always add some word as "_специалистов", "игроков"_ or other words after _"команда" _and use another preposition like "_по"_? That's the only grammatical way to express it?


Vovan said:


> ... But, as Maroseika said, when reading phrases like "команда для тушения/дезинфекции...", Russians immediately look for the verb (which, in some sentences, may be "weakly" expressed). These verbs include (among others) "собрать(ся)",  "создать", "образовать", "сформировать", "пригласить", "привезти". That is, the main idea is that a group of people was created/invited... for doing something. In your sentence, the verb is "есть".
> _У вас есть люди для тушения лесных пожаров?_​_Люди для тушения пожаров должны быть осторожны в ходе работы._​​


​The word we are discussing is not  "люди" but "команда":​_Команда для тушения пожаров должна быть осторожна в ходе работы_​I cannot see what is the grammatical problem with this sentence, though maybe It sounds a bit unnatural. Another similar example, more natural:​_"Нужна была новая команда для создания первоклассных продуктов, способных ..."_​​


Awwal12 said:


> That plays on the set phrase "ма́льчик для битья́" (~a whipping boy) in the first place. And anyway, in "команда для битья" "команда" is an object (patient) of the activity described by the noun, not a subject or an instrument. I can imagine, for example, at least occasional usage of "команда для самых трудных ситуаций", but then "трудные ситуации" would represent the surrounding in which the team should be employed, not its intended product.


It is not about "product" as you say, but about *result or finality*. By the way, "команда для самых трудных ситуаций" doesn't sound a bit *odd*?
And no need to imagine anything, there is internet and the national corpus, and the usage is not occasional. I'm still trying to understand what is the problem 


Awwal12 said:


> кома́нда" isn't a kind of tool and therefore normally won't take an argument "для́ чего́-л.")


since , in my opinion, "команда" is some kind of tool, and "для" points to its finality (a team is an instrument for some purpose, I cannot imagine a team with no finality). But I am not native, maybe I am missing some subtleties of the Russian language? It is such a beautiful language, but so complex...


----------



## Vovan

Xavier61 said:


> Another similar example, more natural:_"Нужна была новая команда для создания первоклассных продуктов, способных ..."_


Is it really similar? Here, _"для создания первоклассных продуктов..."_ is more related to _"нужна была"_, and the sentence is 100% equal to:
_Для создания первоклассных продуктов нужна была новая команда._​​So, the whole thing is about changing word order. *If you can easily separate "для чего-то" from "команда" and put it somewhere else*, then "команда для чего-то" is perfectly fine.

In my example above (_"Люди для тушения пожаров должны быть осторожны в ходе работы."), _"для тушения пожаров" can't be separated, and we have to think hard what "люди для тушения пожаров" means (and to wonder why not just "пожарные / (coll.) пожарники"?). Compare it with _"Прибыли люди для тушения пожаров" _(not necessarily firemen only)_._


Xavier61 said:


> Are you saying that native Russians, who speak and write like that, should always add some word as "_специалистов", "игроков"_ or other words after _"команда" _and use another preposition like "_по"_?


As should be clear from the first part of this message, not at all! 
_Они собрали команду для участия в соревнованиях по прыжкам в длину. (=Для участия в соревнованиях по прыжкам в длину они собрали команду.)  _​​The preposition "по", by the way, shows the area(s) a specialist/team specialises in:
_специалист/команда по звуку _(esp. in showbiz)​_специалист/команда по установке пластиковых окон_​_специалист/команда по дезинфекции помещений_​​"Команда для..." as an independent phrase is_, at a maximum_, short for "команда, созданная/подобранная/привезенная... для (с целью)". Often, such a team is temporary or seen as such for some reason. A change in word order would create a different meaning here, for sure.
_Команда для участия в соревнованиях стояла в коридоре, в то время как другие члены делегации оставались в кафе. _(=команда, созданная/подобранная/привезенная... для участия в соревнованиях)​_Команда стояла в коридоре для участия в соревнованиях. _(Means something different: The team were standing in the corridor in order to take part in the competition; whatever that means.)​_А где ваша команда для игры в "Офис"? Вы что, не будете участвовать? _(=А вы собрали/подобрали команду для игры в "Офис"?)​


Xavier61 said:


> Indeed there are such things as "команда для тушения/дезинфекции/участия...", and more like that, I'm sure.


As parts of many, many sentences, yes.


----------



## Awwal12

Xavier61 said:


> It is not about "product" as you say, but about *result or finality*.


Trouble is, the result may have different relations to other arguments. For example, if Y is a final state of the patient, X may be the very patient, a direct agent (in the case of causation), an instrument, etc.

In "X для Y" (as a noun phrase; this chain of words doesn't necessarily makes a constituent of its own), "для Y" necessarily implies some hidden complex activity binding X and Y together (English "X for Y" works in pretty much the same fashion). The nature of that activity, however, and the places of X and Y in it are defined by the nature of both X and Y. For example, "яблоко для Пети" has only one meaning: some Z intends that "яблоко" should be acquired by "Петя". "Петя для яблока", on the other hand, doesn't make any sense at all (because "яблоко" is incapable of acquiring anything in the literal sense). "Обивка для кресла" is defined by the meaning of "обивка", which is by definition a patient/instrument in the activity where someone uses it to pad other objects, so the phrase means that "обивка" is intended by Z to be used by someone in that activity (padding) with "кресло" as a patient ("кресло" takes one particular free semantic valence of "обивка"; not of the agent, but of the patient). "Обивка для Пети" is, in principle, already polysemantic (even though the common sense - the result of our everyday observations - makes it doubtful that "Петя" has to be padded; more likely he is going to be presented with "обивка"). "Обивка для сложных случаев" poses another difficulty: "сложные случаи", being an abstraction, can be neither presented with the padding nor padded themselves. However, they have an inherent adverbial meaning, describing a particular kind of circumstances, and therefore the phrase means that Z intends that particular kind of "обивка" should be used for padding once "сложные случаи" occur. Likewise, "яблоко для сложных случаев" is not meaningless; it means that Z intends that particular apple to be *somehow used* (the activity is completely unspecified, but still implied) in the same circumstances. However, "Петя для сложных случаев"doesn't usually make sense again, since there is only one instance of "Петя", and "для сложных случаев" necessarily has a restrictive meaning (it would make sense, however, if some multitude of different boys with the same name was implied). Note that not all nouns with possible adverbial meaning can be used with "для"; for example, "яблоко для завтра" won't do, because the syntax doesn't allow "завтра" to be used with that preposition (it can be only "на завтра", with the same meaning).

Now I hope that you realize the scope of the underlying complexities. Whenever we use "X для Y", there is a complex semantic and syntactical interaction between X and Y, which descides its meaning, or the absence of such, or grammaticality of the phrase. The problem with "команда для рекламы" isn't about its grammaticality (there is no mistake to be fixed), but about the lack of meaning. Normally among all the multitude of "Х для Y" expressions there aren't those where Y is an intended product of X's own activity, or its intended activity itself. In human languages performing some action with use of some instrument is typically distinguished from making someone else to do that.


Xavier61 said:


> By the way, "команда для самых трудных ситуаций" doesn't sound a bit *odd*?


It does. But, in principle, it is possible.


Xavier61 said:


> And no need to imagine anything, there is internet and the national corpus, and the usage is not occasional.


As a matter of fact, Internet (as well as the very human speech) contains a lot of occasionalisms with doubtful acceptability.


----------

