# adversative conjunction "a"



## Bezoard

Hello,

I have a question about the meaning of the adversative conjunction "a" in the Russian proverb :
_Не верь лошади в поле, а жене в доме_
found in Tolstoi book "Kreutzer sonata".
In an English translation of that book, I found this rendering of the proverb :
_Don't trust a horse in the field, *nor* a woman in the house_
However, some oher people with whom we were discussing that translation do not agree that the conjunction "a" can be rendered by "nor" in that sentence. It should mark an opposition, and they would understand something like :
_Don't trust a horse in the field, *but you can trust only* a woman in the house_.

What do Russian speakers understand with this proverb?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## rusita preciosa

I understand the sentence as  " don't trust a horse in the field nor a woman in the house".
You can make the *a* to have the meaning of *but*, if you add detail to the second part of the sentence
_Не верь лошади в поле, а верь жене в доме -  don't trust a horse in the field but trust a woman in the house
Не верь лошади в поле, а верь в стойле - don't trust a horse in the field but [trust it] in the stable_


----------



## Bezoard

Thank you, rusita preciosa.

The concern of the people I discussed with is that "a", when associated with a negative sentence, seems to be usually marking an opposition, such as in the following examples :

_Он не италья́нец, а францу́з._
Il n’est pas Italien, mais Français.
He is not Italian, *but* French

_Это не мой зака́з, а чей-то чужо́й._
Ce n’est pas un ordre venant de moi, mais de quelqu’un d’autre.
It is not an order from me, *but* from someone else.

Is the difference of treatment we see with the Tolstoi proverb linked to the fact that the negation is bearing on the imperative form _Не верь ?_


----------



## gvozd

Bezoard said:


> However, some oher people with whom we were discussing that translation do not agree that the conjunction "a" can be rendered by "nor" in that sentence. It should mark an opposition, and they would understand something like :
> _Don't trust a horse in the field, *but you can trust only* a woman in the house_.



And what would that mean? The translation given in the book is correct. This means a real man should take control of his horse and his wife where they strongly want to behave what they like because of their nature.


----------



## Vadim K

No, those people are not right. You can be sure just looking at another version of the same Russian proverb: "_Не верь жене в подворье, а коню в дороге_".


----------



## uress

Yes, but why does that mean nor for you? I mean I understand that you use it like that but what is the logic for it? Never ever heard "a" for "nor" and not as "but" in any sentence so I'm very surprised, not to say confused  
Especially because I think you can trust a woman in the house more than a woman walking around freely.  
I cannot even find it in the dictionaries to get more exemples of this usage


----------



## Vadim K

Bezoard said:


> Is the difference of treatment we see with the Tolstoi proverb linked to the fact that the negation is bearing on the* imperative form* _Не верь ?_



I don't think so. For example, you can easily say "_Я не хочу спать днем, *а* по ночам бодрствовать/ I don't want to sleep in the daytime *nor*/*and* be awake at night / Je ne veux pas dormir dans la journée* et *rester éveillé la nuit_".

The issue is that the conjuction "_а_" has two meaning in Russian. One of them is similar to "_mais/but_", and another one is similar to "_et/and_".


----------



## Q-cumber

In my opinion, *nor *is more or less OK here. The "a" still signals an opposition, but this is the opposition between "в поле" (in a field, outside) and "в доме" (in a house, inside). So "a" doesn't affect the verb " (не) верь" here, but it opposes some related conditions.

You can still trust your wife when in the field.


----------



## Vadim K

uress said:


> Yes, but why does that mean nor for you? I mean I understand that you use it like that but what is the logic for it? Never ever heard "a" for "nor" and not as "but" in any sentence so I'm very surprised, not to say confused
> Especially because I think you can trust a woman in the house more than a woman walking around freely.
> I cannot even find it in the dictionaries to get more exemples of this usage



I don't think that it is worth to look for the logic in the prepositions or conjunctions. Neither in Russian not in any other languages.


----------



## uress

Thank you, Q-cumber, for showing it's logic 
_Even if I don't agree with this logic about the women   
_
Vadim... The only way to learn a language properly is to get into it's logic!

Anyway, "a" is never a preposition "*a*" a conjunction. Always.

And what about the next sentence, is it valid? Does it have a different meaning?
_Не верь лошади в поле, *а та́кже* жене в доме._


----------



## gvozd

uress said:


> And what about the next sentence, is it valid? Does it have a different meaning?
> _Не верь лошади в поле, *а та́кже* жене в доме._



It's grammatically OK and has the same meaning but, in my opinion, sounds a bit unnatural. It looks like a news report.


----------



## uress

"_Я не хочу спать днем, *а* по ночам бодрствовать" _
The usage of "a" as "and" is not so illogical for me as we have something similar in Hungarian, too: "pedig", which can mean both, "but" and "and" or even both at the same time. 
But how can I know that it means "and", "nor" and not "but"? Does it occure like that only in negative sentences? Or can you use it in positive sentences as well?


----------



## Vadim K

uress said:


> Vadim... The only way to learn a language properly is to get into it's logic!



If it was so, no child would ever learn any language properly


----------



## uress

Vadim, you are wrong, exactly that's it why every child is able to learn any language and even adults are able in this way *BUT/A *this is off here.


----------



## Vadim K

uress said:


> But how can I know that it means "and", "nor" and not "but"? Does it occure like that only in negative sentences? Or can you use it in positive sentences as well?



Yes, you can use it in positive sentences as well. For example, "Я хочу спать днем, а по ночам бодрствовать / _I want to sleep in the daytime *and *be awake at night_".

I am not sure how you personally can know if it means "and", "nor" or "but", but I just feel it from the context.


----------



## uress

Well, in all these exemles for a=and/nor the structure is: verb + a certain syntax structure* + a + the same (or almost the same) certain syntax structure*

*like object + adverbial attribute in: _Не верь лошади в поле, а жене в доме._
*like infinitive + adverb in: "_Я не хочу спать днем, а по ночам бодрствовать. and "Я хочу спать днем, а по ночам бодрствовать
_
But if I have a different structure in the second part it means "but" like in: _Не верь лошади в поле, а верь жене в доме. and Не верь лошади в поле, а верь в стойле.

Hmmm... then can I say that?..._


----------



## Vovan

_Не верь*:* лошади в поле, а жене в доме. _("а" значит "и"; двоеточие ставится мысленно)
_Верь*:* не лошади в поле, а жене в доме._ ("а" значит "но"; двоеточие ставится мысленно)

В словаре пословица тут.


----------



## Bezoard

Thank you for all your answers.


----------



## Rosett

While the adversative "а" is undoubtedly clear grammatically in the given case (as if in "ни..., ни...",) the entire resulting sense may be quite elusive. Especially, it is due to the fact that there is a few contradicting versions. For example:
Не верь коню в холе, а жене в воле.


----------



## Vovan

Bezoard said:


> Не верь лошади в поле, а жене в доме


Logically, the construction behind the sentence should have this word order:
*Лошади не верь в поле, а жене - в доме.*
It is elliptical.

But the author probably thinks that to say so is too simplistic, not stylish enough. 
And there appears a "clever" thing in the form of the imperative coming first.
The structure changes; the logic becomes a bit blurred, not so straightforward.
But the listener's/reader's attention gets fixed on "Don't you believe!!!" right at the start:


Spoiler











Another possible transformation which makes the original sentence clearer is this:
*Не верь лошади в поле; жене же не верь в доме.
Не верь лошади в поле; жене же - в доме.*


I don't know, but maybe that can help.


----------

