# to begin (стать vs. начать)



## Lemminkäinen

Hi everybody,

Just wondering whether there's a difference in meaning between these verbs in their meaning of "to begin", or if they are synonyms. Here are some examples; could стал be replaced with начал here, and still have the same meaning?

Стал я высокого спрашивать, давно ли они живут тут.
Архиерей стал смотреть.
И стал архиерей говорить: "Отче Наш".


----------



## Vladislav

начал я высокого спрашивать, давно ли они живут тут.  
Архиерей начал смотреть.  
И начал архиерей говорить: "Отче Наш".  

 There are some differences, but in my opinion they are too small.


----------



## Maroseika

Начать usually means that the action will have some kind of development. 
Стать is rather used when the action will proceed without any change.
Начал смотреть is possible if you mean somebody began looking at smth (Он начал смотреть кино).
But "Архиерей начал смотреть на море" sounds very unusual and may be used only as an element of the style of a very special author, such as Platonov.


----------



## Crescent

And another thing is, I think the major difference between the two, is that -стать in a lot of cases can mean: to become. (another synonym for this: превратиться, although this is what you find more in fairy tales so don't over use it too much )
e.g. Она стала невыносимой = She became unbearable (of character)
      Он стал таким любезным! = He became (turned) so sweet! (although, I have to say - I must be mistaken here somewhere: both these phrase (the English and the Russian) sound rather odd to me... )
Начинать, however, never has this other meaning and only means: to start. But other than that, you're right: they are very close in meaning, and can be called synonyms. 

That's all I can think of for now.


----------



## Jana337

Привет, 

Just a quick question: I've finally started reading this gem. 


> 3.Кое-кто стали забывать правила согласования главных членов предложения.


Could начать be used here, too?

Thanks.


----------



## Q-cumber

Jana337 said:


> Привет,
> 
> Just a quick question: I've finally started reading this gem.
> 
> Could начать be used here, too?
> 
> Thanks.



Hi Jana!

Yes, "Кое-кто* начал* забывать правила..." sounds fine.


Athough* Maroseika'*s comment makes sence, in many cases these two words are fully interchangeable (I mean only "стал/начал + infinitive verb" constructions). "стал/начал + забывать..." is one of such cases. I'll try to recollect some opposite samples, if any...


----------



## Kolan

Lemminkäinen said:


> Стал я высокого спрашивать, давно ли они живут тут.
> Архиерей стал смотреть.
> И стал архиерей говорить: "Отче Наш".


In your particular examples _стал_ is a better match, more relevant to the style, with a nice archaic flavour. I love these phrases.

_ Начал_ would be less appropriate here, being too generic, IMHO.


----------



## PatrickK1

What's the difference between these two words?

For example, 
Они стали ссориться.
Они начали ссориться.

Are these synonymous sentences, or if there some sort of difference in the implied meanings?

Thanks


----------



## Akis

Начать- to begin.
  Стать- can mean "to begin" in this context of starting an action, but through a longer period of time and not just the time of beginning.
  Они стали постоянно ссориться- They started constantly arguing
 Они начали ссорится вчера- They began arguing yesterday

Also, when you say "Они _не стали_ ссориться", it would mean "they did not argue,  they decided it was better not to argue"


----------



## vasko705

1) Actually Стать is too close to "to become" so better to choose Начать.
2) Они стали ссориться.- The impression that is a speech of the kid.
Начать- the point of start, Стать- the point of transformation in a chain of long description...


----------



## PatrickK1

Akis said:


> Начать- to begin.
> Стать- can mean "to begin" in this context of starting an action, but through a longer period of time and not just the time of beginning.
> Они стали постоянно ссориться- They started constantly arguing
> Они начали ссорится вчера- They began arguing yesterday
> 
> Also, when you say "Они _не стали_ ссориться", it would mean "they did not argue,  they decided it was better not to argue"



Ah, so if you were talking about a husband and wife, and saying "A year ago they started arguing constantly", you would use стать, but if you were talking about the specific event of "starting to argue", you would use начать?

So, if you were talking about say...school attendance (ie. "I started attending university"), it would be best to use стать here?


----------



## Kolan

PatrickK1 said:


> Ah, so if you were talking about a husband and wife, and saying "A year ago they started arguing constantly", you would use стать, but if you were talking about the specific event of "starting to argue", you would use начать?
> 
> So, if you were talking about say...school attendance (ie. "I started attending university"), it would be best to use стать here?


Either one could be OK, depending on what you want to say.


----------



## Akis

vasko705 said:


> 2) Они стали ссориться.- The impression that is a speech of the kid.
> Начать- the point of start, Стать- the point of transformation in a chain of long description...


Collins dict.-*сов неперех * (*становиться* _impf _)*to stand *, (к станку, за прилавок)  *to take up position*_no impf _ (часы, завод, движение)  *to stop*, (начать)  стать _+infin _ *to begin  или  start doing * , (обойтись)  стать в _+acc _  *to cost *
*безл * (наличествовать) нас стало больше/трое there are more/three of us 
с какой стати?  разг why? 
становиться (стать _perf _) _+instr _   (учителем)  *to become*

У этого слова много значений, среди них и "begin/start doing". "постоянно" приписано не зря.



PatrickK1 said:


> Ah, so if you were talking about a husband and wife, and saying "A year ago they started arguing constantly", you would use стать, but if you were talking about the specific event of "starting to argue", you would use начать?
> 
> So, if you were talking about say...school attendance (ie. "I started attending university"), it would be best to use стать here?



In the example you gave, you have provided a time, so they are both possible. You wouldn't normally use "Начали" if the process was, and likely if it is, not ongoing, and if they are still arguing you would use it. Otherwise it is more appropriate to use "стали" about an ongoing process in the past.

You wouldn't normally say either of those about starting attending university- enrolling, getting into a specific collage... 
If you mean that you started attending university while already enrolled there, the same applies- "стал" - you began regularly attending/"начал" - you began attending. As you can see the difference is not very significant.


----------



## bravo7

PatrickK1 said:


> Are these synonymous sentences, or if there some sort of difference in the implied meanings?


Yes, they are completely synonymous.


----------



## domkrat

bravo7 said:


> Yes, they are completely synonymous.


I agree.
Especially in the colloquial speech


----------



## Kolan

bravo7 said:


> Yes, they are completely synonymous.


No, they are not. There is the approximately the same difference, as between *to become* and *to begin*, although contextually they may be interchangeable.


----------



## FYV

akis said:


> *безл *(наличествовать) нас стало больше/трое there are more/three of us


Мне кажется здесь не правильно, и перевод неправильный. Здесь слово _стать_ относиться к глаголу _быть_ который в настоящем времени в русском языке обычно опускается, хотя и подразумевается.


----------



## Ptak

> Yes, they are completely synonymous.


I agree too. They are.


----------



## Kolan

fyv said:


> Мне кажется здесь неправильно, и перевод неправильный. Здесь слово _стать_ относится к глаголу _быть_ который в настоящем времени в русском языке обычно опускается, хотя и подразумевается.


/Почему "быть"? "Нас *стало* трое" - это как раз совсем не то, что "нас было трое". 

Этот пример, кстати, наглядно демонстрирует разницу между *стать* и *начать*. Во фразе топикстартера это не так заметно.


----------



## FYV

kolan said:


> /Почему "быть"? "Нас *стало* трое" - это как раз совсем не то, что "нас было трое".
> 
> Этот пример, кстати, наглядно демонстрирует разницу между *стать* и *начать*. Во фразе топикстартера это не так заметно.


 

Мы ругаемся -> Мы стали ругаться
Нас [есть] трое -> нас стало [быть] трое

Я к тому, что не согласен с приведённой цитатой из словаря, где одно из значений стать - наличествовать


----------



## Kolan

fyv said:


> Мы ругаемся -> Мы стали ругаться
> Нас [есть] трое -> нас *стало [быть]* трое


Ну, и что это такое за "*стало быть*"? Язык - это не арифметика, и от перемены мест слагаемых сумма может легко измениться.


----------

