(no subject)

[wolfie-18.livejournal.com]

Here's another couple of questions from a рассказ by Tolstoy. It's relatively much easier than the last one. For me. Thank you for the help on the previous one!

Oh, while on the subject, when does one use направляться as opposed to отправляться?

1)      Куда направляется архиерей?
Архиерей направляется в Соловецские островы.

 

2)      Зачем он туда плывёт?
Он туда плывёт, чтобы посетил угодников.

 

3)      Почему он просит остановить корабль?
Он просит остановить корабль, потому что он хочет поверить живут ли старцы на острове.

 

4)      Кого находит он на острове?
Он находит старцев, живущих одни на острове.

 

5)      Чему учит он трёх старцев?
Он их учит молитве Бога.

 

6)      Почему три старца догоняют корабль?
Они догоняют корабль, потому, что они забыли молитву Бога, которой их научил архиерей.

 

7)      Как они это делают?
Они бегают по море, не двигая свои ноги.

 

8)      Что говорит им архиерей?
Что ему не учить молитве, имея в виду, что они святие не зная права религии.

 

9)      Что хотел сказать этим рассказом Толстой?
Что не надо быть религиозным (или связанным с одной религией), чтобы Бог знал, что вы живёте добродетельно.

 

Comments

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

направляться - to head [to somewhere]
отправляться - to depart

1. Plural of остров is островА
2. ...чтобы посетиТЬ угодников. Just like in English when you state a goal of an action you use an infinitive: _to_ visit the holy men
3. что он хочет пРоверить - this is probably just a typo. Поверить means "to believe". (I don't remember the story so I assume you meant He went to check if the holy men live on the island.) Also you don't need a comma before потому, only after it and you do need a comma before живут. (In Russian, you always put comma between separate clauses within a sentence. In a free-word-order language punctuation is way more important than in English that has a relatively fixed word order)

4. Он находит старцев, живущих одниХ на острове
одниХ should agree with старцев here.

5.Он их учит молитве Бога - if you mean "God's Prayer" then it's called "Отче Наш" in Russian (actually, Old Church Slavonic) It means "Our Lord"

6. You don't need a comma before потому

7. This is a difficult one. A proper way to say it would something like Они бегут по морю, не двигая ногами
A blow-by-blow account:
"Бегают" implies a continuous, repetetive or habitual action with no obvious finish. For example, you spot the old men run on water just for fun. Or they do it every morning as an excersize. Here (I assume) the bishop saw the old men running after the ship. Their action has an obvious final goal - catching up. So you'd have to use "бегут"
"по морю" - "по" requires a dative complement. Don't ask me why :)

"не двигая ногами" - first of all, unlike English (where you say "moving _their_ feet") Russian doesn't require specifying the owner unless really necessary. For instance, here it's pretty obvious the old men were moving their own feet and not someone else's : ) (This principle goes along with skipping articles and generally being cavalier about determiners)

As of case of "ногами" - it's a subtle point. With the verb "двигать" and similar verbs, you use instrumental case with body parts. Accusative case implies cause-effect, like if you consciously move something specifically to move it.

So двигать ноги would be appropriate if you didn't feel your legs, or you were moving someone else's legs, or you were doing a complex tai-chi excersize. Naturally moving your legs without giving it much thought is двигать ногами
It also applies with tools and such (that's why the case is called "instrumental") For example:

Двигать ножницы would be appropriate if scissors were lying on a table and you move them out of the way.
Двигать ножницами is suitable when you are are holding them and making snipping motions.

As a rule of thumb, if you it's a body part, or an object that' like an extension of your body, or a tool, use instrumental, if it's a separate entity - use accusative.


8. Что ему не учить ИХ молитве, имея в виду, что они святые, не зная религии
In this particulat case adding direct object "them" is better for he is talking about speicfically teaching the old men, not just anybody.
святые is written with Ы (i am sure that was a typo)
don't forget a comma before не зная, because that's a participle (you did put a comma before имея. well done :)
права - i am not sure what you mean by that. None of the meanings I can think of fit well... so I skipped it for now. If you tell me what you had in mind, I'd help you out with translating it

:Что не надо быть религиозным (или связанным с одной религией), чтобы Бог знал, что Вы живёте добродетельно

Since it's a honorific Вы, it has to be capitalized.
Couple more suggestions. Since God here is a passive perceiving entiry, passive sounds better: "чтобы Богу было известно".
Also "не обязательно" feels more appropriate. Can't tell you exactly why, but "не надо" has a bit of "don't do it" flavor to it. "не обязательно" is more lenient, fine if you do, fine if you don't.

[oryx_and_crake]

::Also you don't need a comma before потому, only after it and you do need a comma before живут.
wrong, he needs both commas (there should always be a comma before потому что, except some very special cases)

::живущих одниХ
sounds awkward, better to say живущих в одиночестве or которые живут одни

::You don't need a comma before потому
wrong again. You don't need a comma after потому, but you do need one before.
Они догоняют корабль, потому что они забыли молитву

8 should be something like
Что не ему учить их молитве (имея в виду, что они уже достигли святости, не зная религиозных правил)

::Since God here is a passive perceiving entiry
This is your own opinion and not something from the story. God is a person, not any passive thing, at least in Tolstoy's view and in the eyes of the holy men - protagonists of the story

BTW I don't agree with wolfie_18's p.9, but that's outside of the lingustical point of view.

[oryx_and_crake]

P.S. it is not a honorific Вы, it is a plural вы (and please mind that plural вы is never capitalized - even if you speak to several persons each of whom you would address as Вы if speaking to each separately)

also - направляется НА Соловецкие острова (mind the spelling of Соловецкие)

[wolfie-18.livejournal.com]

Wow. Thank you very much. Sincerely. Some things I want to answer/say

2. Oh yeah... посетить in the infinitive. But I remember it as "If the subject doesn't change, use infinitive, if it does, use past tense."

3. Typos will be the end of me! Oh, and I don't think I'll ever get used to Russian punctuation... oy vey.

5. So would "Отче Наш" have to be in the dative then? Both of them? "Отчу Нашему?"

7. Hm... I put бегают because it agreed with the tense that the question was using. Как они это делают? Бегают. But then again... I don't think the text translates smoothly into English. Thank you, though, now I know. AH! Морю... *note to self - check grammar*

Thank you also for telling me that body parts/extensions of the self are instrumental. I have to learn to trust my instincts. Oh, and haha... свои sounded natural to me... need to reboot (I'm still chuckling at the fact that they'd be moving someone else's feet, heh heh).

oryx_and_crake made me realize that I meant правило and not право. Something along the lines of "they were holy not knowing the rules of religion". Well... the archbishop went onto the island and taught them the "correct way to pray to God," and then he left, and the elders ran up to the ship by the sea and of course the archbishop would deem these men already holy and much closer to God than he. So... how would I put that into an answer to question 8?

Thanks again!

Out of the same curiosity that killed that cat...

[wolfie-18.livejournal.com]

what's your opinion on number 9?

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

:P.S. it is not a honorific Вы, it is a plural вы (and please mind that plural вы is never capitalized - even if you speak to several persons each of whom you would address as Вы if speaking to each separately)

Now, the phrase was:
Что не надо быть религиозным (или связанным с одной религией), чтобы Бог знал, что вы живёте добродетельно

It seems to me (note "религиознЫМ") that the speaker is talking to a single person. From this I surmise "Вы" must be honorific.

4,8. I agree your variations are better. I tried to stay as close as possible to the original, on the premise that stylistics is a way more advanced subject than grammar.

9. On the subject of God's being passive I meant that (sorry for not being clear) not in a philosophical sense but in a lingustic sense -- what linguists sometimes call a "perceiver". I was not implying God is not a person for one has to be (linguistically at least) a person in order to know. Nevertheess knowing and coming to know are passive actions. You don't _do_ anything. Compare:
Bad: Что сделал Бог? Бог узнал о добродетели старцев.
Good: Что произошло? Бог узнал о добродетели старцев.
In Russian such events passivize more easily than in English. That's all.

On other points I agree. I suck at punctuation.

:BTW I don't agree with wolfie_18's p.9, but that's outside of the lingustical point of view
If wolfie_18 means by "religious" somebody who performs proper rituals, goes to church etc then she seems to be pretty close to how I understood Tolstoy's message. I agree, that is a discussion better left for some other community...

[oryx_and_crake]

он едет, чтобы посетить - in such constructions the second verb is always in the infinitive
я пью, чтобы напиться
она одевается, чтобы пойти на танцы
он читает книгу, чтобы написать по ней сочинение

"Отче наш" is not declined at all. "Они читают "Отче наш". If you need any other case than nominative or accusative, use a different construction, e.g. Архиерей научил их молитве "Отче наш".

They are not running permanently, on a daily basis - they were running at the moment the archbishop looked at them. So, it will be not "бегают" but "бегут" (in the past, similarly, not бегали but бежали).

[oryx_and_crake]

The speaker was not talking to any particular person, it was a general statement, the moral conclusion of the story (much like Чтобы у вас не болели зубы, вы должны их чистить ежедневно).

Re: Out of the same curiosity that killed that cat...

[oryx_and_crake]

On no.9 <religious flamethrowing started> The point of the story is not "добродетельная жизнь" but gaining of Holy Spirit through prayer. To be virtuous is more or less natural, but gifts of Holy Spirit are supernatural - and the monks achieved them.<religious flamethrowing finished>

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

5. So would "Отче Наш" have to be in the dative then? Both of them? "Отчу Нашему?"

This phrase doesn't decline anymore, so I'd say
молитве "Отче наш"

btw, this how it looks like:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-slavonic.html

:Как они это делают? Бегают
Errr... this literally means
How are they doing it? Running.
I don't think this is what you meant.

Бегут and бегают have same tense, the difference is in character of an action. "Бегут" can have a final state (они бегут в магазин), бегают cannot.
"они бегают в магазин" would mean they repeatedly run to the store.

Other verbs of motion also make this distinction:
плавают/плывут
ходят/идут
ползают/ползут
etc

Re: Out of the same curiosity that killed that cat...

[oryx_and_crake]

P.S. The monks are deeply religious. They pray and fast and lead ascetic life. This disproves your point. I'd rather say that the moral of the story is something like "There are rules for everything, and if you follow them faithfully you will probably succeed; but don't assume that knowing these rules makes you cleverer or closer to God than other people; they might know something you don't and reach God by their own way."

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

Ok.

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

Lingustic nitpicking:

:They are not running permanently, on a daily basis - they were running at the moment the archbishop looked at them. So, it will be not "бегают" but "бегут" (in the past, similarly, not бегали but бежали).

The key here is not habituality of action (running permanently, on a daily basis) but lack of clear final point or a goal. Compare:
1)По двору бегали дети
vs.
2)По двору бежали дети

In both cases we are desribing the situation right now, regardless of the usual routine.
However, 1) means the children were running in all directions without any visible goal 2) means they were russning in an orderly manner, most likely all in one direction.

If I remember correctly this distinction is called Aktionsart.

[oryx_and_crake]

might be
however, бегали can mean any of the two (habitual action or lack of goal)

[ekeme-ndiba.livejournal.com]

By the way, "не передвигая ног" sounds much better than "не двигая ногами".

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

Very true

[malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com]

It's really not exclusive. Habitual action normally implies lack of a specific final point or limit.

This subject is pretty darn complex, volumes have been written on it. I just tried to explain the rough distinction, perhaps not too well.

[roman-v-m.livejournal.com]

if you mean "God's Prayer" then it's called "Отче Наш" in Russian (actually, Old Church Slavonic) It means "Our Lord"

Actually 'Our Father...'

Re: Out of the same curiosity that killed that cat...

[wolfie-18.livejournal.com]

Oh! Very well said :)

[noser.livejournal.com]

> 5) Чему учит он трёх старцев?
> Он их учит молитве Бога.

"Отче Наш" is sometimes called "молитва Господня" (that's "Lord's prayer" in Church Slavonic; in Russian it would be "молитва Господа", of course, but Russian version is not used). So, you could say: Он их учит молитве Господней. Or, молитве "Отче Наш", as already mentioned.