(no subject)

[schlagen.livejournal.com]

Just a quick question, oh kind people of this community. How would I say 'I studied stories, which were written by Pushkin', the bit in bold being the part I'm having difficulties with. I have: я изучала рассказов, которые были написаны but what goes next?

Thank you in advance!

EDITED: Potentially stupid, as well, but how would one say Catherine the Great and Peter the Great?

Comments

[ksana.livejournal.com]

я изучала рассказы, которые были написаны Пушкиным.
but you'd better say it in this way:
я изучала рассказы Пушкина.

=)

!

[schlagen.livejournal.com]

Thank you so very much!

[dinozavrik.livejournal.com]

"...которые были написаны Пушкиным".

But you also have an error in "рассказов" - the proper form is "Я изучала рассказы".

[schlagen.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much!

[khathi.livejournal.com]

Fist, in the main part of sentence you should use accusative for subject, not genitive: not "Я изучала (кого/чего?) рассказов", but "Я изучала (кого/что?)рассказЫ". BTW, it's better to use "истории" and not "рассказы", as "истории" is a more general word and suits this context more. Second part is, if I'm not mistaken, a complex object, so you should use instrumental here: "были написаны (кем/чем?) Пушкиным".

[ksana.livejournal.com]

Im not sure that its better to use истории here.
guess рассказы are ok here, as speaking about Pushkin.
atleast its the way we use it in philological department =))

[khathi.livejournal.com]

Well, as far as I informed, "рассказы" in Russian outside of colloquial speech has quite a specific meaning, which would be "short stories" in English. But as far as I know Pushkin's prose, he leaned more to medium and bigger form, and wrote not so big amount of short stories. So I'd prefer a more general term in such case.

[ksana.livejournal.com]

=)possible.
it depends.
Pushkin wrote short stories too. but I dont insist =))

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

Pushkin wrote no "истории", sorry. Рассказы and повести, that's right.

[nekotjonok.livejournal.com]

Петр Великий, Катерина Великая

[salexey.livejournal.com]

Екатерина Великая

[nekotjonok.livejournal.com]

Sure. Thanks!

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

There was nobody in Russian history called "Катерина". It's "Екатерина Великая".

[nekotjonok.livejournal.com]

of course that was a misprint, and already corrected above.

[divine-1987.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd rather say:
Я читала произведения/рассказы Пушкина.
I believe that a clause cannot be used in the context because it would sound a bit "non-russian". A clause would rather be used if you wanted to focus attention on Pushkin himself. Then it would sound: Я читала рассказы, написанные Пушкиным. Or a bit stronger accent: Я читала рассказы, которые были написаны Пушкиным.
Then I'dlike to pay your attention to the word изучала. When one uses that word one means that s/he analysed something, not just read.

[divine-1987.livejournal.com]

By analysing I mean writing essays or something like that.

[gera.livejournal.com]

Note that the monarchs are most commonly referred to as Екатерина Вторая, Пётр Первый.
(I think this has to do with the Soviet aversion to monarchy).

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

Nope. The flagship of Russian Northern Fleet, for example, is "Пётр Великий". What you describe is some "gone reality."

[arvi.livejournal.com]

> "Пётр Великий".

The ship can be named in European style. But if you mean a person, more correct is "Пётр I".

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

Russian battleship named in European style? Sounds like bad science fiction. Have you ever served in Russian military?

If I mean a person, I say "Пётр Великий" or "Пётр I", whatever suits me. None of those versions is incorrect.

[arvi.livejournal.com]

> Russian battleship named in European style? Sounds like
> bad science fiction. Have you ever served in Russian military?

Sounds OKay. Russian fleet was created by Peter the Great, who admire Europe. Many Russian fleet traditions have origins in Europe.

> I say "Пётр Великий" or "Пётр I", whatever suits me. None of
> those versions is incorrect.

Thats true. Especially if you are foreigner. "Пётр I" is just more often used.

You can say "where is stop of the train?" or "where is train stop?". Both versions are correct, but the second is used more often.

[alex-mashin.livejournal.com]

Пётр Великий is a missile cruiser, not a battleship.

If you want to be very official or encyclopaedia-like, use ordinals. These can be spelt with Roman numerals or words, e.g. "Пётр Первый". If you want to express your attitude, monarchist feelings or patriotism, use "Великий".

Depending on which Pushkin's works you mean, and what exactly you did to them, you can write: "Я читал/изучал(а) повести/прозу/(nothing for everything he wrote) Пушкина".

[spiderhood.livejournal.com]

Kind of universal algorithm: go to Wikipedia in English, type in the name you want to be translated ("Peter the Great" or "Pope XI" or whatever), go to the page dedicated to the lad, and in the left bottom corner there'll be lots of links to the same article in other languages. Click on the Russian one, read the title.

With a bit of experience it works much faster that writing into a community ;)

[arvi.livejournal.com]

> 'I studied stories, which were written by Pushkin',

   Я изучал(а) рассказы Пушкина.

> Catherine the Great and Peter the Great

   Екатерина Великая и Пётр I

   Just like this, original Russian title differs from English.

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

Don't misguide people. There is nothing wrong with Пётр Великий, and it is completely accepted in today's official Russian historiography and, especially, in "Federal talk" of the day (modern state officials' lingo.)

[nemica.livejournal.com]

I'd say that Пётр I is more common and Пётр Великий is more official. But both are correct, of course.

By the way am I right guessing that Ivan the Terrible is not the same as Иван Грозный? Terrible's more like "ужасный", while "грозный" has more respectuful connotation.

[coldmacana.livejournal.com]

Грозный I think, is something more like all-powerful/a force-to-be-reckoned with. It's not necessarily a negative thing -- "awesome" (not in the Ninja Turtles/Cowabunga Dude! sense ;) ) is sometimes used to reconcile this, although I don't think that's a 100% accurate word-for-word translation. Needless to say, though, given his conduct and typical usage, the connotation of "terrible" in the purely evil sense abounds in the English language. You can of course, still use "terrible" to mean "powerful", it's just not done very often (at least in the US -- perhaps it is in other countries though). Just think of it used in the same way that the Bible advises you to "fear the Lord." You're not fearing him in the sense that he's going to smite you whenever he feels like it because a rotten guy, but rather his power and ability to do so. Does that help at all?

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

We are just lucky that it doesn't go anymore like it used to be in a 1930s Hollywood movie: "...Ivan the Terrible, who, for his infinite cruelty, was nicknamed Vassilievich..."

[coldmacana.livejournal.com]

ROFL. Please tell me you are joking!

So, by that same logic, I guess, if I were to write a book about Putin, I could call it "Vladimir Putin, who, for his infinite KGB-ness, was nicknamed Vladimirovich!"

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

Given that I share the patronymic with Mr. Putin, I must be a BAD community maintainer ;)