Были маленькими

[viric.livejournal.com]

Я не понимаю, в чём разница между этими фразами :
Обрывки были маленькие
Обрывки были маленькими

Можете ли мне объяснить? Спасибо!

Comments

[ex-eugzol340.livejournal.com]

No difference =)

[viric.livejournal.com]

Обе фразы правильные? Значит, я могу и так и так говорить когда угодно?

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

1. The working language here is English, since the learners of Russian in this community are not on the same stage of their study, and some of them shall not benefit from posts or comments entirely in Russian, with no translation.

2. There is some subltle difference, though mostly context-dependable. The first example is more like a description, while the 2nd looks more like an answer to a question. They are, to a certain degree, interchangeable, though.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dengerous_/]

2. Noway. They're same since author of this post haven't provided whole phrase. First can be used as an answer for a question Какие?, second - Какими?

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

[with endless patience] That is what I am talking about. Contextual difference. Know that word?

[old-radist.livejournal.com]

Yep!

Especially after reading the whole thread - no difference.
Unless you are Pushkin, surely...

°-)))

[dasboot.livejournal.com]

разницы нет ж)

[oryx_and_crake]

Please note that the working language of this community is English. It is OK to occasionally post in Russian but you are expected to provide a translation.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

Разница есть.

Правилен второй вариант - здесь прилагательное должно стоять в творительном падеже, а не в именительном (винительном).

Всегда, если возникает трудность при склонении прилагательных, задавайте вопрос и подставляйте существительное, которое могло бы этим прилагательным управлять: "Обрывки были (кем?/чем?) маленькими [кусочками]."

[arenhaime.livejournal.com]

Let me contradict you, in modern Russian either forms may be used. I agree, the first form belongs to colloquial, not literary language, but still it's possible to use it. Sequence of cases is not so strict here.

[oryx_and_crake]

The first form is not colloquial - it is completely legitimate.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

You are complitely wrong.

[alex-mashin.livejournal.com]

He's absolutely right.
"Я сделался ремесленник". © А.С. Пушкин.
Not "Я сделался ремесленником".

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

1. Pushkin lived two centuries ago, his language is not proper modern language.

2. There are a lot of mistakes in books of classics. This fact does not make such mistakes admissible for another language speakers.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

I don't think like that.

This is a common mistake of using the wrong case (падеж), like mistakes with word "согласно *** (чему - либо)".

[arenhaime.livejournal.com]

I'm talking about common practice in colloquial and literary language. If we'll take a look on classics of Russian literature, we'll see the same using of nominative case.
To my mind common practice becomes a norm instead of being a mistake.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

But I can not tolerate if the wrong form is using like a "part of norm".

It's like a "кофе" в среднем роде, склоняемое "пальто", "суши" & "саке" instead "суси" and "сакэ", "согласно приказа" instead "согласно приказу", etc.

[arenhaime.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not a discussion about Japanese,
but I'm sure you know that correct transcription and actual pronounciation of "суси" and "сакэ" (if you prefer these variants) is more closer to sushi and sakæ. And both these sounds are only approximately expressed in Russian.
I'm sorry for the offtopic.

[oryx_and_crake]

Please note that the working language of this community is English. It is OK to occasionally post in Russian but you are expected to provide a translation.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

I think that if somobody can not understand the exslanation in Russian, he does not need it at all.

[shariperkins.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, not every class teaches how to discuss grammar in a foreign language, even if it does teach the language.

[viric.livejournal.com]

Я тоже так думал о вопросе. Спасибо!
I thought the same regarding the question. Thank you!

Следующий раз я спрашу в pishu_pravilno, хотя я не русский и ещё со многими ошибками говорю.

[wildest.livejournal.com]

And this would be the best solution for you.
Being a native speaker does not necessarily imply a deep enough understanding of the language to be able to explain such complicated cases.
Supposedly, the people in pishu_pravilno should be able to provide a more expert advice since such issues are what that community is about.

[oryx_and_crake]

Please see the rules of the community.

[oryx_and_crake]

Wrong.
The question you should ask here is: Обрывки были (какие?) маленькие. The second form is more or less legitimate too, but it is far from being the only correct one.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

No, you are wrong.

Such sentence is an elliptical form.

The full form must be something like: "Обрывки были маленькими [обрывками]." Of course the last noun usually is not using, but the grammar form, the case (падеж) of pronoun must been taken like the case of that "not used" noun: "Обрывки были какими [обрывками]? Обрывки были маленькими [обрывками]."

Feel the difference:

"На светофоре горел красный свет."
"Свет, который горел на светофоре был красным [светом]."

And ofcource today there are a lot of people who does not know the language very well. And in modern ecpecially in modern spoken language you oftenly can hear the form like "Обрывки были маленькие." But it is still a mistake.

[arenhaime.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I can't agree.
Это были маленькие обрывки
Эти обрывки были маленькие

If we could describe ablative case as an ablative of manner - than we'd use ablative.
But as simple modifier of subject the adjective here match in case, number and gender - that's what we've got!
So, grammatically both ways are possible to be used.

[arenhaime.livejournal.com]

It's a kind of grammar trick.
"Correct" or "incorrect" using of these forms is just a deal of general language practice. From the point of view of language "processing", "work" it's not an error.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

May be you are right, but I think that foreign language learners have to learn only proper language.

There are a lot of garbage in our modern language and I don't want the number of that garbage have been increased by foreign speakers.

[oryx_and_crake]

This construction is not improper. It is very legitimate. In the present tense you would say: "Небо синее. Трава зеленая." It is the same for the past tense with the only difference that the verb быть which is normally omitted in the present tense is used explicitly: "Небо [есть] синее. Небо было синее." I hope you are not going to say that the correct version is "Небо синим."

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

I can't agree with you.

According the "Modern Russian language" by D.E. Rozental this is an mistake.

And who are we to argue with Ditmar Elashevich? ;-)

[alex-mashin.livejournal.com]

In an argument between Pushkin and Rosentahl, I prefer the former. And I don't recognise Rosentahl's right to declare obsolete a usage that was fine to Pushkin.

[glorfindeil.livejournal.com]

But nobody ask your opinion about that.

There is a Federal Law of Russian language. According this law only Russian government is able to make any decisions about "what is the language" "the rules of language", etc. According this law Russian Government delegates this right to the special commission of Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Ditmar Elashevich Rozental was one of the representatives of this Institute and he was one of the greatest scientists in Russian linguistics in modern history.

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Don't consider myself to be the expert here, but, in any case, based on what I've understood about Russian "были маленькие" tends to describe an intrinsic, permanent quality. In contrast, "были маленькими" describes a transitory quality, i.e. one that is subject to change.

For example, "были маленькими" could imply "и стали большими". But, "были маленькие", being an intrinsic quality, precludes the transition to "и стали большими".

At least, this is how I think my Russian teacher explained the difference between the two to me.

You could orientate yourself towards "animate" or "inanimate". I think inanimate objects (in the literal sense) are more likely to "были маленькие", as they generally do not change form.

Conversely, (literal) animate objects, i.e. flora, fauna, possess an array of transitory qualities that are captured in Russian by describing them as "были маленькими", for example.

When used interchangeably, the difference between "были маленькие" and "были маленькими" is one of attitude. In the first case the speaker is implying that the assertion is a statement of fact, inasmuch as the sense of permanence relating to unchanging inanimate objects is carried over into this description. In the second case, the implication is that this is the speaker’s personal opinion (it makes no pretence of describing an intransient quality), and he/she wishes to specifically communicate that - in his/her opinion - "они были маленькими".

Whether or not in fact "они были маленькими или маленькие" remains moot.

Cheers to all. In my opinion, this is a great site.

Будь таким, какой ты есть

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Read an interesting quote today that seems to support the argument regarding instrumental case being used for transitory qualities versus the nominative being used for intrinsic qualities. Here's the quote:

Будь таким, какой ты есть.
Или же будь таким, каким ты кажешься.
(Джелаладдин Руми)

When I asked my native Russian speaking friends whether one could change "какой ты есть" to "каким ты есть" they all replied in the negative.

None could explain why this was so. Except, they did intimate that it had something to do with "какой ты есть" expressing an essential (intrinsic) quality that would be lost if one tried "каким ты есть" (transitory quality).