Стоило кому-то что-то cделать, как.....

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Dear Community,

Could you please help me figure out how this Russian phrase works (in terms of inner-logic)?:

"Стоило кому что-то сделать, как.....". It seems to mean, "Как только кто-то начал делать что-то,...."

For example: "Стоило Шаляпину запеть, как все смолкли, и в зале наступила тишина".

- As soon as X began to sing, everyone became silent and the room fell quiet.

- No sooner had X begun to sing, than everyone became still and the room fell quiet.

Assuming this interpretation is approximately correct, what is the inner-logic behind having

"Стоило кому-то что-то cделать, как...." equate to "Как только кто-то начал делать что-то,...."?

Looking forward to your kind input.

ФБ

UPD: Thank you all for your great input. For me, the riddle is solved. One will go with "it took", "it took but", "it only took", "one only needed to" or phrases with approximate meanings as a suitable translation.

Comments

[colonelrabin.livejournal.com]

Correct. Just "Стоило сделать" or "стоило начать делать", but not "стоило делать". Only perfective.

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the correction. What's the logic behind this meaning?

[philinn.livejournal.com]

Стоило here means not "cost", but smth like perfect form of verb "стать", "становиться". I can be wrong, but it's the only explanation I can think of.
Maybe it's just something you should remember )))

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Maybe you're right. But I hate trying to memorise things like a parrot. I like to know what the things I remember mean.

[wolk-off.livejournal.com]

When we say "it's a set expression," we therefore warn that the direct logic, either grammar logic or semantical logic, cannot be applied in this case.
Well, then, THIS is a set expression :)

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Even set expressions have an inner logic. You can take that to the bank.

As a rule, if one is not mentally lazy, it is possible to discover this logic.

[colonelrabin.livejournal.com]

Actually (it's just my assumption) perfective is needed to strengthen the time connection. More, "Стоило делать" has it's own literal meaning: "It was worth to do".

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Yes. I know the literal meaning. So my question is by what logic does the literal meaning assume this figurative meaning? How do you piece it together?

[colonelrabin.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a bit difficult for me, as I'm just a native speaker, not a linguist. Probably you can think over a semantic step from "it was worth toW to "it was enough to, and look - already...". No more ideas, sorry.

"It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

OK. I'll try. Basically, the impression one gains is that we have situation X. Agent Y intervenes and as a result situation X changes (for the better, to his favour, as he would have wanted).

I think this is the nuance to the phrase that I'm trying to eke out here. If it is only used when speaking of a positive outcome, then I think one can grasp the inner-logic.

For example, the English "no sooner had", "as soon as" are neutral, so in this case these phrases would not always be correct translations of the nuance of "Стоило кому что-то сделать".

Maybe a better translation of literal meaning in this case might be:

"It was worthwhile doing something, as..." or "It was worth his while to do something, as...."

Let me know what you think of this.

Re: "It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[spiritrc.livejournal.com]

The outcome shouldn't always be positive. For instance: "Стоило Медузе Горгоне посмотреть на человека, как тот превращался в камень". Not a very positive outcome for the stoned person. :)

The most close translation into English that I can think of is "It took a single look of Gorgon to turn a man into a stone". In this example, as it seems to me, "it took" is very close by it's meaning and it's logic to "стоило".

Re: "It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Yes. Very intelligent. "It took". That is something I can live with. Thank you.

Re: "It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

So, based on this logic, "Стоило Шаляпину запеть, как все смолкли, и в зале наступила тишина", rather means something like,

"Shalyapin only needed to start singing for everyone to fall silent, and the room to become still."

Re: "It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[spiritrc.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but your original "As soon as X began to sing, everyone became silent and the room fell quiet" looks like a better translation to me.

I'm glad my explanation helped you.

Re: "It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[spiritrc.livejournal.com]

I think that "as soon as" is better here because it better expresses the synchronism of the events. They fell silent immediately after him starting to sing. They did it absolutely synchronously, that's why "as soon as" looks better.

Re: "It was worthwhile doing something, as..."

[freiburg234.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is all right in terms of localizing the utterance in the target language and for the target audience. But I still like to get a "feel" for the literal meaning in order to have an idea of the spectrum of available solutions.

In that context "only needed to" expresses the same idea as "as soon as". There is no difference between the two in terms of "timing of events". "Only" shows precisely the near synchronicity of events expressed by "as soon as. "Absolute synchronicity" is not given in either case.

The significant difference here is in only in the context of "cause and effect". "Only needed to" explictly denotes the agent caused the ensuing reaction. "As soon as" only implies that agent X caused the reaction.