Learn Russian

sounds a bit strange. Like he couldn't sleep of erection
---
You really let your fantasy go rampant. Возбуждение is perfectly OK and normally does not cause sexual-related connotations. Mind also that you don't need a comma after Из-за возбуждения, though it is better to say от возбуждения in this context, and even better Гриша был так возбужден, что не мог уснуть.

From:

alon_68

You only have some questions about grammar?

It's so terrible that you'd better to write it in English and ask the community to translate into Russian. I can hardly understand what you're talking about here :(

From:

May I ask you to refrain from such comment as this in future? You know, people come here to learn and be helped, not to be told off. And, as you see, people understood the story and offered their corrected versions, so is it possible there may be something wrong with your perception ability, not with the way the story is told?

From:

alon_68

OK, sorry :)

From:

Гриша - маленький пухлый ребёнок: ему два года и восемь месяцев.
За два года и восемь месяцев Гриша никогда не выходил из своего дома: он очень хорошо знал всё о своей детской.
В один день он и его няня вышли из этого четырёхугольного мира, и Гриша увидел много интересных вещей: Гриша глядел на лошадей, но (maybe "хотя"?) не понял ничего о них, oн узнал, что солдаты не опасны, он видел двух кошек, и Гриша бежал за ними, а высокий человек со светлыми пуговицами, друг няни, разговаривал с няней. Гриша, няня и человек со светлыми пуговицами пошли к кухарке, где все ели и пили, даже Гриша. Вернувшись домой, Гриша рассказывал маме всё о своём дне (о том, как провел день?). От возбуждения Гриша не мог уснуть. Мама решила, что он заболел.

Very strange story, I would rather decide not Grisha, but his mother ill. 2 years and 8 months child is locked in his room...
The sentences are too long. It would be better to divide some for two or even three.

From:

It is a story by Chekhov, so maybe it is not as strange as you think. People did and wrote things differently 100 years ago.

From:

O, I see my ignorance...
But isn't it strange, to keep child in one room for almost 3 years?

From:

Maybe the ideas about fresh air etc. are modern and were not in fashion at the time.

From:

Poor boy :)

From:

Oh, no! Don't grab my brain:

http://www.my-chekhov.com/ru/proizved/164.shtml

From:

I've already read this, thank you.

From:

Yep. Why they are studying Russian reading that stuff? Just rhetorical question...

From:

One Russian teacher told how was astonished, then her Chinese student ask her: "Do words "ленивый" and "празднолюбивый" mean the same?"
Because he brought from China a very big dictionary, full of such old words - as recommended for studying Russian.

From:

Wondering why not to study Russian with translation of Old Slavonic "Не лепо ли ны бяшет, братие, начяти старыми словесы трудных повестий о полку Игореве, Игоря Святославлича!"

From:

At least, student's speaking will be free of modern slang :)

From:

Student can find Боян in ancient legends...

From:

embers.livejournal.com

I've been reading a book of Russian short stories but since they're all so old it's very hard for me because none of the words really translate into modern usage & it's hard for a non-native speaker to guess at the meaning. & Here I thought it would be helpful!

From:

Maybe this is a good dictionary, but for beginners it's not only not much help, but it also can be bad. Students can be lost in all this old words, especially if dictionary do not mark them with special sign.

From:

gordin.livejournal.com

никогда нивышёл - better just не выходил. I mean нивышёл is totally your invention, but also никогда seems not needed here.

Один день doesn't work. В один прекрасный день is an idiom close to that, or just Однажды (once) will do.

does this need to be svoyej? No, you did it right.

again verb of motion? - here ok.

из этого четырёхугольном мире с четырьмя углам - should be четырёхугольного, but the sentence still doesn't make any sense.

Гриша видел много интересных вещей - better "увидел"

видел два кошки - кошка is feminine, so две.

поговорил с няне - с няней

is this the correct verb of motion, is the prefix neccesary? it's ok

все ест и пьёт - nope, едят и пьют (ели и пили if you wanna say 'were drinking and eating')

свё рассказывал маме о своём днём - should be всё рассказал маме о своём дне

Не вынося своего возбуждения, Грише невозможно уснуть - should go differently. E. g. Гриша был так возбуждён, что не мог уснуть

Мама решала что он болен - решила

Your most notable problem is with perfective verbs (решила/решала, рассказывал/рассказал, et c.)

From:

Кошка is also animate, so видел двух кошек

Гриша видел много интересных вещей is OK, I think

From:

P.S. Actually, Grisha saw two dogs, not two cats! He just did not realise that and thought them to be cats because a cat was the only animal he saw in his life so far.

From:

Comments: "пухлый" bears negative meaning, some cuteness to be added by "еньк" suffix; do not repeat words too much times - say "2 yrs 8 mnths" once; instead of "angles" say "walls"; "ничего не понял о них" - a blueprint form "understand nothing", better to say something like "did not understand what it is"; man had not "светлые" (light) buttons but "блестящие" (bright); if Гиша came to the kitchen together with nanny and man with shining buttons, no need to repeat again that he had a lunch too if them all had; if Гриша have been falling asleep too long better to say "долго не мог"

Гриша - пухленький карапуз, ему два года и восемь месяцев.

С рождения Гриша ни разу не покидал дома, зато очень хорошо знал свою детскую. Однажды он в сопровождении няни вышел из мира, ограниченного четырьмя стенами. Снаружи Гриша увидел много интересных вещей. Гриша смотрел на лошадей, но не понял что это такое; oн узнал что солдаты не опасны; он видел двух кошек, Гриша за ними побежал; друг няни, высокий мужчина с блестящими пуговицами говорил с ней. Гриша, няня и мужчина со блестящими пуговицами пошли на кухню, где все они поели и выпили. Вернувшись домой, Гриша рассказал маме о том, как прошёл день. Гриша так возбудился, что долго не мог уснуть. Мама решила, что он болен.

From:

vovse-ne.livejournal.com

And more literary:

С рождения Гриша ни разу не покидал дома, зато очень хорошо знал свою детскую. Однажды он в сопровождении няни вышел из мира, ограниченного четырьмя стенами. Снаружи Гриша увидел много интересного. Гриша смотрел на лошадей, но не понял что это такое; oн узнал, что солдаты не опасны; он видел двух кошек и побежал за ними. Друг няни, высокий мужчина с блестящими пуговицами, разговаривал с ней. Гриша, няня и мужчина с блестящими пуговицами пошли на кухню, где они ели и пили./Not выпили - it seems as they drank vodka Вернувшись домой, Гриша рассказал маме о том, как прошёл день. Гриша был так возбуждён,"Так возбудился" let many people think about sex. что долго не мог уснуть. Мама решила, что он болен.

From:

aylie-serinde.livejournal.com

Гриша смотрел на лошадей, но не понял что это такое - shouldn't there be a comma before что?

From:

No, there shouldn't.

"Что" does not play the role of a conjunctive for a clause. The whole "что это такое" is an object here.
If you put a comma, you get "Гриша смотрел на лошадей, но не понял, что это такое".

This construction should be read with an emphasis on "что", "что" has got to be a conjunctive and it'll mean something like this: "Grisha looked at the horses, but he didn't understand that this was like that".

Another example to illustrate the point.

Я вижу, что вы едите. — I see that you eat. (I look at you, and I see that you are occupied with the process of eating something.)
Я вижу что вы едите. — I see what you eat. (I look at the food, the dishes or something — the things you are eating.)

It's quite not a catchy shade of russian language, much of the people I see do not pay attention to this aspect at all. You have to be careful with those who dare to play eloquent people. :)

p.s. I'm not that familiar with the russian didactics, so excuse me, if "clause", "conjunctive" and "object" are not the best terms to use here for description.

From:

This is a bunch of unbelievable rubbish. There SHOULD be a comma before "что". Period.

From:

Let's find out the truth. I don't like this kind of responses. It's not rubbish, it's logic.

http://www.spelling.spb.ru/rosenthal/alpha/r114.htm (http://www.spelling.spb.ru/rosenthal/alpha/r114.htm)

From:

The phrase we are discussing does not fit any of the cases which according to Rosenthal don't need a comma.

From:

I thought it fit the first case, my apologies. Thanks.

From:

vovse-ne.livejournal.com

Yes, it SHOULD be a comma. I just forgot to put it there.

From:

aylie-serinde.livejournal.com

Well, the terms are quite adequate and the whole idea is not so wrong, I only doubt that all these things should somehow influence the syntax.

From:

Of course there should be a comma.

From:

Nevermind my comment, I admit being wrong >_<

From:

"Возбудился" have sexual meaning not in the text about small cute child... We are very spoiled Russians...

From:

Yes, sounds like "Выпили и закусили" = "Had some vodka and snacks"

From:

In the Chekhov's story they drink vodka, definitely:
"Кухарка ставит на стол бутылку, три рюмки и пирог. Две женщины и человек со светлыми пуговицами чокаются и пьют по нескольку раз, и человек обнимает то няньку, то кухарку."

He is "excited":
"Он ворочается с боку на бок, болтает и в конце концов, не вынося своего возбуждения, начинает плакать."

From:

read the Chekhov's tale - they namely drink vodka. Even Grisha.

From:

Yep. That's great. But buttons are "светлые" - that's my mistake. I've looked at the text from adult's point of view and modern fashion :-)

From:

vovse-ne.livejournal.com

I didn't understand it was Checkov! :)

From:

me neither ;)

From:

aylie-serinde.livejournal.com

You've missed several commas here.
Better Он видел двух кошек, которых попытался догнать.

From:

Гриша глядел на лошадей, но он не понял ничего о них,oн узнал что солдаты не опасные, он видел два кошки, и Гриша бежал за ними
---
You say Гриша, then "он" and then Гриша again. This sounds bad. "он видел два кошки, и Гриша бежал за ними" sounds especially wrong because it creates an impression that there was one person ("он") who saw the cats and another one ("Гриша") who ran after them. You should say Гриша once in the beginning of the phrase and not repeat it unnecesarily (don't use extraneous "он" either): Гриша увидел двух кошек и побежал за ними. Make the sentences shorter; then you will be able to say Гриша in about every other sentence and "он" in the rest of them. Also mind that if you use Гриша and он in the same sentence you should FIRST say "Гриша" and then "он", not the other way round as English has it.

From:

So I recommend you to read whole story by A. Chekhov (thanks

oryx_and_crake who remembered (googled?) the source text): http://www.my-chekhov.com/ru/proizved/164.shtml

I actively do not recommend to study modern Russian even if you read adapted Chekhov. His language is brilliant, colorful and exciting but sometimes not very easy to feel what he means... Do you know what "бурнус" means? Are you feeding children with "касторка" frequently? What's "фалда"?

If adapted - you miss 99% of colours, 99% of meaning... Uh-oh...

From:

If you think of все as "all", not as "everybody", it will be easier for you to memorise that it takes plural.

I don't know what you mean by "не выходил" being multidirectional, could you explain?

Однажды is not idiomatic, it just means "one day" (as in "one day he did this or that")

From:

spiritrc.livejournal.com

I would say "однажды" means "once" (as in "once upon a time"), not just "one day".
I believe it's derived from "единожды", which is also "once" in English, but in a different meaning (once, twice, thrice)

From: