Recently I was sent a link to a reflection on the complexities of the Russian language on the topic “standing, lying or sitting.” This “intellectual work” naturally outraged me - I take such things very seriously. Now, when I discovered that this “reflection” has been replicated on the Internet a colossal number of times (tens of thousands of times, and maybe even more - hundreds of thousands), I consider it absolutely necessary to object publicly.
Original text "Standing, lying or sitting"
Now the cat climbs onto the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying down it somehow fits into the “vertical-horizontal” logic, then sitting is a new property. She sits on her butt.
Now a bird has landed on the table. She sits on the table, but sits on her legs, not on her butt. Although it seems like it should be standing. But she cannot stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a stuffed animal, it will stand on the table.
Original text "Standing, lying or sitting" with my comments
There is a table in front of us. There is a glass and a fork on the table. What are they doing? The glass is standing, but the fork is lying down. If we stick a fork into the tabletop, the fork will stand. Those. Are vertical objects standing and horizontal objects lying?
Let's assume that this is so, although I can hardly imagine what a “vertical object” is... Here I remember my colleagues’ conversation about the definition of the word “halyard-like”... So, this is when an object has one size much larger than the other two ( For those who are not in the know, I’ll explain that here we are talking about length, width and height).
Add a plate and a frying pan to the table. They seem to be horizontal, but they stand on the table. Now put the plate in the frying pan. There it lies, but it was on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the fork was ready when it was lying there.
No, these items are worth not because they are ready to use, but for another reason. This is an ordinary convention: all kitchen “containers” are standing. Otherwise, real confusion will begin, because, for example, a saucepan can be high and sometimes low, and depending on the height it would either stand or lie down...
Now the cat climbs onto the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying down it somehow fits into the “vertical-horizontal” logic, then sitting is a new property. She sits on her butt.
Living creatures that walk and do not fly or crawl, such as a cat, can sit, stand, lie down, walk, run, etc. And there is no other logic here...
Now a bird has landed on the table. She sits on the table, but sits on her legs, not on her butt. Although it seems like it should be standing. But she cannot stand at all.
Living creatures that can fly do not sit on their butts, but because they have landed. And a bird can also stand - a heron, for example, stands in the water.
But if we kill the poor bird and make a stuffed animal, it will stand on the table.
That’s right, the stuffed animal is not a living creature and therefore no longer sits, but, as it should be, stands.
It may seem that sitting is an attribute of a living thing, but the boot also sits on the foot, although it is not alive and does not have a butt.
The boot “sits” on the foot for another reason. "Sitting" - stable expression(simplification) is used instead of "just right". The main thing is that the suit fits!
Additions on the topic "Standing, lying or sitting"
There is a table in front of us. There is a glass and a fork on the table.
Previously there was a simplification colloquial speech: “are” is replaced by “lie”.
Now put the plate in the frying pan. The plate is in the frying pan.
Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: “is” was replaced by “lies”.
Now a bird has landed on the table and is (stays) there.
Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: “landed” and “is” were replaced by “sela” and “sits.”
Total: Standing, lying or sitting
>> So, go ahead and understand what is standing, what is lying down, and what is sitting. And we are also surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.
It seems to me that I have found logic in this “delightfully illogical and complex” Russian language. Of course, for a foreigner these are all additional difficulties, but there are plenty of these in any language... However, the real difficulties begin where logic ends, and logic usually ends exactly where someone has already simplified something because of their ignorance.
To anyone who found the "original text" funny (not excluding the person who sent me a link to it), I strongly recommend that you stop reading and replicating nonsense and start educating yourself - you really need it. Be sure to check out the article Russian language and culture.
If you find errors in my logic, please report it in the comments.
If you think my objection is worthy and appropriate, please direct all the "merry fellows" here.
Comments: 14 Standing, lying or sitting - Refutation
Thanks for the article. And indeed, everything becomes not so confusing if you think a little with your head, and not with the place on which the bird does not know how to land.
In principle, as you read, the thought immediately comes about conventions, wordplay, methods of description, but I liked it, and in my opinion there is no reason for indignation.
Published 02/26/2013 - 09:41 by bsv
To a greater extent, the reason for indignation is not the original text itself, but the fact that “not quite thinking people” turned it into the truth. And I’m sorry that you, Vasily, don’t see this... Anarchism was invented the smartest people, and people with little understanding turned it into chaos and arbitrariness, although this comparison is not entirely appropriate here.
Stas, good analysis! Although the original text is still very funny, in my opinion. Here are a few more clarification questions about the logic you saw there.
> This is an ordinary convention: all kitchen “containers” are standing.
Then why do they say “standing” about a plate on the table, but “lying” about a plate in the cupboard? I immediately had the idea of nesting (when a container is inside another container - it no longer plays the role of a container, but the role of an abstract “thing”). But this idea is refuted by glasses - they are containers, but they still stand in the closet and do not lie.
> a stuffed animal is not a living creature and therefore no longer sits, but, as it should be, stands.
It seems to me that there is no need to complicate things here. Your idea above that if there are differences in the states of “standing” and “sitting” in relation to the surface, then we use both terms, and if there are no differences, then we use “stand”, the stuffed animal fully explains. If instead of a stuffed animal there was a jointed doll, she could sit and stand. A bird can stand and sit: when it bends its legs, it sits, when it doesn’t bend its legs, it stands. Compare: “the dove was standing on the windowsill” and “the dove was sitting on the windowsill” - are they different pictures? There is clearly a false thesis in the original text about the bird sitting on the table.
Well, yes, do not forget that the word “sit” is used in different senses. The clothes are sitting on the body, Vasya is sitting on the sofa, and the nail is sitting in the wall. These are different spatial relationships, and it is difficult to confuse them.
Published 03/28/2013 - 09:42 by bsv
1. It is true, many people think that the source text is interesting, funny, etc. I won’t argue, a grenade is also useful in certain circumstances, but it is not recommended to trust women and children...
2. As far as I understand, any language is based on clear rules and exceptions. Exceptions most often occur because:
- There are situations when a sentence built according to the rules is redundant in detail and it is more logical to simplify it (this is very clearly demonstrated, however, by the English language);
- For various reasons, it is easier for people to break a rule than to follow it, usually these are simplifications of colloquial speech;
- people deliberately add exceptions to the rules of language, for example, such as the fact that a professional knows better how to pronounce his professional term: company, excited, etc.
- many people have very limited vocabulary and/or careless, so many words turn into synonyms.
- etc.
I partially agree with the above arguments. I consider it sufficient to limit myself to the idea that there is no need to complicate things. There can be many options for simplifications by native speakers, and here it is easier to follow the basic logic (basic rule)…
Once again, the plate is in the cupboard because it is there, but it is on the table because it is “supposed” to be, in those moments when it is not somewhere. It's about the same with the bird: it sits because it landed... In my opinion, my logic is still logical. Thank you, Vika, for your comment.
However, it's not just nesting. Turn the plate and glass upside down. The glass will still be standing, but the plate will already be lying there (despite the fact that it is not somewhere in the cupboard, but is quite ready to eat, you just have to turn it back over). Turn it on its side/edge - the plate will stand up, the glass will fall down. So “because kitchen containers” is not quite the explanation.
Regarding the heron bird (or penguin, for example) - it stands (and does not sit like some duck or tit) because it can fall and become lying down - the same ratio of dimensions plays a role here. A “sitting” bird has nowhere to fall - it’s already... ahem... lies on the belly (pun? damn!). And the heron also lands. But it's worth it.
And yet, yes - not only living beings sit, as noted above.
And now a small proposal - try to consider the source text not from the position of a racially offended native speaker, but from the position of a foreigner who has decided to study the Great and Mighty. The pot won't boil? For me personally, it’s the last phrase that pulls out the whole text. And it’s not only rich in such bells and whistles. For example, it’s fascinating to watch an Englishman trying to understand why he should indicate gender, number and tense in one single verb from the entire sentence. Especially if the rest of this sentence is already doing the job (well, except for the time, of course). Or the textbook “Mowed with a scythe.” But this is all in another steppe, yes.
Published 03/28/2013 - 11:20 by bsv
“because kitchen containers” - such a quote cannot exist at all! And you, Anton, should refer to the portal rules.
Your arguments, Anton, remind me of a group of people that I don’t particularly respect: I put the dog in the microwave - it didn’t dry out, it died!
Yes, I will not deny that there is, so to speak, associative logic, which additionally introduces confusion, but it should not be put at the head of everything.
In the examples I have given there are no more associations than in your explanations. “If the dishes are standing,” isn’t this an indicator that the dishes are initially associated with the fact that they are simply “supposed to stand” by definition and nothing else? They themselves said that this is just a convention. And convention cannot be a rule. All the more unambiguous. What if a plate with a frying pan is replaced with, say, a telephone and a bedside table? Both are worth it. But the device will be in the nightstand. As in the saucepan and in the frying pan. So the comment above about nesting makes more sense than some convention about “kitchen containers”. Why make exceptions what is logical?
I haven’t shoved a dog into a microwave and I don’t intend to, because I can roughly imagine the principle of its operation and I know how many water molecules are contained in a dog, so that even a slight acceleration of them would cause damage incompatible with life.
And I did not provide a single direct quote. When quoting, I usually use a colon. Or a special tag, if the response form has one.
Something like this.
Published 03/28/2013 - 12:35 by bsv
My statement #1: all kitchen “containers” are worthwhile.
Choose any! About container, sorry, I didn’t say it explicitly, I didn’t announce a separate rule, sorry...
If you want to offer something, formulate your rule(s), denial is not serious...
In general, if you defend the source text and its conclusion, then, unfortunately, I don’t see the point in proving anything to you, the goals of the article are different...
My statement No. 2: Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: “are” was replaced by “lie.”
Sorry, but where did this even come from? Not a single copy of the text that Google returned (the earliest one I found was dated February 6, 2012) contains either the word “are” or the word “lie” in this particular sentence. Everywhere it is written exactly like this: " There is a glass and a fork on the table."What kind of replacement are we talking about? It’s the same with the other “additions”:
“The plate is in the frying pan."
Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: “is” was replaced by “lies”.
“Now a bird has landed on the table and is (staying) there."
Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: “landed” and “is” were replaced by “sela” and “sits.”
The first phrase is not in the original text at all, but the second is written like this: "Now a bird has landed on the table. It's sitting on the table." You blame others for inaccurate quoting, but you yourself...
I’m not going to formulate rules, because:
a) I didn’t sign up for home-grown linguists;
b) I am of the opinion that there are simply no rules in this aspect. There are rules for placing commas, spelling roots -rast-, -rasch-, “ZHI SHI write with the letter I”, etc., etc., but there are no rules regarding such insanity as lying-standing-sitting. This no longer refers to the rules, but to the culture and style of language and speech. Which is different for everyone. And which is constantly changing (as, indeed, are the rules - this is not mathematics, everything here is constantly mutating).
If the purpose of the article is not “to omit a poorly written opus,” then I apologize (in this case, the title of the article is too loud). And errors in logic were found before me. As a result, the logic gradually changed (although the same glass still stands in the cupboard, despite the fact that it is there) and clarifications and exceptions appeared. Bravo. Personal logic is like that, it also tends to change, unlike formal logic.
Still, is the overturned plate on the table or standing? And on the floor? What if these are Uzbeks and it is customary for them to eat food from dishes placed on a tablecloth on the floor/ground?
For this I bow out. Controversy is something that can last forever...
<Еще раз, тарелка лежит в шкафу, потому что она там находится, а на столе стоит, потому что ей и "положено" стоять, в те моменты, когда она не находится где-то. Примерно то же и с птицей: она сидит, потому что приземлилась…>
The word "is" just tells us that there is a spatial connection, but does not give us details (over, under, on, in, next to, far from, etc.), so I don't really understand the contrast between "stand on" and " to be"... isn't "to stand on" a subset of "to be somewhere"?
<Примерно то же и с птицей: она сидит, потому что приземлилась…>
That is, you cannot distinguish between a standing and a sitting dove? Whenever a pigeon touches a horizontal surface with its lower body, do you say "the pigeon is sitting"?
<Перевернем тарелку и стакан вверх дном. Стакан все еще будет стоять, а вот тарелка будет уже лежать>
Didn't think about that! And it’s true... but strictly speaking, an inverted plate loses its properties as a container (I still like Stas’s idea of containers, I’ll leave it working for now), like a glass, and they become just things of a certain shape. A flat plate is lying, a tall glass is standing. Perhaps this is not even the case here. geometric relationship sides, but in the most meaningful dimension? For a flat plate, the most important thing is the diameter of the circle, because this is its working surface. Liquid is poured into a glass/cup/bowl, so depth is most important.
Or maybe there is no formal logic here, but just pure “historical development.”
I agree with Anton about foreigners. To those who are native to Russian, many things may seem obvious, but we learn them not from rules, but from observations: a child knows how to speak long before he learns about the rules. The difficulty lies in the formalization of the language, in my opinion. In fact, any language - not just Russian. The Russian language is complex in part because in it the relationships between words are expressed, among other things, through changes in the form of the word (and not through additional words). How exactly to choose the right form, taking into account all the existing rules? And taking into account the fact that a living language does not strictly follow rules, but changes and “works” differently in different contexts? To a foreigner it must indeed look chaotic. I periodically try to learn Japanese - and despite all its complexity, it seems extremely logical. I’m not sure that if I had learned Russian from scratch, I would have had the same feeling. On the other hand, Russian and Japanese generally seem similar to me - perhaps this is the case?
2) When I talk about associative logic, I mean, for example, the following:
- the word “sitting” can mean being in a comfortable/convenient/reliable position, etc. a state, including one similar to a sitting position;
- the word "lies" can mean is in a horizontal position;
- the word “stands” - is in a vertical position;
- etc.
People have come up with many speech techniques that are convenient and understandable for themselves or in some context, but this does not mean that this can be an irrefutable argument. The point is that when you decide what you really want to say - the cup is standing, or it is upside down, or is in the cupboard - then you will have no doubts about how to say it so as not to cause ambiguity and is clear to everyone - and in this case there will be no confusion, no doubts, no objections. This is all.
I kindly ask you not to write the first thing that comes to mind. Think for yourself first and try to analyze whether this really requires discussion... If yes, then briefly and clearly formulate your objection, I will definitely answer. Thanks for understanding.
Let's say that I am a Frenchman studying Russian. I want to say that a certain object is located somewhere, but replace it with a more colloquial option. If I constantly say that everything is everywhere, then my speech will be dissonant. So, describe to me the strict logic by which I can correctly choose the appropriate verb for any situation (given that I know exactly what idea I want to convey). Of course, there is no such rigid logic! I am sure that no matter how you describe it, I will find a lot of exceptions. About the same birds, you yourself confirmed that some birds sit and others stand, and it is not strictly deterministic who sits and who stands. This is where the fun of the text lies!! The fact is that these verbs can be put correctly only if you are Russian and you know “how it should be.”
And most importantly, you have “Refutation” written here, but what exactly are you refuting? There is no statement in the joke. This is the same as refuting a joke. This joke is not thesis linguist, but rather a funny indication of another area of the Russian language that cannot be described by rigid rules.
Update: Thanks to everyone, especially those who couldn't help but point out my mistakes. I do have inaccuracies, and some statements are erroneous, but the purpose of the article is different, it seemed obvious to me. Commenting on the article has been stopped due to pointlessness.
“There is a table in front of us. There is a glass and a fork on the table. What are they doing? The glass is standing, but the fork is lying. If we stick the fork into the tabletop, the fork will stand.”
> Wrong, the fork will stick out (from the table).
And if you “stand”, then you can’t say (no longer) “on the table”, because the fork is “in the table”. There is a fork on the table...
And if you simply stick it into a loaf lying on the table, then the fork will sit in the loaf and there is nothing more to say. Why? Because she's stuck there. Or rather, not like that: the fork got stuck in the tabletop when we (working with a muscle) drove it there. And the loaf is sliced.
“That is, there are vertical objects, but horizontal ones? We add a plate and a frying pan to the table. They seem to be horizontal, but they are on the table.”
> We shake the table and the plate and frying pan are already on the floor. And there is no way to say that they “stand” there. Because “standing” means maintaining balance. That's what the plate and frying pan are doing on the table. But... no one is shaking the table? Yes? There, the owner of the house, an overweight man, clumsily sits down at the table and the table shakes slightly. And the dishes on it jingle at the same time. And you say “how is this plate on the table”? Do they drop it from their hands, after taking it from the table, onto the floor? Therefore, it stands and will stand.
"Now let's put the plate in the frying pan. It lies there, but it was on the table."
> Absolutely true, because the plate is needed to transfer food from the frying pan to it. And once (by a strange whim) inside the frying pan, the plate “got a little lost” and lay down. There is a pepper shaker on the table, for example. Let's put it in the frying pan. What, will she lie down?
“Perhaps there are objects ready for use? No, the fork was somehow ready when it was lying down. Now a cat climbs onto the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying down, she somehow fits into the “vertical” logic -horizontal”, then sitting is a new property. She is sitting on her butt. Now the bird is sitting on the table, but she is sitting on her legs, and not on her butt. "
> The bird's legs are rather conventional, it has wings. A little more and it will break away from the surface by flapping its wings. How do we represent the "bird's butt" for sitting (on the table)? This is how saggy butt she must have to reach the table to sit on when she is about to fly up. Is she sitting on a branch? Yes. Because the branch cushions under its weight and, in a sense, keeps the bird (flying company), the bird can sit on the branch. But can't stand? If she stands on a swaying branch, it means she will (constantly) feel the urge to fly away.
“But if we kill the poor bird and make a stuffed animal, it will stand on the table.”
> Of course. The scarecrow doesn't fly.
“It may seem that sitting is an attribute of a living thing, but the boot also sits on the foot, although it is not alive and does not have a butt.”
> Because the leg is not standing.
“So, go and understand what stands, what lies, and what sits. And we are still surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.”
> But she’s not standing because “she wants to go.” But the boot fits on the foot.
Why not the foot in the boot, in this case?
Because they sit “on” and not “in”.
Thus, the boot “sat on the foot.”
Or is it impossible to say “sat down on your leg”? He didn’t sit down himself... (of course).
We pulled it...right?
And now he "fits well."
Can he "sit poorly"?
Probably not, then he presses.
In general: all this is because the leg is not standing.
Reviews
Review of “This complex Russian language...” (Izabar Gezhb)
As soon as the sculptor learns to express without deliberately indicative-positional-place, he will come closer to acquiring mastery. And about the table, the fork, the frying pan - that’s nothing yet. That’s when “it was the month of May”!..))
Alexander Grinev 08/17/2017 09:13
Add comments
May is the sun. The statement involves looking out the window, onto the street, into the yard. May was sunny - apparently that makes sense somehow. Because when we leave the house and look at the windows, we will see the reflection of the May sun in them, the month that precedes the beginning of summer. In this image we are standing inside the house about to go out and seeing a clear, bright day. And we go out and look at the windows. The sun is reflected in them. Which stands at its zenith. It's at its zenith, yes. The fact is that the sun moves across the sky (moves) from the east to sunset and seems to “fall” to the ground (first rising above the ground). Therefore, hovering at the zenith, it stands at the zenith. There is logic. As for May... he's standing in the yard, right. Language doesn't lie. He is standing by us because we are about to go out. Because in this expression we are (obviously) looking into the yard through the window. The yard here also means what is beyond the yard; and the earth in general. Therefore, when we go out and go about our business, we “will stand as the sun at its zenith” (while it is at its zenith), because we go along with the sun, for it remains in its place. Complex image. But the tongue doesn’t lie. It's the month of May - this is a tribute to our impression of the world, life in general. The sun stands at its zenith, “falling into the courtyard,” falling. The sun, apparently. Light. Warmth. You can also imagine that the sun is taking a step (into the courtyard). To stand. Thus, willingly or unwillingly, the courtyard is connected with the “sense of heaven” (not entirely consciously).
The great mighty Russian language.
Izabar Gezhb 08/18/2017 11:21
And oh, Izabar! Russian language, you say? No way, no month from any time of year can stand. Or lie down, or dangle, say, in the wind. When the exponent does not know how to express, then the months and weather and days and years stand still.
Alexander Grinev 08/18/2017 11:37
I did not talk about what the exponent can or cannot express. But he only meant that the Russian language (logically and lexically) allows such a turn.
As for the ability to express... I don’t know how you perceive it, but in language there are such elements as analogy, association, and even a certain complex of these (depending on how you use it). Here, first of all, it should be surprising how you managed to imagine “the month is standing outside,” because this expression clearly conveys some meaning in a less direct way. Therefore... arguing about whether it can “stand for a month” or not is, in this case, a boring task. Someone wrote that... and what did he mean? How he presented it. The month is the time of year here. Warm time just before summer. Beginning of summer. There are a lot of (hidden) analogies here. This includes the haze on the horizon: is it “worth it”? It floats... But the language cultivates the connections of meanings in semantics and presents it to us for use.
However, if it is impossible to say “I will win” in Russian, then we say: impossible.
And “it was the month of May”... hm. Yes, here he stands and waits for us - when we leave the house. Another meaning. The expression, it turns out, is too rich to be “abused” so easily.
It was the month of May. In all its beauty and amazing weakness of the gentle touches of the sun that through the window made their way into the room, playing with the curtain fluttering in the draft: she felt good and calm on the waves of morning light and the whimsical hubbub of birds that came from the veranda; and even further into the forest this hubbub went and disappeared, probably, in the radiant skies of renewed nature, frantically murmuring streams, in the coolness of which flocks of fry sparkled, playing with the shadows from the crowns that fell into this sliding beautiful depth of the purest water and thundered with the echo of complete happiness above the forest this immense silence of a fabulous morning, in the fragrant bar that surrounded holiday village and beckoned into itself, spewing out with its fragrant silence the alluring distance and the light mystery of paths not yet traversed and momentary animal fun in motion, which is like the fluttering of moths lost in their dance. It was the month of May. In all its magnitude and diversity of the unknown beauties of life and the splendor of that amazing feeling, which is so often missing in the cold oblivion of lonely evenings and nights of the manifest originality of the art of living - in the exorbitant depth of one’s thoughts about meaning and eternity; in a desire for continuous renewal, beyond the reach of reason.
Izabar Gezhb 08/18/2017 16:10
I do not accept such cliches.
Alexander Grinev 08/18/2017 16:21
Let's do this, options: a) it was the month of May; b) the month of May was outside the yard.
Is there a difference?
Outside the yard stood the month of May,
Leaving without saying goodbye into the summer.
As if he has sunk, separate him
Your thoughts that got involved in this.
And those thoughts follow the tail
Disappearing into the crack of the gate.
May you forget me, I'm with an umbrella
I go out and get wet to the skin.
Where are you, spoiler, what a joke
Made my wonderful curls look amazing:
I curled them up with curlers,
Now at least powder your nose:
Well, there won't be any point,
Because an umbrella doesn't help here.
Red summer is ahead.
May! Where are you? Only the echo plays...
Behind the yard and in the crotch holes,
What is there - all the sadness with garages.
Where did I know this crying world:
Now weeping into the groan of heaven.
And the whole distance creaks with clouds
What is visible if you move the umbrella a little...
And again: all the water is sadness
Straight to the curls. Well, how can you not throw it here?
An offended look past the yard,
That the month of May could not hold.
He was standing here just yesterday.
In the yard. And now - ... screw it.
Summer suddenly comes with rain.
The sandals are completely damp.
And I’m standing here point-blank with poplar trees.
Where was the month of May? Stupid.
He left the yard without saying goodbye.
And took the warm day home.
Here I stand, covered in curls.
And there is still a flabby ash tree standing here -
Between the nasty weed bushes,
Where in the nettles I spent my childhood.
And here I stand in the abundant streams,
I'm waiting for the month of May to come again.
I was guarding something for him here
Right in the rain.
Happy June already.
Izabar Gezhb 08/18/2017 17:11
------
Apparently some unfortunate glitch occurred in the site’s system and our dialogue with you was deleted (I will complain).
But luckily I happened to have a copy saved (I have a very secure computer), and so we can continue.
I showed you with the example of this slightly half-childish and no less half-stupid rhyme that “May stand” can also be outside the yard. Because it is precisely in this example at the moment It turns out in the simplest way.
Here it is for you to judge - give a refutation if you think that there really are no such forms in the language. Because if May can stand OUTSIDE the yard... then in the yard even more so and as long as you like.
(Simply amazing dialogue)...
And then I stood right in this place
I was guarding something for him here
Right in the rain. Happy June already.
I lived with the red summer and caught a cold.
------------------> this is how it should be, the line jumped off.
Although, who knows...
And then I stood right in this place
I was guarding something for him here
Right in the rain.
Happy June already.
Lived with the red summer and caught a cold
A wild mammoth tusk.
Do you understand? Mammoth Tusk! And you speak Russian and not Russian at all.
And there are two more questions about grammar, I thought you’d notice and discuss them.
But if so, then something like this:
A) “which is so often missing in the cold [oblivion] of lonely evenings”;
b) “I lived with the red [cold] summer”;
Controversial words are highlighted.
The man clings to May, for him this is fundamental (as I understand).
May... toil...
The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.
19.04.2017 15:30
1827
Standing, lying or sitting - whichever is correct.
The Russian language is very beautiful and diverse. But at the same time, it is quite complex and contradictory. Not only foreigners, but even ourselves get confused in different interpretations of words.
For example, it is not always clear when to say that a certain object (or living creature) is lying, and in what cases it is necessary to say that it is standing or sitting. To understand this, let's look at a few examples:
Let's imagine that there is a table in front of us. There is a glass and a fork on the table. Now let's ask ourselves the question - what are they doing? The table is standing. The glass is also standing, and the fork is on the table. But if we stuck a fork into the tabletop, the fork would no longer lie, but would stand.
So it turns out that vertical objects stand and horizontal objects lie? Let it be so, although in general objects themselves cannot be vertical or horizontal, but can only be located vertically or horizontally.
Now let’s add to our imaginary table (but to make it clearer, we can do all this with real objects) a plate and a frying pan. Both of these objects can be considered horizontal, but for some reason they stand on the table...
Now let's take a plate and put it in a frying pan. There she lies, but she was standing on the table! Perhaps only items that are ready for use are considered worthwhile? But when the fork was lying there it was just ready.
In this case, it means that these items are not worthwhile because they are ready for use, but for some other reason. Yes, and this reason is an ordinary convention (that is, it is simply accepted): all kitchen “containers” (items where something is placed or placed) are standing.
Otherwise, real confusion can simply begin, since, for example, a saucepan can be high and sometimes low, and depending on its height, one can say that it is standing or lying.
Now imagine that a cat climbs onto the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. And if a lying or standing cat is somehow considered a vertical or horizontal object (living), then a sitting animal has nothing to do with this, because the cat sits primarily on its butt, which in turn is located on the table.
Thus, sitting is a new property of objects, and not only living ones, let’s dwell on it a little.
And then a bird landed on our table. She sits on the table, but sits on her legs, not on her butt. So it should be considered that it is worth it. However, it cannot stand, because there is no such definition in our language as “the bird is standing.”
But if this bird were artificial, then it would no longer be sitting, but rather standing, and being in the same position. It follows from this that all living creatures that walk, but do not fly or crawl, such as a cat, can stand, sit, lie, walk, run, etc.
The same living creatures that can fly do not sit on their butts, but because they have landed. But at the same time, a bird can also stand - for example, a heron, it stands in the water, because this bird spends most of its time this way.
Looking at all this, you might think that the ability to sit is inherent only to living beings. However, this is not entirely true. And as a clear example, let’s take an object like a boot. he has no butt and he is certainly not alive. However, they also say about him that he sits on his feet.
And yet, in relation to such things as clothes and shoes, the meaning of the word “sit” is already different. In this case, it means “fit,” that is, “in size.” The same goes for the items on the table. The word lie (about a fork, spoon and frying pan) replaces here another word - are located.
Exactly the same situation with the bird. She landed on the table and is now there. But this has been replaced by the shorter "sitting on the table" or "sat on the table."
That's how complicated everything in our language is.
The following observation about the Russian language is circulating on the Internet:
There is a table in front of us.
There is a glass and a fork on the table.
What are they doing? The glass is standing, but the fork is lying down.
If we stick a fork into the tabletop, the fork will stand. Those. Are vertical objects standing and horizontal objects lying?
Add a plate and a frying pan to the table.
They seem to be horizontal, but they stand on the table.
Now put the plate in the frying pan. There it lies, but it was on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the fork was ready when it was lying there.
Now the cat climbs onto the table.
She can stand, sit and lie down.
If in terms of standing and lying down it somehow fits into the “vertical-horizontal” logic, then sitting is a new property. She sits on her butt.
Now a bird has landed on the table.
She sits on the table, but sits on her legs, not on her butt. Although it seems like it should be standing. But she cannot stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a stuffed animal, it will stand on the table.
It may seem that sitting is an attribute of a living thing, but the boot also sits on the foot, although it is not alive and does not have a butt. So, go and understand what is standing, what is lying down, and what is sitting.
And we are also surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.
I read it once or twice and finally decided to find the logic. Language can't be that messy. As they say, on these same Internets, the challenge has been accepted.
All the confusion can be explained using just a couple of assumptions:
1. Word usage depends on the class of the subject
2. The verbs “stand”, “sit” and “lie” have two different aspects, and now one or the other comes to the fore.
More specifically.
The first aspect is the position of the object in relation to the Earth's gravitational field - or more simply, to the surface on which it rests. That whose longest dimension is perpendicular to the surface of the planet stands, and that whose longest dimension lies is parallel.
The analogy is taken, of course, from the body of man, who is an upright primate.
The second aspect is also copied from a person, but in a different way. A person cannot stand for a long time, but if he stands, it is necessary because he is working. Standing is a working position. A person can lie down for a long time - and this is a state of rest. Or sitting for a long time is simply a fixed, stable state that is not associated with either work or rest.
And these verbs also have something in common - they are always verbs of a static state and never dynamic.
The rules, of course, are not very clear; they are more directions than roads. In doubtful cases, when several rules apply, one of them is chosen either arbitrarily or using the second aspect.
The classes of objects are: natural objects, artificial objects, humans, animals, plants, insects, fish, birds.
Now let's go through these classes and show how state verbs are applied to them.
1. Man
Well, everything is clear here, because it is the human condition that serves as a model for all other word usage
2. Natural objects
Natural objects always just lie there. Obviously, this reflects the fact that under the influence of gravity in nature, everything falls to the ground equally and lies there without any meaning. Even tall stones lie there because they do nothing (a lying stone is the standard of laziness). There is snow, there are minerals. There is only one exception - water, but more on that at the very end.
3. Plants
Plants, if they are alive, just grow, that’s all. Sometimes in books they write something like “There was an oak tree at the edge of the road” - but this is an obvious metaphor, where the oak tree is simply compared to a person. In live speech this does not sound very natural.
Dead trees, of course, lie or, in rare cases, stand (charred trunks stood all around).
4. Animals
Animals either stand on their feet or lie down - completely analogous to humans. Sometimes they can sit - but only if their posture resembles that of a human. For example, a horse stands or lies, but a dog or cat can sit - on the loin.
The only exception here is a cat, which can still sit with its front legs bent. If a horse does the same, then it definitely lies down, and if a cat does it, then it sits. Perhaps because for a cat this is a comfortable fixed position, but not lying down (a cat usually lies on its side, and a horse - on its belly).
5. Artificial objects
Artificial objects can stand, sit and lie down. They stand if they rise noticeably above the level of their surface OR if this is their working state (and not a ready state, as written in the text above). Therefore, there is a radio on the table, a floor lamp on the floor, and a plate on the table. If you put a plate (or even two) in a frying pan, then it can either stand there or lie there - both are equally applicable. If there is a stack of plates, then they just stand, even in a frying pan, because they rise above it.
But the fork lies on the table, because its presence on the table is not its working state, and at the same time it occupies a horizontal position.
The mattress lies on the bed - although this is its working state, it is characterized by extreme horizontality and general relaxation, since the mattress takes the shape of the surface. But the sofa, even the lowest one, is already standing.
The computer mouse is not tall. Is she standing or lying down? The tongue thinks that it is lying - because it is also passive, it is dragged around the table as they want. But if we buy a mouse-shaped router of the same size and place it on the table, then it will stand there - because it works.
If we have a rectangular router that can have two positions, then they will be called “standing” and “lying”, because distinguishing them from each other is more important than emphasizing the working state (which is working in both cases).
And vice versa, if we have some object that is important for its work, then it will stand regardless of its physical position (“there is a gasket in the tap,” although in reality it lies there). The exception is wires that can only lie, they fall too passively.
If we place a round glass ball on the table, then the ball is not in equilibrium, and we cannot even tell whether it is standing there or lying there. It's just "on the table." But if we attach a stand to it so that it does not roll away, and give it a purpose, then it will stand. "There was a globe on the teacher's desk." “There was a crystal ball-inkwell on the table.”
If the ball is on the floor or in a bag, then, of course, it lies there, since it will not go anywhere - it will remain on the floor or in the bag. The crystal ball also lies on the fortune teller’s table, because it is passive and does not work on its own.
If we lift a lying stone and set it up, then the stone, of course, will become an artificial object from a natural one and receive a purpose. "There was a stone at the fork in the road."
And finally, about sitting. Since a person's sitting is a stable, comfortable state that can last a long time, then, by analogy, the sitting of objects is their fixed position, which they cannot leave. Therefore, the boot sits on the foot, the bolt sits on the nut, the bread sits in the oven and the serf sits on the ground (since this is no longer a person, but a talking tool).
6. Birds
In the same way, birds sit on a tree - because this is their stable, comfortable state. But since the bird is alive, the impossibility of leaving this state is not implied here. It is not as fixed as that of objects. Similarly, a bird sits in a nest and a cat sits on a tree.
If we take a tall, long-legged bird like a stork or an ostrich and put it on the table, then it will stand there - it stands up very much and its legs are clearly visible.
But little birds, whose legs are smaller than themselves, are sitting on the table (and in English, by the way, “rest”, that is, resting).
A stuffed bird is, of course, no longer a bird, but an object, so it stands or lies.
7. Insects
Insects do not stand or lie, but can sit, that is, occupy a comfortable position. The fly sits on the wall and even on the ceiling. A beetle sits on a flower. Only dead insects can lie, which after death turn into natural objects.
8. Pisces
In general, fish swim, but in some specific cases they can stand, sit and lie. The pike stands when it turns perpendicular to the bottom; the flounder lies on the bottom, passively hiding there; The moray eel sits in ambush, that is, it is there in a comfortable fixed position.
All three verbs, as I mentioned, imply a static state, so one of them - “stand” is used in another sense: as a rare static state of a usually moving object. In this case, the position of the object and even its class do not matter. "The train stops for three minutes." “The water is standing in the swamp,” “The air is standing in the room,” “Things are standing.”
This is approximately how things are in the Russian language. If anyone knows perfectly foreign language, then it would be interesting to compare word usage with other languages.
