Gentlemen site developers - please write correctly in Russian - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
stringo:
What is unclear about the phrase "write an expert"? Is the grammar of the Russian language broken? Are you sure about this? Are you sure about this? Can you prove it?
What is unclear about the phrase "write an expert"? Is the grammar of the Russian language broken? Are you sure about this? Are you sure about this? Can you prove it?
Yes, we are sure. We're absolutely sure. We've already proved it. With respect to inanimate nouns. (Here we use the collective "we".)
Go study MQL5 instead...
It's not exactly a fair move to send the interlocutor with moderator rights.
However, everyone has already made their conclusions. It's a good resource, excellent members, right conclusions - what else do you need for a fruitful intellectual communication :)
And please don't twist things around, attributing exaggerations, hyperboles and the like to us, "make the table", "corrections to the expert".
Yes, we are sure. We are certain. We've already proved that. In relation to inanimate nouns. (The collective "we" is used here.)
"In professional usage the forms to drive a ball into a pocket, to find a good mushroom" are found. The accusative case is also used in impersonation.
Source: Rosenthal D.E., Dzhandzhakova E.V., Kabanova N.P. HANDBOOK ON WRITING, Pronunciation, LITERARY EDITING.
I repeat: "The knowledge found in a school Russian language textbook is not exhaustive." So, the proof is not rigorous either. A categorical statement from the perspective of a 7th (or is it 6th?) grade high school Russian language textbook cannot be a proof.
I am not against slang at all. But let the words that need to be introduced be composed according to the norms of the Russian language. And let me argue your own premise: Can you prove that words and expressions like "access" or"order an expert" are made according to the norms of the Russian language? Reference to Dahl's dictionary is not proof. We might as well refer to the birch-bark writings - the first evidence of the written Russian language. The language is not the same now as it was 150 years ago. The words that were correct then are not correct now. It may be the other way round, but it is irrelevant.
The Russian language is good because every rule has exceptions. But why abuse them if you can make the right word for slang? Why make an exception for the sake of an exception?
By the way, I've already learned how to write: "Print("Hello MQL5! Hello word");", so I'm hanging out here and getting smart about this and that:))))
"In professional usage the forms to drive a ball into a pocket, to find a good mushroom" are found. In impersonation, this use of the accusative case is also allowed.
Source: Rosenthal D.E., Dzhandzhakova E.V., Kabanova N.P. HANDBOOK ON WRITING, Pronunciation, LITERARY EDITING.
I repeat: "The knowledge found in a school Russian language textbook is not exhaustive." So, the proof is not rigorous either. A categorical statement from the perspective of a 7th (or is it 6th?) grade high school Russian language textbook cannot be a proof.
M-ya #3...
Objections resemble answers of an intelligent seventh- (or sixth-?) grade student, who does not know his/her homework in Russian, but is actively searching for quick hints on the Internet search engines. In such a situation, he/she is willing to venture into the wilds of academic papers, just to prove to the teacher that the common Russian language rules are useless. The peculiarity of the situation is that in most cases the tricks of an intelligent pupil are visible to everyone around. And when they (tricks) are revealed one by one, the pupil uses a classical polemical method: yes your knowledge is not exhaustive, yes your proof is not strict, yes this is not proof at all. :) Meanwhile it turns out that the proof itself has never been disproved, but only polemically questioned.
As for comrade Rosenthal, whose work has already been mentioned twice, as a philologist Rosenthal has done a very good job of reflecting the phenomena in the language which he and his colleagues have observed, in particular, he has reflected examples of the incorrect use of the accusative case for inanimate nouns. It was especially emphasised that such examples are observed among certain groups of people (or, in other words, "in professional use"). But as it is a reference work, its authors did not try to investigate the reasons for the misuse of the accusative case for inanimate nouns, they simply stated the phenomena (facts) they observed and the range of those occurrences. That is why the handbook is replete with phraseological phrases such as" two forms of the accusative caseare observed... (in professional use)", "in professional use there are forms of...", etc. In other words, philologists here act as statisticians, not as researchers on the causes of misuse of words. Thus, reference books have never served and do not serve as proof of the correctness of the irregular use of the accusative case. In general, the presence (fixation) of a phenomenon does not yet prove its correctness.
As we learned a little earlier, the reasons for the incorrect application of the Accusative Case to inanimate nouns are quite trivial. The handbook only points out that the misapplication is not universal, being limited to groups of certain individuals. Here I would only add that such phenomena very often originate from a disdainful attitude towards language in general, and the Russian language in particular. The interesting thing is that everyone can eradicate these causes. ...As well as begin to build up defences such as "this is our slang", "this is our impersonation", "this is our animation". But knowing the causes of the phenomenon, everyone can assess whether such a defence is justified.
The other thing is not quite clear here. The whole topic gives a clear message to the site owners: your platform has long since emerged from the nappies of professional use among a narrow circle of specialists, is (becoming) truly popular, on a mass scale. And most ordinary users do not care about the problems associated with the causes of improper (unusual) use of the Russian language. They ask for just one thing - to use plain Russian in the design of the site, understandable to all speakers of Russian. In fact, they are asking for universalization of layout, based on rules everyone can understand (even if some people consider them to be rules from a school textbook). That is, a request to universalise the presentation of the material for the mass user. But in response - not so much silence, but on the contrary - the fierce creation of bastions of defence. The impression is that a well-designed site is needed by users, not owners. ...Of course, all of us, put together, can work/communicate perfectly well under the existing conditions, but the message is there :)
Generally speaking, the starter post himself is mistaken in saying that someone has mixed up the genitive and accusative cases. Not at all. The accusative case answers the question "whom, what". "The expert and the indicator!" The expert is like a living person, unlike the soulless indicator.
I just do not make mistakes. And you probably decided to finally discredit yourself or just did not read carefully what it says? I repeat: the genitive is who/what and the accusative is who/what. Homogeneous complements can't have different cases. "Expert" is genitive, "indicator" is accusative. The accusative for indicator is "expert". Read my first post again. And the textbooks. I warned you that to argue about this is to make yourself look ignorant.
I'm guessing that management problems arise because you're used to saying, for example, "developing (whom/what) an expert". That is correct. But if you use the verb form, you need to "develop (who/what) the expert".
Anyone who is wondering why I started this thread in the first place, and not to give a damn about the spelling, I repeat the same idea, already expressed repeatedly: I require literacy in the verified text developers (they do have writers, editors - their suitability is determined by literacy in presentation). So they can even write documentation in a padonkoff language. And in life (on forums and other Internet fences) - you can write all you want.
Colleagues, be constructive! :)
Gentlemen Russian language experts, the Russian language is very versatile, and it has many more exceptions than other languages. And there are far more exceptions than you can imagine. The knowledge you get from a school Russian language textbook is not exhaustive.
Mister, stringo, cut the crap! Your Russian sounds like Tatar. Once again, if you are an apologist for the use of the genitive case, then use it for both homogeneous complements: how to write expert and indicator . The different case is INCREDIBLE. If you are confused by this option, it just proves it wrong.
You have been told how to write it correctly.
HOW TO WRITE "EXPERT" OR "INDICATOR".
There are no other variants.
Your illiteracy does not give you the right to mutilate the Russian language in public. If you think the subject of the article "How to order a trading robot in MQL5 and MQL4" sounds much better, that's your problem. 2+2 does not equal 5, no matter how much you want it to. Learn. By the way, change the subject too, because it is written by official representatives - correctly, "How to order a trading robot".
Colleagues, be constructive! :)
Mr. Stringo, stop talking nonsense! Your Russian sounds like Tatar. Once again: if you are an apologist for using the genitive case, then use it for both homogeneous complements: how to write expert and indicator. The different case is INCREDIBLE. If you are confused by this option, it just proves it wrong.
You have been told how to write it correctly.
HOW TO WRITE "EXPERT" OR "INDICATOR".
There are no other options.
Your illiteracy doesn't give you the right to mutilate Russian in public. If you feel that the subject of "How to order a trading robot in MQL5 and MQL4" sounds much better, that's your problem. 2+2 does not equal 5, no matter how much you want it to. Learn. By the way, change the subject too, because it is written by official representatives - correctly, "How to order a trading robot".
Cool. Yeah.
Bro, are you kidding me? Hats off to you. Kind of a giggle. That's a hell of a burn! I couldn't do that.
And if not..., then etta... see a psychiatrist. Absolutely.
Only it's hard to find the right shrink these days. Not only that, the right psychiatrist doesn't work for some reason.
// Just like proper trading doesn't work.
Yeah. Too bad.