The spoon is on the table. This difficult Russian language

This difficult Russian language

Add a plate and pan to the table. They seem to be horizontal, but they stand on the table. Now put the plate in the pan. There she lies, but she stood on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the fork was ready when it lay.

Now the cat is on the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying, it somehow climbs 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 feet, not on the pope. Although it looks like it should be. But she can't stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a scarecrow, it will stand on the table.

It may seem that sitting is an attribute of the living, but the boot also sits on the leg, although it is not alive and does not have priests. So go and understand what is standing, what is lying, and what is sitting.

And we are still surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.

Permanent address of the article:
http://site/interesnie-fakti/837471-etot-slozhnyy-russkiy-yazyk.html

Other related news:

This difficult Russian language

Table setting 1. Hot plate. 2. Snack plate. 3. Plate for bread. 4. Snack fork. 5. Fork for fish. 6. Table fork. 7. Table knife. 8. Knife for fish. 9. Snack knife. 10. Tablespoon. 11. Butter knife. 12. Dessert spoon. 13. Dessert fork. 14. Glass for water. 15. Glass for white wine. 16. Glass for red wine.

About Russian logic.

They say that the Russian language is extremely logical. And you try to explain, for example, to a Frenchman, why the glass is on the table, the fork is lying, and the bird is sitting on the tree.

With a glass and a fork, I immediately deduced a theory: that which is more vertical than horizontal - it stands; that which is more horizontal than vertical - it lies. My theory immediately crashed on a plate - it is more horizontal than vertical, but it stands. Although, if you turn it over, it will lie. Immediately on the move, another theory is deduced: the plate stands because it has a base, it stands on the base. The theory immediately shatters into rubbish on a frying pan - it has no basis, but it still stands. Wonders. Although if you put it in the sink, then it will lie there, while taking a more vertical position than on the table. This suggests the conclusion that everything that is ready for use is worth it (let's just not vulgarity).

But let's take one more thing - an ordinary children's ball. It is not horizontal and not vertical, while it is completely ready for use. Who will say that there, in the corner, the ball is standing? If the ball does not play the role of a puppet and has not been punished, then it still lies. And even if you transfer it to the table, then on the table (oh miracle!) It will lie. Let's complicate the task - put the ball in the plate, and the plate in the pan. Now we have the ball still lying (in the plate), the pan is still standing (on the table), the question is, what does the plate do?

If the Frenchman listened to the explanation to the end, then that's it, his world will never be the same again. Plates and pans appeared in it, which can stand and lie - the world came to life. It remains to add that the birds are sitting with us. On a branch, on a windowsill and even on the sidewalk. The Frenchman will draw in his imagination a titmouse sitting on a branch on the fifth point and dangling its paws in the air, or a homeless crow sitting, stretching out its paws and spreading its wings, near the metro station.

"Russians - you are crazy!" - the Frenchman will say and throw a textbook at you.

If you think that the Universe sits and invents problems and illnesses for you, then you have megalomania ... It simply implements your thoughts.

In Brazil, they invented an “offline glass” - it cannot stand straight on the table unless you put a mobile phone under it.

This design was created so that people would devote more time to live communication with each other, rather than checking new messages or chatting on social networks.

This difficult Russian language

There is a table in front of us. There is a glass and a fork on the table. What are they doing? The glass stands, and the fork lies. If we stick a fork into the countertop, the fork will stand. That is, are there vertical objects, but are there horizontal ones? Add a plate and pan to the table. They seem to be horizontal, but they stand on the table. Now put the plate in the pan. There she lies, but she stood on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the fork was ready when it lay. Now the cat is on the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying, it somehow climbs 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 feet, not on the pope. Although it looks like it should be. But she can't stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a scarecrow, it will stand on the table. It may seem that sitting is an attribute of the living, but the boot also sits on the leg, although it is not alive and does not have priests. So, go and understand what is standing, what is lying, and what is sitting. And we are still surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.

This difficult Russian language

Many people think that the Russian language is logical. And try to explain, for example, to a Frenchman why the glass is on the table, the fork is lying, and the bird is sitting on the tree ...

For example, we have a table. There is a glass and a fork on the table. What are they doing? The glass stands, and the fork lies. If we stick a fork into the countertop, the fork will stand. That is, there are vertical objects, but horizontal ones lie? Add a plate and pan to the table. They seem to be horizontal, but they stand on the table.

Now put the plate in the pan. There she lies, but she stood on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the fork was ready when it lay.

Now the cat is on the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying, it somehow climbs into the logic of “vertical-horizontal”, 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 feet, not on the pope. Although it looks like it should be. But she can't stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a scarecrow, it will stand on the table ...

It may seem that sitting is an attribute of the living, but the boot also sits on the leg, although it is not alive and does not have priests. So, go and understand what is standing, what is lying, and what is sitting.

And we are still surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.

One can deduce a theory: that which is more vertical than horizontal - it stands; that which is more horizontal than vertical—it lies. But this theory immediately breaks on a plate - it is more horizontal than vertical, but it stands. Although, if you turn it over, it will lie.

Although if you put it in the sink, then it will lie there, while taking a more vertical position than on the table. This suggests the conclusion that everything that is ready for use is worth it (at this point I want to say vulgarity).

But let's take one more thing - an ordinary children's ball. It is not horizontal and not vertical, while it is completely ready for use. Who will say that there, in the corner, the ball is standing?

If the ball does not play the role of a puppet and has not been punished, then it still lies. And even if you transfer it to the table, then on the table (oh miracle!) It will lie. Let's complicate the task - put the ball in the plate, and the plate in the pan. Now we have the ball still lying (in the plate), the pan is still standing (on the table), the question is, what does the plate do?

If the Frenchman listened to the explanation to the end, then that's it - his world will never be the same again. Plates and pans appeared in it that can stand and lie - the world came to life!

There is such an observation about the Russian language 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 stands, and the fork lies.
If we stick a fork into the countertop, the fork will stand. Those. vertical objects stand, and horizontal ones lie?

Add a plate and pan to the table.

They seem to be horizontal, but they stand on the table.
Now put the plate in the pan. There she lies, but she stood on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the fork was ready when it lay.

Now the cat is on the table.

She can stand, sit and lie down.
If in terms of standing and lying, it somehow climbs into the logic of "vertical-horizontal", 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 feet, not on the pope. Although it looks like it should be. But she can't stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a scarecrow, it will stand on the table.

And we are still surprised that foreigners consider our language difficult and compare it with Chinese.

I read it once or twice and decided to still find the logic. The language can't be that messy. As they say, in these same Internets, the challenge is accepted.

All the confusion can be explained by assuming just a couple of assumptions:

1. Word usage depends on the class of the subject
2. The verbs "stand", "sit" and "lie down" have two different aspects, and now one comes to the fore, then the other.

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. The one whose longest dimension is perpendicular to the surface of the planet is standing, the one whose longest dimension is parallel lies.

The analogy is taken, of course, from the human body, which is an upright primate.

The second aspect is also drawn from a person, but in a different way. A person cannot stand for a long time, but if he is standing, then this is necessary because he is working. Standing is the 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 just a fixed stable state, not related to either work or rest.

And these verbs have something in common - they are always verbs of a static state and never of a dynamic state.

The rules, of course, are not very clear, they are more directions than roads. In doubtful cases, when several rules are applicable, one of them is chosen either arbitrarily or with the application of the second aspect.

The classes of objects are: natural objects, artificial objects, man, animals, plants, insects, fish, birds.

Now let's walk through these classes and show how state verbs are applied to them.

1 person
Well, everything is clear here, because it is the state of a person that serves as a model for the rest of the word usage.

2. Natural items
Natural objects always just lie. Obviously, this reflects the fact that under the influence of gravity in nature, everything falls to the ground in the same way and rolls there without any meaning. Even high stones lie - because they do nothing (a lying stone is the standard of laziness). Snow lies, minerals lie. There is only one exception - water, but about it at the very end.

3. Plants
Plants, if they are alive, only grow, and that's it. Sometimes in books they write something like "There was an oak at the edge of the road" - but this is an obvious metaphor, where the oak is simply compared to a person. In live speech, this does not sound very natural.
Dead trees, of course, lie either in rare cases- stand (There were charred trunks all around).

4. Animals
Animals either stand on their feet or lie - completely by analogy with humans. Sometimes they can sit - but only if their posture resembles a human. For example, a horse is standing or lying, but a dog or cat can sit on the loin.
The only exception here is the cat, which can still sit with its front legs bent. If the horse does exactly the same, then it definitely lies, and if the cat, then it sits. Perhaps because for a cat it is a comfortable fixed position, but not lying down (a cat usually lies on its side, and a horse usually lies on its belly).

5. Artificial objects
Artificial objects can stand, sit and lie down. They stand if they rise noticeably above their surface level OR if this is their working state (and not the ready state, as written in the text above). Therefore, there is a radiogram on the table, there is a floor lamp on the floor, and there is a plate on the table. If you put a plate (and even two) in a frying pan, then it can both stand there and lie - both are equally applicable. If there is a pile of plates, then they only 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 condition, it is characterized by extreme horizontality and general relaxation, since the mattress takes the form of a surface. But the sofa, even the lowest one, is already standing.

The computer mouse is small. Is she standing or lying down? The tongue believes that it is lying - because it is also passive, they drag it around the table as they want. But if we buy a mouse-shaped router of the same size and put 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 "stand" and "lie", because it is more important to distinguish them from each other than to emphasize 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 it actually lies there). The exception is wires that can only lie, they fall too passively.

If we place a round glass ball on a table, then the ball is not in balance, and it is impossible even to tell whether it is standing or lying there. It's just "on the table". But if we attach a stand to him so that he does not roll away, and give him an appointment, then he will stand. "There was a globe on the teacher's desk." "There was a crystal ink ball on the table."

If the ball is on the floor or in the bag, then, of course, it lies there, since it will not go anywhere from there - it will remain on the floor or in the bag. The crystal ball also lies on the table of the fortune-teller, because it is passive and does not work by itself.

If we pick up a lying stone and set it up, then the stone, of course, will become an artificial object from a natural object and will receive a purpose. "There was a stone at the fork in the road."

And finally, about the seat. Since the sitting of a person is a stable comfortable state that can last for a long time, then, by analogy, the sitting of objects is their fixed position, which they cannot leave. Therefore, the boot sits on the leg, the bolt sits on the nut, the bread sits in the oven and the serf sits on the ground (since he is no longer a man, 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 objects. Similarly, a bird sits in a nest, and a cat sits in a tree.

If we take a high legged bird like a stork or an ostrich and put it on the table, then it will stand there - it rises strongly and its legs are clearly visible.

But small birds, whose legs are smaller than themselves, are exactly 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 down, but can sit, that is, take a comfortable position. The fly sits on the wall and even on the ceiling. The beetle sits on a flower. Only dead insects can lie down, which after death turn into natural objects.

8. Pisces
In general, fish swim, but in some specific cases they can stand, sit and lie down. There is a pike when it turns perpendicular to the bottom; the flounder lies at 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 normally moving object. It does not matter the position of the object and even its class. "The train stops for three minutes." "Water stands in a swamp", "Air stands in a room", "Things stand".

Something like this is the case in Russian. If someone knows perfectly foreign language, it would be interesting to compare word usage with other languages.

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", of course, outraged me - I take such things very seriously. Now that I have discovered that this "thinking" has been circulated 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"

Original text "Standing, lying or sitting" with my comments

Let's assume that this is so, although I can hardly imagine what a "vertical object" is ... Here I recall the conversation of my colleagues about the definition of the word "half-like" ... So, this is when an object has one size much larger than the other two ( for those who are not in the subject, I explain that here we are talking about length, width and height).

No, these items are worth not because they are ready to use, but for another reason. This is an ordinary convention: all kitchen "containers" stand. Otherwise, real confusion will begin, because, for example, a saucepan is high, and sometimes low, and depending on the height, it would either stand or lie ...

Now the cat is on the table. She can stand, sit and lie down. If in terms of standing and lying, it somehow climbs into the logic of "vertical-horizontal", then sitting is a new property. She sits on her butt.

Living beings that walk rather than fly or crawl, such as a cat, can sit, stand, lie down, walk, run, and so on. And there is no other logic here ...

Now a bird has landed on the table. She sits on the table, but sits on her feet, not on the pope. Although it looks like it should be. But she can't stand at all.

Living creatures that can fly do not sit on the priest, but because they 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 scarecrow, it will stand on the table.

That's right, a scarecrow is not creature and therefore no longer sits, but, as expected, stands.

It may seem that sitting is an attribute of the living, but the boot also sits on the leg, although it is not alive and does not have priests.

The boot on the leg "sits" for a different reason. "Sits" - a set expression (simplification) is used instead of "just right". The main thing is that the suit sits!

Additions on the theme "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 of colloquial speech: "are" is replaced by "lie".

Now put the plate in the pan. The plate is in the pan.

Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: "is" is replaced by "lies".

Now a bird has landed on the table and is (abides) there.

Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: "landed" and "located" were replaced by "villages" and "sits".

Total: Standing, lying or sitting

>> So, go and understand what is worth, what is lying, and what is sitting. And we are still 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 such things in any language ... However, 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 the link to it), I strongly recommend that you stop reading and copying nonsense and start your education - 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 a comment.

If you think my objection is worthy and appropriate, please direct all "merry fellows" here.

Comments: 14 Standing, lying or sitting - Refutation

Thank you for the article. And after all, everything really becomes not so confusing, if you think a little with your head, and not with the place on which the bird cannot land.

In principle, as you read, the thought immediately comes to conventions, puns, ways of describing, but I liked it, and in my opinion there is no reason for indignation.

Posted on 26.02.2013 - 09:41 by user bsv

V more the reason for the outrage 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 smartest people, and little understanding people 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 questions-clarifications about the logic that you saw there.

> This is an ordinary convention: all kitchen "containers" are.

Then why do they say “worth it” about a plate on the table, but “lies” 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.

> scarecrow-it's not a living being, and therefore no longer sits, but, as expected, 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 "stand" and "sit" in relation to the surface, then we use both terms, and if there are no differences, then we use "stand", completely explains the scarecrow. If instead of a stuffed animal there was a hinged doll, she could sit and stand. The bird can both stand and sit: when it bends its paws, it sits, when it does not bend it, it stands. Compare: "the pigeon was standing on the windowsill" and "the pigeon was sitting on the windowsill" - are they different pictures? There is clearly a false thesis in the original text about a bird sitting on the table.

Well, yes, do not forget that the word "sit" is used in different senses. The clothes sit on the body, Vasya sits on the sofa, and the nail sits in the wall. These are different spatial relationships, and it is difficult to confuse them.

Posted on 28.03.2013 - 09:42 by user bsv

1. It's true, many people think that the source code is interesting, funny, etc. I will not 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 unambiguous 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, nevertheless, 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 the language, such as the fact that a professional knows better how to pronounce his professional term: compa "s, excited, etc."
many people have very limited vocabulary and / or careless, so many words become synonyms.
etc.

I partially agree with the arguments above. I consider it sufficient to confine ourselves 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 closet, because it is there, and it is on the table, because it is "supposed" to stand, in those moments when it is not somewhere. About the same with the bird: it sits because it landed... In my opinion, my logic is still logical. Thanks Vicki for your comment.

However, not only nesting. Turn the plate and glass upside down. The glass will still stand, but the plate will already lie (despite the fact that it is not somewhere in the cupboard, but is quite ready for use, you just need to turn it back). Turn on its side / edge - the plate will rise, the glass will fall. So "because the kitchen containers" is not exactly the right explanation.

Regarding the heron bird (or penguin, for example) - it stands (and does not sit like some kind of duck or titmouse) because it can fall and become recumbent - the same ratio of dimensions plays a role here. A "sitting" bird has nowhere to fall - it is already ... ahem ... lies on the belly (pun intended? oh yeah!). And the heron also lands. But it's worth it.

And yet, yes - not only living beings are sitting, as noted above.

And now a little suggestion - 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 kettle won't boil? For me personally, it is the last phrase that pulls out the entire text. And it's not only rich with such bells and whistles. For example, it's a pleasure to watch an Englishman trying to understand why gender, number, and tense should be indicated in a single verb in an entire sentence. Especially if the rest of that sentence is already doing the job (well, except for time, of course). Or the textbook "Mowed with an oblique oblique oblique." But this is all in a different steppe, yes.

Posted on 28.03.2013 - 11:20 by user bsv

"because kitchen containers" - such a quote cannot exist at all! And you, Anton, should refer to the rules of the portal.

Your arguments, Anton, remind me of a group of people that I don't particularly respect: I put a 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.

There are no more associations in the examples I have given than in your explanations. "If the dishes are worth it" - 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 said it was just a convention. A convention cannot be a rule. All the more unambiguous. And what if the plate with the frying pan is replaced by, say, a telephone set and a bedside table? Both are worth it. But the device will lie in the nightstand. As in the pot and in the pan. So the comment above about nesting makes more sense than some convention about "kitchen containers". What for to adjust under exceptions that lays down in logic?

I haven’t shoved the dog into the microwave and I’m not going to, because I can roughly imagine the principle of its operation and I know how many water molecules are contained in the dog, so that even a slight acceleration of them causes damage incompatible with life.

And I did not give a single direct quote. In cases of quoting, I usually use a colon. Or a special tag, if there is one in the response form.

Like this here.

Posted on 28.03.2013 - 12:35 by user bsv

My #1 statement: All kitchen "containers" are worth it.

Choose any! About container, sorry, I didn’t say it explicitly, I didn’t declare a separate rule, sorry ...

If you want to offer something - formulate your rule(s), denial is not serious ...

In general, if you protect the source text and its output, then, unfortunately, I don’t see any reason to prove something to you, the goals of the article are different ...

My statement #2: Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: "are" is replaced by "lie".

Sorry, but where did this come from? Not a single copy of the text that Google gave out (the earliest it found - dated February 6, 2012) contains neither the word "are" nor the word "lie" in this particular sentence. Everywhere it is written like this: There is a glass and a fork on the table."What kind of replacement are we talking about? Similarly, with the rest of the" additions ":

"The plate is in the pan."

Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: "is" is replaced by "lies".

"Now a bird has landed on the table and is (abides) there."

Previously, there was a simplification of colloquial speech: "landed" and "located" were replaced by "villages" and "sits".

The first phrase is not in the original text at all, while the second is written like this: "Now a bird has sat on the table. She is sitting on the table." You reproach others for inaccurate quoting, but you yourself ...

I'm not going to formulate rules, because:

a) I did not enroll in homegrown linguists;

b) I adhere to the point of view that in this aspect there are simply no rules. 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, the rules - this is not mathematics for you, everything is constantly mutating here).

If the purpose of the article is not "to omit the mediocrely written opus", then I apologize (in this case, the title of the article is too loud). And errors in logic were found even before me. As a result, the logic changed smoothly (although the same glass is still in the cupboard, despite the fact that it is there) and clarifications and exceptions appeared. Bravo. Personal logic - it is like that, it also tends to change, unlike the formal one.

Still, is the overturned plate on the table lying or standing? And on the floor? And if they are Uzbeks and it is customary for them to eat food from dishes located on a tablecloth on the floor / ground?

For sim bow. Controversy is such a thing that can go on 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 "located" only tells us that there is a spatial connection, but does not give us the details (above, below, on, in, next to, far from, etc.), so I do not really understand the opposition of "stand on" and " to be"... isn't "to be on" a subset of "to be somewhere"?

<Примерно то же и с птицей: она сидит, потому что приземлилась…>
That is, you do not distinguish between a standing and a sitting dove? Whenever a dove comes in contact with horizontal surface bottom bodies, you say "the dove is sitting"?

<Перевернем тарелку и стакан вверх дном. Стакан все еще будет стоять, а вот тарелка будет уже лежать>
Didn't think about it! And it's true... but strictly speaking, an inverted plate loses its properties of a container (I still like Stas's idea about containers, I leave it working for now), like a glass, and they become just things of a certain shape. A flat plate - lies, a tall glass - stands. Perhaps even here the point is not in the geometric aspect ratio, but in the most meaningful dimension? For a flat plate, the diameter of the circle is most important, because this is its working surface. Liquid is poured into a glass / cup / bowl, so depth is most important.
Or maybe not here formal logic, but there is a continuous "historically formed".

I agree with Anton about foreigners. For those who are native Russian speakers, many things may seem obvious, but we do not learn them from rules, but from observations: a child knows how to talk long before he learns about the rules. The difficulty is in the formalization of the language, in my opinion. In fact, any language - not only Russian. The Russian language is complicated, among other things, by the fact that in it the relations 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 follow strict rules, but changes and "works" differently in different contexts? For a foreigner, it must really look chaotic. I periodically try to learn Japanese - and so, for all its complexity, it seems extremely logical. I'm not sure if I learn Russian from scratch, I would have 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, etc. state, including similar to a sitting position;
the word "lying" can mean being in a horizontal position;
the word "stands" - is in a vertical position;
etc.

People have come up with many convenient and understandable speech techniques for themselves or in some context, but this does not mean that this can be an irrefutable argument. The fact is that when you decide what you really want to say - the cup is standing or it is upside down, or is in the closet - then you will have no doubts about how to say it so as not to cause ambiguous interpretation and understandable to everyone - and in this case there will be no confusion, no doubt, no objection. It's all.

I earnestly ask you not to write the first thing that comes to mind. First think for yourself 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 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 rigid 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, I will find a lot of exceptions. About the same birds, you yourself confirmed that some birds are sitting, while others are standing, and it is not rigidly determined who is sitting and who is standing. That's the fun part of the text! The fact 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 affirmation in a joke. It's the same as refuting a joke. This joke is not a linguist's thesis, but rather a funny indication of another area of the Russian language that defies description by strict rules.

Update: Thanks to everyone, especially those who couldn't help pointing out my mistakes. I really have inaccuracies, and some statements are erroneous, but the purpose of the article is different, it seemed to me obvious. Commenting on the article has been discontinued due to meaninglessness.