Learn Hardcore Russian: Старый шкаф стал пыльным, и мама взяла тряпку. - The old wardrobe became dusty, and Mom took a rag.

Стал is the past tense of стать “to become, to turn (into something).”
So Старый шкаф стал пыльным literally means “The old wardrobe became dusty,” focusing on the change of state: it was not dusty before, and then it ended up dusty.

If you said Старый шкаф был пыльным, that would mean “The old wardrobe was dusty” (describing a state, without emphasizing the process of becoming dusty). In this sentence, стал is better because it implies that time passed and the wardrobe gradually got dusty.

Why is пыльным (and not пыльный) used after стал?

Пыльным is the instrumental case of the adjective пыльный (“dusty”).

With verbs of becoming and being (like стать, быть, казаться, становиться) Russian very often uses the instrumental case for predicate nouns and adjectives:

Он стал врачом. – “He became a doctor.”
Она была учительницей. – “She was a (female) teacher.”
Шкаф стал пыльным. – “The wardrobe became dusty.”

So стал пыльным is the standard pattern: стать + adjective in the instrumental = “to become + adjective.”

Could we say Старый шкаф был пыльным or Старый шкаф стал пыльный instead? Are they correct?

Старый шкаф был пыльным is grammatically correct. It means “The old wardrobe was dusty” (describing the wardrobe’s state at some time, without focusing on it becoming dusty).
Старый шкаф стал пыльный sounds wrong/unnatural in standard Russian. After стал here, the adjective should be in the instrumental: стал пыльным, not стал пыльный.

So:

To talk about a state: был пыльным.
To talk about becoming that state: стал пыльным.

Why is there a comma before и мама взяла тряпку?

The sentence has two independent clauses:

Старый шкаф стал пыльным – “The old wardrobe became dusty.”
мама взяла тряпку – “Mom took a rag/cloth.”

In Russian, when you join two independent clauses with и (“and”), you normally put a comma before и:

Шкаф стал пыльным, и мама взяла тряпку.

So the comma shows that this is a compound sentence with two separate actions.

Why is it тряпку and not тряпка?

Тряпка is a feminine noun. Its basic dictionary form (тряпка) is the nominative singular.

Here тряпку is the direct object of взяла (“(she) took what?”), so it must be in the accusative case:

Nominative: тряпка – “rag” (subject)
Accusative: тряпку – “(took) a rag” (object)

That is why the sentence uses тряпку: мама взяла тряпку – “Mom took a rag/cloth.”

How do we know whether старый шкаф means “the old wardrobe” or “an old wardrobe” if Russian has no articles?

Russian does not use articles (a/an/the), so the difference is usually clear from context and situation, not from a word like “the.”

Старый шкаф can be translated as either “the old wardrobe” or “an old wardrobe,” depending on what was mentioned or is known:

If speaker and listener already know which wardrobe they’re talking about (e.g. in the living room), in English you’d translate it as “the old wardrobe.”
If this is new information (“there is some old wardrobe in some place”), you might say “an old wardrobe.”

Russian leaves this to context, but English translation chooses a/an or the based on how specific/known the object is.

What exactly does шкаф mean—“wardrobe,” “closet,” or “cupboard”?

Шкаф is a general word for a tall, usually vertical piece of furniture with doors for storing things. Its exact English translation depends on context:

For clothes: “wardrobe,” “closet”
For dishes in the kitchen: “cupboard,” “cabinet”
For books: “bookcase” is often книжный шкаф

In this sentence, without extra context, шкаф is commonly translated as “wardrobe” or “cupboard,” but “wardrobe” is a typical learner-friendly choice.

Why is it взяла and not брала? What’s the aspect difference?

Взяла is the past tense (feminine singular) of взять – a perfective verb. It describes a single, completed action: “(she) took (and that’s it).”

Брала is the past tense (feminine singular) of брать – the imperfective partner. It can mean “was taking,” “used to take,” or “took (repeatedly / not as a single complete event).”

In this context, Mom performed one specific action in response to the dusty wardrobe, so the perfective взяла is the natural choice: мама взяла тряпку – “Mom took a cloth (once, and completed that action).”

Could we say Старый шкаф становился пыльным instead of стал пыльным?

Становился is the past tense of становиться – the imperfective counterpart of стать.

Старый шкаф становился пыльным literally: “The old wardrobe was becoming dusty / kept becoming dusty.”
This stresses an ongoing or repeated process, often over some stretch of time. Alone, it sounds a bit incomplete in Russian; you’d usually expect more context, like:
Старый шкаф становился пыльным всё быстрее. – “The old wardrobe was becoming dusty faster and faster.”

For a simple narrative statement reporting a result (“it became dusty, and then…”), стал пыльным is more natural.

Why is мама in the nominative, and why don’t we say моя мама (“my mom”)?

Мама here is the subject of the verb взяла: кто взяла? мама – “who took (it)? Mom.” Subjects in Russian normally appear in the nominative case, so мама is in nominative.

As for ownership, Russian very often omits possessive pronouns with close family members when context is obvious. Instead of constantly saying моя мама, мой папа, speakers just say мама, папа when it’s clear they’re talking about their own mother or father.

So мама взяла тряпку naturally implies “(my) mom took a cloth” in many contexts, even without моя.

Why is the adjective старый placed before шкаф? Could we say шкаф старый стал пыльным?

In Russian, attributive adjectives (simple descriptive adjectives) usually come before the noun they modify:

старый шкаф – “old wardrobe”
большой дом – “big house”

You can say шкаф старый, but then старый becomes a predicate after the noun, usually with a different structure, like:

Шкаф старый. – “The wardrobe is old.”

A phrase like шкаф старый стал пыльным is grammatically clumsy and unnatural. You would normally keep the adjective before the noun:

Старый шкаф стал пыльным.

Can we change the word order to Мама взяла тряпку, и старый шкаф стал пыльным? Does the meaning change?

Yes, Мама взяла тряпку, и старый шкаф стал пыльным is grammatically correct.

However, the logical sequence in reality is: the wardrobe first became dusty, then mom took a cloth. When you reverse the clauses like that, the temporal order feels reversed or at least less natural.

So while both orders are grammatically fine, Старый шкаф стал пыльным, и мама взяла тряпку matches the usual cause–effect or time sequence: “The wardrobe became dusty, and (as a result) Mom took a cloth.”

Could we use another verb like запылился instead of стал пыльным?

Yes. For example:

Старый шкаф запылился, и мама взяла тряпку.

Запылился means “got dusty / became covered with dust.” It’s a single verb expressing the same idea as стал пыльным, and it sounds very natural.

Both стал пыльным and запылился are correct; запылился is just more compact and slightly more colloquial/visual, while стал пыльным is more neutral and explicit.