Молния сверкнула над морем, и мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах.

Breakdown of Молния сверкнула над морем, и мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах.

и
and
на
on
море
the sea
над
above
лодка
the boat
мокрый
wet
молния
the lightning
сверкнуть
to flash
тихо
gently
раскачиваться
to rock
волна
the wave
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Russian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Russian now

Questions & Answers about Молния сверкнула над морем, и мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах.

Why is it над морем and not над море or над морю?

Because the preposition над (above, over) with a location normally takes the instrumental case.

The noun море (sea) is neuter; its singular forms are:

  • Nominative: море – the basic dictionary form
  • Genitive: моря
  • Dative: морю
  • Accusative: море
  • Instrumental: морем
  • Prepositional: о море

So after над we need the instrumental: над морем = above the sea.

Why does сверкнула end in -ла? What does that say about the verb?

Сверкнула is the past tense, feminine, singular form of the perfective verb сверкнуть (to flash once).

In Russian, past tense verbs agree in gender and number with the subject:

  • Masculine singular: сверкнул
  • Feminine singular: сверкнула
  • Neuter singular: сверкнуло
  • Plural: сверкнули

The subject молния (lightning) is grammatically feminine, so the verb must be feminine too: молния сверкнула.

Why is the perfective сверкнула used instead of the imperfective сверкала?

The choice is about aspect:

  • Сверкнуть (perfective) → сверкнула: one completed, momentary flash.
  • Сверкать (imperfective) → сверкала: a repeated or continuous action, lightning flashing over some time.

In the sentence, сверкнула paints a picture of one sudden flash, a single event, before focusing on the boats rocking calmly. If you said:

  • Молния сверкала над морем – it would suggest lightning was flashing continuously for a period of time.
Why is there a comma before и in this sentence?

Because и is joining two independent clauses (two full sentences):

  1. Молния сверкнула над морем – subject молния, verb сверкнула.
  2. мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах – subject лодки, verb раскачивались.

In Russian, when и connects two full clauses with their own subjects and verbs, you normally put a comma before и:

  • Молния сверкнула над морем, и мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах.
Why are мокрые лодки in that form? What case are they?

Мокрые лодки are in the nominative plural because they are the subject of the second clause.

  • лодка – singular: a boat
  • лодки – nominative plural: boats
  • мокрыймокрые – adjective agreeing with a plural noun

Adjectives agree with the noun in gender, number, and case:

  • Feminine singular: мокрая лодка
  • Plural (for any gender mix): мокрые лодки

Since the boats are doing the action (лодки тихо раскачивались), they must be nominative.

What does the -сь at the end of раскачивались mean?

The -сь (or -ся) ending marks a reflexive or intransitive verb.

  • раскачивать (someone/something) – to rock something
    • Он раскачивал лодку. – He was rocking the boat.
  • раскачиватьсяto rock, to sway (by itself)
    • Лодка раскачивалась. – The boat was rocking/swaying.

In мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались, the boats are not being rocked by someone; they are just rocking themselves on the waves, so the reflexive/intransitive form раскачивались is used.

Is there a difference between раскачивались and качались?

Both describe a swaying/rocking motion, but there is a nuance:

  • качаться – to swing/rock in general.
  • раскачиваться – to rock back and forth, often with a sense of repeated, more noticeable motion.

In this context:

  • лодки качались на волнах – the boats were rocking (quite neutral).
  • лодки раскачивались на волнах – suggests a clearer, perhaps slightly more pronounced back‑and‑forth movement.

The original тихо раскачивались combines that idea of back-and-forth motion with тихо (quietly, gently), so the image is of a soft, repetitive swaying.

What is тихо grammatically, and why is it placed before раскачивались?

Тихо is an adverb, formed from the adjective тихий (quiet) by adding :

  • тихий – quiet (adjective)
  • тихо – quietly, gently (adverb)

Adverbs typically describe how an action happens and usually stand before or after the verb:

  • лодки тихо раскачивались
  • лодки раскачивались тихо

Both are correct. The given word order тихо раскачивались is very natural and slightly emphasizes the manner of the movement: they gently rocked.

Why is it на волнах and not something like на волны?

На волнах uses the prepositional plural of волна (wave):

  • Singular: волна
  • Plural nominative: волны
  • Plural prepositional (about/on waves in a static sense): на волнах

With на:

  • на
    • prepositional – location: на волнах = on the waves (where?)
  • на
    • accusative – direction/onto: на волны would mean onto the waves (where to?), but this phrase is rare and sounds poetic or unusual here.

Since the boats are already located on the waves (not moving onto them), the prepositional plural на волнах is correct.

How is на волнах different from по волнам?

Both are grammatically correct, but they suggest slightly different pictures:

  • на волнах – literally on the waves, focusing on resting on and being moved by the waves.
  • по волнам – literally along/across the waves, often implying movement across the wavy surface.

So:

  • Лодки раскачивались на волнах. – The boats were rocking on the waves.
  • Лодки плыли по волнам. – The boats were sailing across the waves.

In this sentence, the focus is on rocking motion in place, so на волнах fits better.

Why is there no word for the before лодки or волнах?

Russian has no articles (a/an, the). Nouns appear without them, and the meaning is inferred from context.

  • мокрые лодки can mean the wet boats, wet boats, or some wet boats, depending on context.
  • на волнах can be on the waves or on waves.

The sentence context suggests the boats and the waves in English, but Russian doesn’t mark this difference explicitly.

Can the word order be changed, for example: Мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах, и молния сверкнула над морем?

Yes, Russian word order is relatively flexible, and that version is grammatically correct.

However, the focus and narrative flow change:

  • Original: Молния сверкнула над морем, и мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах.
    • First, we see the flash of lightning, then the boats rocking: a momentary dramatic event, then calm motion.
  • Reordered: Мокрые лодки тихо раскачивались на волнах, и молния сверкнула над морем.
    • We start with the boats and then the lightning appears, shifting the emphasis.

Both are possible; the chosen order sets the scene with lightning first.

Why use мокрые and not other words like влажные?

Russian has several words for “wet,” with different nuances:

  • мокрый – wet, soaked with liquid, clearly noticeably wet.
  • влажный – damp, slightly moist, often milder.
  • сырой – raw/damp; often about air, rooms, or uncooked food.

Мокрые лодки suggests the boats are properly wet, probably from rain or sea spray, which matches the scene with lightning over the sea.

Влажные лодки would sound odd and too weak here; it would suggest just slightly damp boats, not strongly affected by the water.