В январе у меня было собеседование, и я надел пиджак и галстук.

I

Breakdown of В январе у меня было собеседование, и я надел пиджак и галстук.

• в: in
• быть: to be
• и: and
• надеть: to put on
• январь: January
• собеседование: the interview
• пиджак: the blazer
• галстук: the tie

Questions & Answers about В январе у меня было собеседование, и я надел пиджак и галстук.

Why is it «в январе» and not «в январь»?

In Russian, when you talk about time “in a month / in a season / in a year”, you normally use:

• в + prepositional case

So:

• в январе – in January (prepositional, январь → в январе)
• в марте – in March
• в 2020 году – in 2020

«в январь» (accusative) is not used for time expressions like this. The accusative with в is used mostly for movement into / to somewhere:

• в январь would literally mean into January, which is wrong in this context.

So time = prepositional: в январе.

What does «у меня было собеседование» literally mean, and why not «я имел собеседование»?

Literally, «у меня было собеседование» is:

• “At me there was an interview”
  → idiomatic English: “I had an interview.”

This is a very common Russian pattern:

• у + [genitive pronoun/noun] + есть / был(о/а/и) + [thing]
• у меня есть машина – I have a car
• у него был вопрос – He had a question

Using иметь (to have) in everyday speech with a direct object (я имел собеседование) is:

• grammatically possible, but
• sounds formal, bookish, or just odd in many contexts,
• and often has special meanings (e.g. legal, sexual, idiomatic).

For “I had an interview”, Russians almost always say:

• У меня было собеседование.

Why is it «было» and not «был», even though the speaker is male?

The verb in past tense agrees with the grammatical gender and number of the subject, not the actual person who is speaking.

In the phrase:

• У меня было собеседование
• The grammatical subject is «собеседование» – a neuter noun.
• So the verb must be neuter singular past: было.

Compare:

• У меня была встреча. – I had a (business) meeting.
  (встреча is feminine → была)
• У меня был экзамен. – I had an exam.
  (экзамен is masculine → был)
• У меня было собеседование. – I had an interview.
  (собеседование is neuter → было)

The speaker’s own gender only matters when the subject is “я”:

• Я был у врача. – I (male) was at the doctor.
• Я была у врача. – I (female) was at the doctor.

What is the gender and case of «собеседование» here, and how can I tell?

In «у меня было собеседование»:

• собеседование is neuter, nominative singular.

How to see this:

1. Dictionary form: собеседование
   
   • Ends in -ие, which is very often neuter.
2. Construction: у меня было [что?]
   
   • The thing that “was at me” is the subject in nominative case.
   • So собеседование must be nominative.

Other examples:

• У меня был экзамен. – экзамен (masc. nom. sing.)
• У меня была встреча. – встреча (fem. nom. sing.)
• У меня было интервью. – интервью (indeclinable neuter, nom. sing.)

Why is there a comma before «и» in «... было собеседование, и я надел...»? In English we often skip that comma.

In Russian, a comma is usually required between two independent clauses joined by и.

Here we have:

1. В январе у меня было собеседование – complete sentence.
2. я надел пиджак и галстук – another complete sentence.

They are joined by и, so you get:

• В январе у меня было собеседование, и я надел пиджак и галстук.

In English, you might write either:

• “In January I had an interview and I wore a jacket and tie.”
• or “..., and I wore ...”

In Russian, that comma before и is normal and expected when both parts could stand as separate sentences.

What is the difference between «надеть» and «одеть»? Why «я надел пиджак» and not «я одел пиджак»?

This is a classic pair that even many native speakers mix up:

• надеть – to put on (clothes) on yourself or someone

  • надеть что? – put on what? (direct object is the clothing)
  • Я надел пиджак. – I put on a jacket.
  • Она надела платье. – She put on a dress.

• одеть – to dress someone (clothe a person)

  • одеть кого? – dress whom? (direct object is a person)
  • Мама одела ребёнка. – Mom dressed the child.
  • Одень куклу. – Dress the doll.

So in your sentence:

• You’re putting on clothes, not dressing another person:
  • я надел пиджак и галстук is the correct, standard form.

What aspect and tense are in «я надел», and what would «я надевал» mean instead?

• я надел – past tense, perfective aspect of надеть.

Perfective (надеть) focuses on:

• the completed action / result: I put (them) on, and now I’m wearing them.

Imperfective is надевать:

• я надевал пиджак и галстук would emphasize:
  • a process, repetition, or background action, e.g.:
    • I was putting on a jacket and tie (when something happened).
    • I used to put on a jacket and tie (for interviews).

In this sentence, you’re talking about a single, completed action on that day, so я надел is the natural choice.

Why is there no preposition before «пиджак и галстук»? Shouldn’t it be something like “with a jacket” or “in a jacket”?

In Russian, the verb надеть (to put on) takes a direct object in the accusative case:

• надеть что? – put on what?

So you simply say:

• я надел пиджак и галстук – I put on a jacket and a tie.

No preposition is needed because пиджак and галстук are direct objects.

If you wanted “in a jacket and tie” as a state (not the action of putting them on), you’d use a different verb and prepositions:

• Я пришёл в пиджаке и галстуке. – I came wearing a jacket and tie.
  (literally: in a jacket and tie)

What case are «пиджак» and «галстук» in, and why do they look like nominative?

They are in the accusative singular, as direct objects of надеть:

• надеть что? пиджак, галстук.

For inanimate masculine nouns, the accusative singular form = nominative singular form:

• Nominative: пиджак, галстук
• Accusative: пиджак, галстук (same forms)

So they look like nominative, but functionally here they are accusative direct objects.

Could I change the word order, e.g. «В январе у меня было собеседование, и пиджак и галстук я надел»? Does it sound natural?

Russian word order is more flexible than English, but not every permutation sounds equally natural.

Possible variants:

1. Я надел пиджак и галстук. – completely normal, neutral.
2. Пиджак и галстук я надел. – possible, with a slight emphasis on pиджак и галстук (contrast or clarification: it was a jacket and tie that I put on).

Your full sentence:

• В январе у меня было собеседование, и пиджак и галстук я надел.

This is grammatically correct, but has a marked, slightly “stylistic” word order. It adds emphasis on “a jacket and a tie” and can sound a bit literary or contrastive, e.g.:

• ...and (specifically) a jacket and tie I put on.

For a neutral statement, the original order is more natural:

• ..., и я надел пиджак и галстук.

Why is there no word for “a” or “the” before «собеседование», «пиджак», and «галстук»?

Russian does not have articles (a, an, the) at all. Their meanings are expressed by:

• context,
• word order,
• optionally words like этот (this), тот (that), один (one, a certain), etc.

So:

• у меня было собеседование can mean:
  • I had an interview (new, unspecific), or
  • I had the interview (the one we already know about) — context decides.

If you want to make it clearly “that particular interview”, you might say:

• В январе у меня было это собеседование. – In January I had this interview.

But in many contexts, just у меня было собеседование is all you need, and English adds “an/the” automatically.

Why is it «в январе у меня было собеседование» and not «у меня в январе было собеседование»? Is there any difference?

Both are grammatically correct:

1. В январе у меня было собеседование.
2. У меня в январе было собеседование.

The difference is mostly in focus / information structure:

• Version 1 (В январе...) puts time at the beginning:
  • In January, I had an interview. (starting with “when it happened”)
• Version 2 (У меня в январе...) begins with “I had” and then adds “in January”:
  • I had an interview in January. (starting with “I had something”)

In everyday speech, both are very natural. The original sentence slightly emphasizes the time frame first.