На маленькой кухне было негде резать овощи, поэтому я перенёс миску в комнату.

In Russian, на кухне is the normal idiomatic way to say in the kitchen.

Even though English uses in, Russian often uses на with certain places, especially some functional spaces:

• на кухне = in the kitchen
• на работе = at work
• на почте = at the post office

By contrast, в комнате is normal for in the room.

So this is something you mostly have to learn as a set phrase:

• на кухне
• в комнате

Because after на in the meaning of location, Russian uses the prepositional case.

The noun кухня is feminine singular, so in the prepositional it becomes:

• кухня → кухне

The adjective must agree with the noun in gender, number, and case:

• маленькая кухня → на маленькой кухне

So both words change because they are part of the phrase on/in the small kitchen = на маленькой кухне.

Негде means there is nowhere / there is no place.

So:

• было негде резать овощи = there was nowhere to cut/chop vegetables

This is a very common Russian pattern:

• негде сесть = there’s nowhere to sit
• негде парковаться = there’s nowhere to park
• негде спать = there’s nowhere to sleep

It often implies not enough space rather than absolute impossibility.

Because this is an impersonal construction.

There is no real grammatical subject here. Russian often uses было as a default past-tense form in impersonal sentences:

• было холодно = it was cold
• было трудно = it was difficult
• было негде резать овощи = there was nowhere to cut vegetables

So было is not agreeing with кухня. It is just the standard neuter singular past form used in impersonal expressions.

Because the sentence is talking about the activity of cutting vegetables, not about completing the action.

After words like негде, Russian often uses the infinitive to describe what activity could not be done:

• негде сидеть = nowhere to sit
• некогда читать = no time to read
• нечего есть = nothing to eat

Here резать is the natural choice because it means to be cutting / to cut as an activity.

A perfective verb like порезать could appear in some contexts, but резать sounds more neutral and natural here.

Here овощи is accusative plural, because it is the direct object of резать.

But for inanimate plural nouns in Russian, the accusative form is usually the same as the nominative:

• nominative: овощи
• accusative: овощи

So the form looks the same, even though the function is different.

Compare with an animate noun:

• Я вижу студентов = I see the students
  Here the accusative plural is different.

This is a very common point of confusion.

• поэтому = therefore / so / that’s why
• потому что = because

In your sentence:

• ..., поэтому я перенёс миску в комнату.
• ..., so I moved the bowl into the room.

If you used потому что, the logic would reverse:

• Я перенёс миску в комнату, потому что на маленькой кухне было негде резать овощи.
• I moved the bowl into the room because there was nowhere to cut vegetables in the small kitchen.

So:

• поэтому introduces the result
• потому что introduces the reason

Because the sentence has two parts:

1. На маленькой кухне было негде резать овощи
2. поэтому я перенёс миску в комнату

These are two separate clauses, and поэтому connects them with the meaning so / therefore.

Russian normally puts a comma before поэтому in this kind of sentence.

Перенёс is the masculine singular past tense of the perfective verb перенести.

So it means:

• I moved / carried over / transferred

Because the speaker is я, the past tense in Russian shows gender:

• я перенёс = I moved it (male speaker)
• я перенесла = I moved it (female speaker)

Also, the stressed letter is really ё:

• перенёс

In many printed texts, Russian often writes е instead of ё, so you may see перенес, but перенёс is the fully correct spelling.

Because the action is presented as completed.

The speaker moved the bowl once, from the kitchen to the room, as a finished event. That is exactly what the perfective aspect is for.

• перенёс = moved it over, completed the action
• переносил = was moving / used to move / moved repeatedly

Here the sentence describes a single completed reaction to the problem, so перенёс is the natural choice.

Both are accusative, but for different reasons.

миску

• This is the direct object of перенёс
• миска → миску

в комнату

• After в, Russian uses the accusative when there is motion into somewhere
• комната → в комнату

So:

• перенёс миску = moved the bowl
• в комнату = into the room

Compare:

• в комнате = in the room, location
• в комнату = into the room, direction

Because these are two different ideas:

• на кухне = location, where the problem existed
• в комнату = direction, where the bowl was moved to

So the sentence combines:

• a static location: on/in the kitchen → на кухне
• movement toward a destination: into the room → в комнату

This kind of contrast is very common in Russian.

In everyday translation here, резать овощи can easily mean cut vegetables or chop vegetables.

Russian резать is broader than one exact English kitchen verb. Depending on context, it may correspond to:

• cut
• slice
• chop

So in this sentence, an English translation like there was nowhere to chop vegetables sounds perfectly natural.

Yes, very natural.

Russian often starts with the setting or situation first:

• На маленькой кухне было негде резать овощи...
• In the small kitchen, there was nowhere to cut vegetables...

Then it gives the result:

• поэтому я перенёс миску в комнату
• so I moved the bowl into the room

This order sounds smooth and informative. It first explains the problem, then the response.

No. Even though Russian uses на кухне, you should not translate it literally into English as on the kitchen.

This is one of those cases where Russian and English use different prepositions:

• Russian: на кухне
• English: in the kitchen

So the correct English sense is:

• In the small kitchen, there was nowhere to cut vegetables...