Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]


You got me. Could do with less of the unnecessary and ostentatious Old English though.


Rubbish. Just because we historically used flat adverbs doesn't mean it's not American today - certainly the only people I hear speaking like this have American accents (though admittedly it might also occur in New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, and other English-speaking places I have little experience of).

Why do you imply that only I find these incorrect - or, at the very least, slang? Would you then accept "real bad" as a grammatically correct construct in written language?

Also, you say that flat adverbs are British English because we used them here? Does that mean that "curb" and "tire" are also British English then?

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]

Yes, that's it! It's just a silly little difference between languages. There's no rationalisation for it - languages evolve based on common usage, not according to a solid set of rules. The only thing you can do is memorise grammar like this. So think to yourself: "if you want to use wygladac, use an adverb with it". "Zofia looks nicely" doesn't make any sense in English, but it does in Polish, so just roll with it.

I think we're making a mountain out of molehill here.

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]


Indeed, and people will understand you. But it is considered grammatically incorrect slang (primarily of American origin) to replace adverbs with adjectives. "That hurt really badly" -> "That hurt real bad". An English teacher would mark you down for using such constructs. That's all I meant.

As for your examples of noun phrases with two nouns, I am in agreement with you - the first noun usually takes on the role of adjectival modifier to the second noun. However, this has no bearing on the adjective/adverb issue, as the rules are not the same. I guarantee you that every time you see an adjective that appears to be used as an adverb, it is either grammatically incorrect slang, as above, or actually refers to a noun, such as in the "David is clever" case.

Now I ask, if adjectives can be used as adverbs in grammatically correct speech, why do we even have separate adverbial forms? In your two nouns examples, as you say, there is no adjectival form of "stone", so you have to use stone. But if, as you say, an adjective is being used as an adverb, why not just use the adverbial form of that adjective instead? Wouldn't that make more sense?


*Starts playing a lyre, singing and dancing* Come! Come with me! Come with me to grammarland, where the grass is green, "you're" is never "your", and verbs are always conjugated correctly!

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]


Actually, my gf replies "My name a Borat. I from Kazakhstan". Apparently nobody from her part of Poland ever says "jak się masz" unless they're being silly. ;)

Anyway, the reason you're confused is because you believe that two different languages, with completely diffferent grammars, should follow the same rules. Whether to use an adjective or an adverb for replies to "how are you?" is entirely a matter of convention, because (I think that) either is correct. You can say "excellent" and be qualifying a noun ("I am excellent") or "excellently" and be qualifying the verb ("I am excellently"). The reason that the latter of these sounds stupid and wrong would, I believe, simply be a matter of common usage. If you heard it on the street every day, it wouldn't sound so wrong.

Stop trying to transliterate Polish into English - it just doesn't work. "Jak się masz?" - "How yourself (you) are having?"

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]

Oops, obviously didn't read the original post correctly. You already mentioned wyglądać. My turn to blush!


You're absolutely correct, and this is a difference you just have to learn. Because in English, the word "nice" modifies Zofia, and in Polish the word "ładnie" modifies "wygląda". It's confusing, but in the end a simple memorisation problem, because they both have essentially the same meaning, despite the different grammar. You just have to memorise whether it's convention to use an adjective or an adverb for a particular verb/phrase, because there's no additional insight to be had here. It's just convention.

As an analogue, there are often two ways to express the same idea in English, using adjectives and adverbs. "He is fantastic at bowling" and "he bowls fantastically". So it might help to to think of the verbs in Polish differently. Instead of "Zofia looks nice" think "Zofia presents herself nicely". Now, that's not a literal translation, but it shows how, given the right verb, an adverb can be used correctly.

If that makes any sense?

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]


No problem. It was good procrastination from the work I'm supposed to be doing. ;)

plg - wait until you get to verbs like "wyglądać" - "to appear/to look". Instead of saying "she looks pretty" you say "she looks prettily". I still slip up on that one occasionally. I think these are differences you just have to learn by heart, unfortunately.

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]


You almost sound right on the surface, but let's see if I can explain why you're not.

First off, your example sentences [1]-[3] are all correct instances of adverbs. But notice, unlike "bad" and "excellent" they all end with "ly", a common modifier used to make an adjective into an adverb.

Now, "David is clever". Clever is an adjective. If it were an adverb it would appear is "David is cleverly" which doesn't make sense. You assume that the word "clever" modifies the verb "to be", which it does not. It in fact modifies the noun "David". Word order might confuse this for you slightly, but I assure you it is the case. So "clever" is *always* an adjective.

The same goes for your other examples, too.

Edit: Oh, and if we're being grammar nazis:
"This car goes incredibly fast" should be "This car goes incredibly quickly". Fast is an adjective. You can't modify "to go" with it. :P

Language / Jak sie masz -> niezle, doskonale. Wyglada ladnie - grammar questions [45]

Wrong. "Not bad" in adverbial form is "not badly", and "excellent" is "excellently". Unless you're a US American I guess, where the grammar is "real" bad. ;P

However, if plg wants an intuitive understanding of it, this is how I think of it:

"Jak sie masz" - "How are you keeping yourself?"
"doskonale" - "Excellently." OR "strasznie" - "horribly".

So "jak sie masz" doesn't really mean "how are you" literally, which is why you don't use adjectives. It's sort of like the question "how are you doing?" You don't reply "good", the adjective, you reply "well", the adverb.

USA, Canada / Polish, American, Polish-American - what am I to you? [34]


And I don't think there's anything wrong with calling yourself that. But you wouldn't call yourself Polish, would you? Some Americans I've met have identified themselves as Scottish even though they were born and raised surrounded in American culture. It's fine to say something like African-American, or Polish-American, because in common usage that just indicates your ethnic background.

Anyway, I still don't understand the distinctly American fascination with identifying oneself with a different culture. Americans are constantly going on about patriotism and pride for their country, yet so many seem to leap at the chance to distance themselves from it. I'm of 1/4 Irish descent, but I don't mention to everyone I meet, or feel that I have a connection to Ireland because of it.


It's not about making people feel like they don't belong - it's about being accurate in your definitions. If you were flown to your "homeland" and weren't able to understand the locals' language, or didn't know what the food was, could you really justify identifying yourself with that country?


Sounds nice. Fail to see the relevance though.

USA, Canada / BILL CLINTON - what do Poles think about him? [25]

No, she's still in the limelight because she wants to cling on to power. She's made it clear repeatedly that her political ambition is huge, and I strongly suspect that if this was not the case, she would have left Bill shortly after the Lewinsky scandal (especially considering that he had already been suspected of previous infidelity).

USA, Canada / BILL CLINTON - what do Poles think about him? [25]

Just to clear up the common misconception:

Despite the fact that the public was obsessed only with his affair, the real reason it was a political issue was because of his perjury on the matter - an offence that can carry a prison sentence.

Having said that, it was still blown out of proportion, especially when we look at all of the illegal activities Mr Bush has engaged in since coming to office.

Continue.