Language / Do you think there is something like Warsaw accent ? [29]


Don't people from LA think the same? If they don't, they should, they're after all from the City of Angels ...

Language / Do you think there is something like Warsaw accent ? [29]


Personally, I think Jan Pietrzak, one of the top cabaret performers in Poland, is stylishing this song to something that might look a song in "Warsaw" accent. But in true fact, he is mixing different characteristics in it (he pronounces the dark "ł" once or twice, he uses once the pre-1939 ending "-em" instead of "-ym" [o życiu złamanem]). The lyrics to the song were written by a renown poet Agnieszka Osiecka (1936-1997).

Information on "gwara warszawska": https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwara_warszawska
----------
One of the examples of gwara warszawska was the local name for "Plac Kercelego", that is Kercelak (a famous pre-war market place which doesn't exist today) which my grandfather who learned his profession in Warsaw in the 1930s brought home to his sub-Warsaw village, in the form of Kiercelak, with the characteristic "kie" instead of "ke".

Language / Gdybym...łbyś [16]

Two things have been confounded here: the Polish imperfective versus imperfective aspect, and the English "real" (2nd conditional) versus "unreal" (3rd conditional) past. While both sentences above should be translated using the former or the latter depending on the context, the one which in Polish precisely matched the 3rd conditional in English would be:

Gdybym był za/śpiewał, byłabyś za/płakała.

This is called czas zaprzeszły (the Polish equivalent of the Past Perfect, and is no longer in modern use. Still, if you did use use it, no one could challenge you've made a mistake! One could only be surprised how poetic you are and how charming (maybe a little old-fashioned, too) your way of expressing things is!

Language / CO and TO,CO - what [15]

Yes, it is. To make it easier, let's go to the four examples (slightly modified) given in your original post.


In the first three of them, you are indicating a limited set of items or things (you want to feel a limited number of things, namely those that others "feel"; you want to protect a limited number of things, namely those which are important to you; you advise someone to choose items to wear only out of those your friend has at her disposal at a particular moment).

In the fourth example, you are indicating an unlimited set of possibilities that a person might be exercising at the moment you are making your statement; you have no idea whatsever what these could be.

Language / CO and TO,CO - what [15]

It's really not that much; you won't be that happy as you think ...

Language / CO and TO,CO - what [15]

Notice the two pair of sentences:
I. Everything I have belongs to you. / Wszystko co mam, należy do ciebie.
II. Everything that I have belongs to you. / Wszystko to, co mam, należy do ciebie.

The paralel between English and Polish is probably not fully exact, but gives a certain idea. The difference in meaning between Polish sentences I and II is almost insignificant. We would typically say type I here, as this one is probably more general in meaning, implying an indefinite set of objects, both those one has already in possesion as well as those one would acquire in the forseeable future. Type II stresses a somewhat more limited set, tending to indicate concrete things. That's why in another situation we would usually say: "Ubierz to, co chcesz" (rather than "Ubierz, co chcesz") as one is usually adviced to choose a piece of clothes from those that she or he has at their disposal in the given circimstances.

Language / CO and TO,CO - what [15]

This is indeed a complicated question, so I may not clear all your doubts with my answer.

The "co" is a zaimek pytajny/pytający, just like the English "what":
Co robić? Co się u was dzieje?
If you want to report the question formulated as above, the "co" becomes a zaimek względny.
Nie wiem, co robić. Chciałbym wiedzieć, co się u was dzieje.
There is no need to put any "to" into the ordinate clause of the compound sentence.

In my view, the "to" belongs to the ordinate clause. So, if you say: "Ubierz to, co chcesz", you mean: ubierz jakąś rzecz -> ubierz tę rzecz, którą chcesz -> ubierz to [replacing: tę rzecz], co [replacing: którą] chcesz.

Often both of them (co/to, co) may express the same. In a once popular song, Krystyna Prońko sang: "Bierz co chcesz, duszę bierz; diable mój, dam ci wiersz / tylko daj, daj, daj, wielką miłość, tak prawdziwą ...". I think she might well have said: "Bierz, to co chcesz ..." just as you can say: "Ubierz co chcesz", as it in fact would be reporting of the question: "Co chcesz (ubrać)?

Language / Annę stać na samochód - Anny nie stać na samochód [6]


It is the pronoun which you've indicated: ją - jej (jego, nas, mnie, ich, ciebie, was).


Ją będzie stać na samochód / Jej nie będzie stać na samochód [future]
Ją było ... / Jej nie było ... [past]
Ją byłoby ... / Jej nie byłoby ... [conditional]

The above sentences explain it all: the most important verb here is być, so the full form of your sentence in the present tense will be:

Ją jest stać na samochód / Jej nie jest stać na samochód,
but the "być (jest)" is commonly ommited in the present tense of this type of sentence; it reveals itself when we turn to the past, future or conditional where we can't ommit the verb "być".

Language / Collective numbers - dwoje, troje, czworo [38]


Your achievements are outstanding as you've only made some minor mistakes in your text ...


As you may have noticed, I always try to put myself in the skin of a non-native speaker when I explain the pecularities of my native Polish language. I would strongly discourage the use of books such as Oscar E. Swan's "Polish Reference Grammar" for learning. They are good for reference, but it's useless to learn declinasions of whatever words from the grammatical tables of such books.

Refering to my post #8, there are at least three different grammatical concepts which are mixed up together in these four or, better say, five patterns illustrating the use of the numeral "two". These are: (a) human male vs. other-than-that gender in the plural, (b) the concept of the genetive in the role of a subject (c) the concept of collective numerals.

- Notice that concept (a) is applied to the verb in all patterns [I, IIa, IV] except the ones in which the subject is in genetive raher than in nominative [IIb, III].

- Concept (b) is applied for the two categories of groups: human male groups (as an alternative way of depicting this category), and groups of both sexes. The "genetive-for-subject" enforces the verb to give up its expected plural form and take the form of the third person of the singular instead (dwóch mężczyzn idzie/szło, dwoje dzieci ma/miało).

- Concept (c) arises from the overall "philosophy" of the Polish language. Notice that the language categorises objects in the plural on the basis of whether they are male humans or they are something else (all sorts of women included!). This undoubtedly sexist philosophy finds itself in trouble when it meets mixed groups where human males mix with human females. Will the męskoosobowy gender suit? Of course, not. Women are not like us, men. Will the niemęskoosobowy gender do? No, because we, men, are among them, we are not niemęskoosobowi. Perhaps that's why collective numbers appeared to describe mixed groups. I say, if collective numbers had not been invented, they should have been invented (to the dismay of foreign learners of Polish!). And the verb, the verb too, has adapted itself to these sexist theories, so it behaves as if the group of persons of both sexes were one neutral entity altogether (dwoje, troje, pięcioro studentów szło = ono szło = to "coś" szło / jakieś "dziwo" szło).

(I hope these explanations will help you better memorise certain principles of Polish thus leaving you with less headache and discouragemet for Christmas!)

Language / Collective numbers - dwoje, troje, czworo [38]


You can't use the "genetive for subject" construction for a "feminine" numeral+noun. So you can only say:
Dwie studentki widzą/widziały.

But you can use that for a "male" numeral+noun:
Dwaj mężczyźni idą/szli [nominative for subject],
Dwóch mężczyzn idzie/szło [genetive for subject].

You must use the singular verb for a "mixed" numeral+noun. It is the "genetive for subject" construction as well. "Dwoje dzieci" may be both nominative and genetive. But the verb which is singular suggests we have the genetive here (although some may think it is the nominative).

Dwoje dzieci ma/miało

A different pattern is used for other-than-human-male masculine nouns:
Dwa konie biegną/biegły
The verb is the same as for feminine nouns (rodzaj niemęskoosobowy), but the numeral is as simple as one can imagine [dwa], although different than in the three preceding examples.

I hope you are still alive ...

Language / Collective numbers - dwoje, troje, czworo [38]


You've been touching here one of the most difficult aspects of Polish grammar: numerals. Please try to read, using the search engine, some other threads that deal with Polish numerals in which I (along with other PF members) try to put some light on the problem.

As you said, the expression "dwoje studentów" describes two students of which one is male and the other female. If you had two male students, you would get:

a) dwaj studenci piją piwo (the subject which is in nominative is followed by the plural verb),
b) dwóch studentów pije piwo (the subject which is in genetive is followed by the singular verb).

These two sentences mean exactly the same and are equally popular in usage among native speakers. In my view it is most confusing for foreign learners of Polish, so it is good to remember these examples and try to search for them as often as possible in Polish texts or speech.

---------------
For a mixed couple:
II. Dwoje studentów pije piwo (dwoje is in nominative, studentów is in genetive, the verb is in singular).
For a female couple:
III. Dwie studentki piją piwo (the subject is in nominative, the verb is in the plural).
---------------
Your examples with cases for dwoje studentów are perfect. Congratulations on your knowledge of Polish grammar!

Language / Ambiguous words? [całkiem and zapewne] [9]

1. Jutro na pewno cię odwiedzę.
2. Jestem prawie/niemal/dość/raczej pewien, że jutro będzie padać.
3. Jestem całkowicie/absolutnie przekonany/pewien, że mam rację.
4. Jest całkiem możliwe, że masz rację / Zapewne masz rację.
5. Jest dosyć prawopodobne, że on tutaj był.

The second part is OK in my view.

Life / Correct Way to write a polish address. [7]


No, it is not. The correct way is to write street address first, then postal code followed by town name.

Mr John Smith
ul. Główna 82
00-001 Warszawa
Poland

Language / Ambiguous words? [całkiem and zapewne] [9]

Zapewne nigdy nie będziesz/nie zostaniesz milionerem.
The speaker expresses his conviction here that you will never become a millionaire, but ... it can't be excluded for sure after all, that's why the speaker prefers to use it instead of:

Na pewno nigdy nie będziesz/nie zostaniesz milionerem.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Jest całkiem prawdopodobne, że nigdy nie będziesz/nie zostaniesz milionerem.
This sentence (which is more neutral) shows that the two zapewne/całkiem have something in common, but the difference is similar to the difference in English:

--- You'll possibly never become a millionaire.
--- It's quite possible that you'll never be a millionaire.
----------------------------------------------------------------

You can't replace zapewne with całkiem in the first sentence, you might in the second one, although it will sound a bit awkward.

Language / Polish Case System [32]

Sounds interesting! Just put a sample of your work onto the PF and we'll see if it's going to be a breakthrough in understanding the Polish case systems.

Language / Dostał buta - genitive / accusative [25]


That's a very good explanation of Moonlighting.
fruits: Jem banan-a.
vegetables: Obieram ziemniak-a.
vehicles: Kupiłem sobie Mercedes-a.
curriencies: Kosztowało mnie to funt-a /dolar-a /frank-a.
games: Gram w tenis-a.
dances: Tańczę fokstrot-a.
tobaccos: Palę gauloise'-a.
technologies: Wysyłam sms-a.

As to "chleb", it belongs to neither of the above categories. It seems that masculine names of substances do not comply with the rule quoted by Moonlighting. It could be interesting to compare them to uncountable nouns of English, whereas those which take animate endings at the biernik case to countable nouns.

Jem chleb : I'm eating bread /// Jem baton-a : I'm eating a bar of chocolate
Jem ryż : I'm eating rice /// Jem banan-a : I'm eating a banana

The "chleb" in "Chleba naszego powszedniego ..." assumes an understood adverb before it: "dużo/wiele/trochę chleba naszego powszedniego", that is why it takes the ... genetive (!) rather than the accusative here.

Language / jedni? masculine plural version of jeden [10]

Jedni may be confusing. When jeden/jedna/jedno transforms itself into jedni/jedne, it looses its sense of a cardinal numeral; it becomes a plural noun with the new sense of ci/oni. Drudzy/drugie acquire the sense of tamci/inni.

Language / Dostał buta - genitive / accusative [25]


Is it? I would judge any of the native speakers of Polish who habitually said: lubię ten baton, palę papieros, jem pomidor or jem burak, as showing some mild sort of mental defficiency.

Language / Not sure if I will be able to speak Polish [53]

It does. Pronouncing "trz" as "cz" is wrong and seems to be strictly personal rather than dialectical. I used to have a teacher from the Poznań area who did this, but I've never met anyone else from Wielkopolska doing alike since then. This pronounciation is mocked in a very well-known cabaret sketch on Polish pre-war Jews. Two of them were speaking on the phone on business matters and were confusing words in a funny way (łyżew instead of wyżeł, bulgot instead of buldog, jajnik instead of jamnik). The caller was initially asking the operator to put him through to number "czydzieści czy" (33), giving the operator his own telephone number of "czysta czydzieści czy" (333).

Genealogy / meaning of: rewolucjoniści polscy [8]


Reactionary Polish revolutionists? What does that mean?

Your GM was lucky enough to return to PL. Some of the pre-war Polish communists were murdered in the USSR by Stalin's security forces. Those communist leaders who were imprisoned in Poland before 1939 for their communist activity saved their life thanks to that (it was, for example, the case of Władysław Gomułka, if I'm not mistaken).

Genealogy / meaning of: rewolucjoniści polscy [8]

She might have been one of the members of the KPP (Komunistyczna Partia Polski). I think a number of them went to the USSR before the WWII at the call of Joseph Stalin.

Language / Dostał buta - genitive / accusative [25]


I try to find an explanation for it. A vague (and not necessarily accurate one) could be that non-personal masculine nouns/objects used by the humans for consuming take the same ending in the accusative as personal masculine nouns (hypothesis to be challenged).

Lubię tego batona, palę papierosa, jem pomidora, kalafiora, buraka (but: jem chleb, not: jem chleba, but: chleba naszego powszedniego daj nam dzisiaj).

Language / Polish Phonology. [14]

Now that I come to think of it again, in seems to me that there isn't really any "certain consonants+j" thing in Polish. Most consonants before the "j" are just soft ones as they would have been before the "i". The reason why we write wjechać or objaw or objazd is that we can't write it as wiechać or obiaw or obiazd because there exist a principal rule in Polish which says that we should stick to the original writing of core words in compound words such as objaw. The core word in it is jawa/jawić, so any of the derivative words should retain the j in them: ob+jaw, z+jawa. We pronounce objaw as if it were written obiaw; an interesting thing is with the word zjawa - I would never say we pronounce it as if it were written ziawa, as ziawa and zjawa would be different pronounciations. It is perhaps here where the problem "consonant+j" versus "soft consonant" is clearly visible.

P.S. "Olimpjskich" is definitely a mistake.

Language / Polish Phonology. [14]

I don't think there is any difference now. The letter i is used to mark the softeness of the preceding vowel. It is a matter of convention that we use the letter i rather than the letter j to mark the softeness of a consonant (the Russians, for example, use a special soft sign for that). It is true that before 1939 they wrote the j in foreign words such as armja. Later this distinction was abandoned as there was no real need for that (it remains [sic!] in the declined cases as we spell armii, but we spell ziemi). Maybe the pre-1939 Poles pronounced it as armja, so it should sound a bit like arm'ja (saying the soft m first and adding the j after it) or it should sound as arm+ja, which would altogether be different from arm'a (= armia) indeed; today it would sound ridiculous.

I don't think you will find any words in contemporary Polish that use the spelling pj, bj, mj, fj in them. Or if you do find them, please let me know. You will, however, find words like wjechał, and this shows that the pronounciation w+j is possible along with the pronounciation wi (w') as in the word wiecha; the pronounciation is different in both, although may be the same when you tell wjechał quickly.

Language / Polish Phonology. [14]


What nasal vowel do you pronounce in the word awans?

History / Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich viceroy of Poland - What do you think of him? [11]

Roughly, and without consulting any of the books, I may say that the Wielki Książe Konstanty, under which name he is known in Poland, is not much praised here. He is judged to be a man who all too often violated the constitution which was awarded together with the autonomy to the [Congress of Vienna 1815] Kingdom of Poland by the Russian tsar. I remember I read somewhere that Duke Constanty used to humilate officers of the kingdom army during the endless army parades which often led them to commit suicide. The November 1830 insurgents tried to kill him in the Belvedere Palace in Warsaw, but he managed to escape in the clothes of a lady. However, it is a historical fact that thanks to his effort, the kingdom army was so good that it was able to attack and resist the forces of the army of the Russian Empire with success. Some historians even say that the 1830 Uprising had a real chance to win the independence for Poland from the Romanovs' Empire had it not been for the numerous political divisions among the Polish leaders of the Uprising at the time. I also read somewhere that the Grand Duke Constanty in the depths of his heart had supported the Polish forces against the Russians, and was proud every time when - in spite of everything else - "his", after all, congresional army was defeating the Russian forces of his powerful "big brother". I think he had some hopes to install his own autonomous hereditory rule in Poland. When the 1830 Uprising collapsed, he was - as far as I can remember - recalled back to Russia by the tsar.

USA, Canada / "Zaklęci w czasie" [7]

"Dead end" is "ślepa ulica" or "zaułek" indeed. Why did they add "śmierci" to it? As a movie title, it probably looks more cool with it than without.

A funny story comes to my mind when speaking of titles. My French teacher was once trying in vain to translate the French title "Autant en emporte le vent" into Polish. She was stuck at it, but the group who knew much less of French than she did, arrived at it at once: "Przeminęło z wiatrem" ("Gone with the wind"). It shows that even a relatively small change in the sense of the meaning of a widely known title may confuse the reader.

USA, Canada / "Zaklęci w czasie" [7]


But it is common practice in every country to change a title of a movie so that it sounds better in their language. I don't think the title "Żona podróżnika w czasie" or a similar one would sound that good in Polish as "Zaklęci w czasie".

Another example of a title not matching the original one which comes to my mind is the title of the British TV series "Keeping Up Appearances" which in Poland was shown under the "Co ludzie powiedzą!?" title.

Anyone can tell more examples?

History / Valenza. "It is to fools we owe the minors joys of life" [14]


I will have mercy on you not to quote Russian sources that give unprecedented examples of brutality and torture commited every day on innocent people by the Russian militia (police). You must clearly be a faithful believer in Putin and the KGB!

History / Valenza. "It is to fools we owe the minors joys of life" [14]

KonstantineK is truly unbeatable at his sarcastic derision of Poland! I was just going to point his attention to the recent developments in Russia concerning Russian high rank police officers (!!!) publishing evidence on the internet about how rotten and corrupt the entire police force in Russia are, but I was suddenly stuck at his most strange spelling of the name Wałęsa (Valenza according to Kostek) which made me think at first that he was talking of the Spanish city of Valencia!

May Providence lead KosteK to a more careful spelling of foreign surnames in the future!