Life / Problems for Dual Earner Families in Poland (and rest of EU) [19]

Natasia, very nicely written: literate and descriptive.

News / Poland Remembers start of WW2 [200]

It's good to remember history in order to learn its many lessons.

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Proszę Bardzo, z_darius and Lyzko, for taking the time to clarify this.


I meant DZIĘKUJĘ !

Obviously I need you for more than pronoun issues!

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Hi Bondi,

Which "European languages" besides Polish use third person to address someone?

It suprises me that second person plural should be used in Polish for informal. You say Russians do as well. In other languages I have studied, the second-person PLURAL is formal and the second person SINGULAR is informal. You seem to suggest that this is reversed in Polish. Am I correctly understanding you?

I never heard that historically, English "you" was plural and "thou" was singular. If you have a reference for where you learned that, I would be interested to see it. I do think, as you do, that the lack of a plural "you" in English is a shortcoming. There are ways around it, as you demonstrate, yes, but none of them would be as good as a plural "you." The ways you write all seem rather informal, casual, some even backward.

The lack of a formal and informal "you," however, I think is grand. One never has to make the decision which one to use, there are no errors, and on the psychological level, it points to an inherent equality among persons. I made other comments earlier in this thread about that--see post # 14. Interesting that English, with its egalitarian "you," should have developed in England, where a social class system was historically--and still--so prominent.

Perhaps you are Hungarian. Lately I've been reading Andre Edy. Wish I could read him in the original. My real favorite, however, is Miklos Radnoti. His sensitive, melancholy verse is so touching. My favorite begins: "The moon hangs on a clouded sky/ I am surprised that I live/ Anxiously and with great care death looks for us/ And those it finds are all terribly white." (From Tajtekos eg)

Thanks for writing.

Thanks for your input, Lyzko.

Your thoughts differ from Bondi's, in that you say "ye" was historically the English plural, whereas Bondi has "you" as the historical plural. And then there is poor I who never even knew that English once had a plural "you." I wish that I had taken a class on the history of the English language. I will have to be nice to the linguists in my life, maybe I'll take them out to lunch next week and wear my good perfume. Then I can pick their brains about all this "you" stuff. I'll announce the luncheon as a social engagement, a chance to catch up with each other, or as we say in America, to "touch base." Then I'll slowly veer the conversation onto the topic of "you." Most people are all too pleased to talk about themselves, so they will welcome my ventures into the vast territory of "you", which of course they will interpret as referring to themselves. That should provide a good seguay to this grammar issue, and by the time the luncheon is over, they will be sorry they ever met me, good perfume or no good perfume.

Well, as we say, "A girl's gotta do what she's gotta do." I can't get ALL my knowledge from books, can I? That's too boring.

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]


Lyzko, do you mean that someone will use a PLURAL to address ONE person? In other words, use a plural for a singular meaning?

Truly that seems strange to me, but I hope it answers your question, Polonius3.

niejestemcapita: sorry you were offended. I don't think Lyzko meant to insult anyone. Here in the states, I'm very impressed by the good quality of English spoken and written by the Poles I know. Of course, they have an advantage that the Polish in Poland lack, namely being surrounded by the English language here. When they apologize to me for their English, I respond to them, "Your English is better than my Polish," and we all laugh.

The biggest semantic error I hear the Polish make in their English is getting the word order right for questions. But that goes for ALL the different foreigners I hear speaking English. Proper English question form REVERSES some words, but most foreigners simply make a statement and raise their voice at the end of it to show that it is a question. Of course everyone here understands, but I listen carefully and I notice this again and again.

Today I read my Polish friend's written English. He was writing directly to a woman about something she had written, and whereas a native English speaker would write "you," he used instead the third person for her, referring to her as "the writer." Because of all we discussed above on this post, for the first time I understood WHY he was writing like that. Needless to say, he was expressing himself as one would do in a polite way in Polish.

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Lyzko (or do you prefer Marek?):

Wow. Unbelievable. Strangest for me is when proper nouns change, since there seems something inviolable about a name. I guess that certain case declensions are heard over and over, while others rarely. That should make it easier. If you are studying the language in Poland, then the world is your classroom. Obviously you are dedicated, and as you indicated, you are a lover of languages. By your 50th in November, may you be in your mastery of Polish where you have set your goal. I would be interested to know your native language and your motivation for learning Polish.

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]

Well, Seanus,

The Middle East issue waxes and wanes, but ever since Eve ate that apple (or was it a Middle-East pomegranate?), the me issue is what most of us self-absorbed creatures focus on.

I think all decent persons would agree with you that egregious harm should be addressed immediately. However, if an English teacher will forgive my cliché, "better late than never."

sjam: So interesting. Thank you. I'll respond as soon as I can.

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]

Hi sjam,

Thank you for clarifying that Wajda made a film about Katyn. I was not familiar with that, as you could see from my reply...which just underscores the point that people outside of Poland are not familiar with the Katyn massacre.

Yes, I think you're right about Middle East! Two periods would have made that clear.

Interesting that you publish books. If you write your publishing house's website address, I would be interested to see your titles. It surprises me that you find Americans do not read British English, because I have never heard anyone here in America object to it.

You may be interested in investigating the work of Father Patrick Desbois. He is a French priest who has been interviewing witnesses in Ukraine about Nazi atrocities there. Like Katyn, large mass graves have been found all over Ukraine into which the Nazis shot their victims and covered them over with earth, many while still alive. The witnesses report that it took several days for these graves to stop moving. Gruesome, yes. There is much information online about this and the work of Father Desbois. Like Katyn, this is little known.

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Greetings Ziemowit, axid, and all others reading this discussion:

Thank you gentlemen for your recent comments and inquiries!

Ziemowit, the reason nous are capitalized in paper headlines is that in titles, ALL words are capitalized. Headlines are titles, that's all. The exception is that small "insignificant" words like "a," "the," "on," "of," etc. do not need to be capitalized unless the title begins with the word. Otherwise capitalizing it is optional.

The only nouns that are capitalized within regular sentences that are not titles are the nouns called "proper" nouns, which are the names of things. For example, we would write "tall building," but Empire State Building. We would write "a long bridge," but "Golden Gate Bridge." English is NOT like German, where ALL nouns are capitalized.

There is a grey area when it comes to capitalizing proper nouns when they are made into adjectives. My grammar book says, "Capitalize proper nouns (those naming specific persons, places, and things) and proper adjectives (those formed from proper nouns)." However, many people, including scholars, do not capitalize many adjectives formed from proper nouns unless they are place names. For example, they would write "a New York man." But English capitalizes the word "Bible," and most scholars do not capitalize the adjective form. For example they would write, "The biblical book of James says faith without works is dead." I had always learned to capitalize adjectives formed from proper nouns, so I brought this up with one of my college professors, and he told me just to be consistent throughout my paper, whichever way I chose.

axid, as I think I made clear before, I know of no tradition of capitalizing "you." If you are still in contact with the teacher who taught you that, I would be interested to know where she/he got that rule from. I never heard of it. It sounds nicely polite, though!

Your British spelling (note my capital of the adjective "British") does not surprise me, because many Europeans learn British English. Our neighbors to the north, the Canadians, use it also. Regarding British dialect words,I'm not sure what you mean by that, but as long as you are understood by those to whom you're talking, in my opinion that's the important thing. By the way, remember never to make English adjectives plural; in your sentence, you put an "s" on "dialect[s]" to make it match the plural "words," but there is no such agreement in English.

I have noticed random capitalization not only in older poetry, but ALSO in older prose. As I wrote, I recently saw it in a LETTER by Keats. I think he's more regular in his poems, or at least his editors are. (I hope you all look at some of the wonderful poetry in English; I love reading the Polish poets, and would certainly welcome suggestions for Polish poets to look for.)

(Did you notice how I just wrote "you all?" In such a way English speakers make "you" plural, thereby making up for the lack of a plural "you" in English.)

axid it's interesting that you are an atheist, and yet very interested in religions. That seems to be contradictory, and yet I can understand it. Being an atheist does not mean that one is not spiritual. There are different ways of being spiritual. I hope you do start a new discussion about this. This is, afterall, a site for tolerance and discussion. Let me know if you do. If you don't, I'll consider writing you an e-mail if I get less busy than I am now. I'll play it by ear. (Do you know that very common idiom? English has THOUSANDS of idioms.)

A final word to everyone: If these types of language issues interest you, you should have a "handbook," which is a concise guide to what is correct in English. A common one is the Harbrace College Handbook. Most college students acquire this or a similar handbook in their first year of college.

My best to you all ~ Genvieve

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]


True, True, True, Seanus.


I'll tell the world leaders to knock on your door next time and consult you!


The "ME issue?" I don't know what you're referring to, other than the fact that most people's lives are centered around the "Me issue!" Seems to be human nature!

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Witamy, Axid. I see that you're a new member. (I am too.)

I never heard of a rule that "You" or any other pronoun besides "I" be capitalized. Certainly that is not currently the practice. HOWEVER, standardization in the English language came only relatively recently, and before that, norms for written English were nonexistent. People wrote however they wanted, they wrote as words sounded to them. The first English dictionary, which standardized spelling, was compiled in the eighteenth century by Samuel Johnson. Before that, the spelling was crazy! (It still is, but now it's standardized crazy!)

Recently I was looking at a poem by nineteenth-century poet William Blake, and a letter by nineteenth-century poet John Keats. In both of them, I came across capitalized words, which capitals appeared to followed no pattern. These writers capitalized words in the middle of sentences, for which I could find no reason. Their capitalization just seemed random. No doubt part of this was the result of all writing then being handwritten rather than typed. I think that lends itself to more idiosyncrasy. I also noticed bad spelling in Keats, which is maybe surprising for one of the world's greatest poets, but in those days this was not such an issue.

I suspect that the capitalized "You"'s which you found were just part of this pattern of randomness, of writers not much caring about the rules, which were less enforced in those days, if the rules even existed at all. Perhaps these writers you mention capitalized "you" in some places and not in others, just like the random capitals in Blake and Keats I mentioned. Grammarians of the nineteenth or early twentieth century (I forget which) started imposing uniform standards of grammar on the written language, very much along the lines of Latin grammar, which some linguists say does not fit English.

I notice that your own spelling is British, rather than American. I find it humorous that you ask me to ask someone "elder" about capitals in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, as though even the oldest person I could find would have been alive then!

What you write about no religious tolerance in Poland surprises and disappoints me. No, this isn't the place for that discussion--so let me know if you start a new discussion about that (why don't you?) or feel free to send me an e-mail or private message about this here on the site.

Best wishes,
Genvieve

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]

Seanus,

Your point is well taken that actions speak louder than words. It's true, compared with actions, words are easy and cheap. The famous statement in the biblical book of James comes to mind: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (2:26).

That being so, I think we would both agree anyway that words and ideas are powerful, and throughout history have brought about massive change. "The pen is mightier than the sword." Words are not an unfailing solution, but they are a STEP; sometimes they are all we have. As the AIDS activists used to say, and it is relevant also in cases of genocide, "Silence = Death."

On your other point that history DOES repeat itself even when we know history: that is all too true. We need only look at our own lives to see its truth, for we keep making the same mistakes over and over, even though we know what our mistakes are. All the same, similar to what I said above about words, it is STILL better to know. That is a step. At least knowing gives us a chance to improve, a chance for bad history not to repeat, a better chance than could be had in a state of unknowing, of unawareness. That is why I have complemented the men on this site who have been writing about this genocide.

A final point: Maybe Wajda got the message out on this site, but his mesage stayed in the Polish community. People who are not Polish are largely UNAWARE of the Katyn genocide. Like other genocides, the WORLD needs to know.

"Time to stop barking and start biting." How do you suggest that be done?

Best wishes,
Genvieve

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Lyzko,

I'm pleased to hear about the Poles' tolerance towards those who are learning their language. I love that attitude of tolerance in general. It is so necessary a quality in the pluralistic world we live in. Poland had a long history of religious tolerance as well, allowing freedom to different religions when Western Europe was burning "heretics." In this case it gives me more courage to speak your language!

~ Genvieve

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]

1jola, I looked at that Katyń site, the memorial. It's helpful to see all those photos and the primary documents. Very moving. I e-mailed the link to several people.

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]

sjam and 1jola:

Thank you for the links that you put up. This morning I read both the Los Angeles Times article and the Wikipedia article on Blokhin. Very informative. The killing hardware may have been German, but it is clear in both reports that Stalin the Russian was the master- mind here. I am going to print these articles and/or pass on the links to others.

Who can understand such incidents? All too common throughout human history. It is healthy for humanity for such atrocities to become known and studied. So keep up your efforts to do so.

History / 1940 massacre of Poles remains potent issue [35]

sjam: Keep trying to publicize this incident. Anytime there is evil like this, it should be made widely known. "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." I just learned about this myself recently, and I should have known about it many years ago. This tragedy needs to come out of the closet.

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Dziękuję Cinek!

You are so helpful and nice to give me all these ways to greet my friend. No doubt he will never guess all the effort I took to do it well! In style! Thanks to people like you.

Another Polish friend who practically lives in church told me that I could also combine, and write: "pamietam o Tobie Ojcze w modlitwie." She thought that would be the nicest way of all.

I see that in Polish you capitalize these nouns and pronouns of address. That is something for me to get used to, since it is not done in English, except in the case of the pronoun "I." (We are such egoists.)

As you no doubt know, however, the hardest part of learning the Slavic languages is learning the changing endings of the nouns according to their case. Oh that one's a killer! A deal breaker! I was in Eastern Europe shortly after Communism ended, so the people then were not used to hearing foreigners trying to speak their language. I provided them with a lot of entertainment and laughs!

Thank you again,
Genvieve

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

Thank you very much, everyone. I am touched by your responsiveness to my query, and also impressed by your interest and knowledge about this subject. Today I called a Polish friend of mine, and she said the same thing that you did, Chi, that "Tobie" for him would be fine. So now I can give him my letter!

I also asked my Polish friend about a subject form of "Tobie" for a priest, and she said that "Ty" would be too informal. I find that perplexing, because it seems to me that "Ty" and "Tobie" are the subject and object (or ablative?) forms of the SAME WORD. So why would "Tobie" be fine for him and "Ty" not fine?

She also said that I could write "Pamietam o Ojcu w modlitwie," because he is a priest. Here we see the use of the third person when addressing someone, in place of the second person. As we have been discussing, that is something unique in the Polish language--though as benszymanski pointed out, in very rare circumstances it might be done in English. I asked my Polish friend whether there are ANY subject ("nominative") forms of "You" that would be suitable for a priest, and she could not think of a single one, other than, as stated, the 3rd-person Ojcze used as a form of "You." In other languages I have studied, the plural "You" can ALSO be used as the formal singular "You." Apparently that is not the case in Polish.

Interesting from a historical point of view this formal and informal "You"--because in previous ages, the world was more divided by class systems. Of course our world still is, but very gradually the strict separations between the classes become less prominent. I think about the American Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal." This is a liberal ideal from the Age of Englightenment. You can find something similar expressed in the biblical book of Galatians, chapter 3, verse 28, and Ephesians, chapter 6 verse 9.

Native English speakers have no personal experience with the formal and informal "You," so for us it presents a particular stumbling block. Again, I much appreciate everyone's thoughts here. ~ Genvieve

Language / Formal "you" and Informal "you" : which is which? [46]

I appreciate your responses, everyone. Thank you. Chi, "Panu" seems to me too formal, because although he was my professor, we also have had a friendly relationship. Maybe I'm just used to the easy, all-are-equal English "You." So, since "Was" is only for plural now, as gumishu wrote (that is very helpful for me to know), is "Tobie" suitable for me to use? This man is also a Catholic priest.

Thank you,
Genvieve