Instrumental form in Polish

£ódź is a city=D

Wow, Davey, what are you telling me? ;)

OK, I forgot about that one. It is still "łódź" rather than "statek" despite its large size ;)

that wolud probably be said in Lwow in 1929.we say lodzia(sorry i have no polish letters in my keyboard)
grzegorz was right

so was darius - if you read the whole thread


you don't have to have polish letters on your PC - just above the reply box - they are all there thanx to admin ;)

£odzią.that's better.ty mufasa.


he wasn't in this case but everything else is correct or...maybe i didn't understand something?

oh, i see - maybe he was just human and had a typo - like we all do sometimes ;)

you are correct, I guess I got too happy with the Polish characters driver I installed a few days ago so I went wild with that ALT key. My version was an obvious typo. A funny one at that :)

[quote=rafik]i have no polish letters in my keyboard)
grzegorz was right[/rafik]
I posted a link to the above driver in the appropriate thread. Makes it easier than some ALT + a HEX value.

lol :P

As I have said, a łódź is duża whereas a statek is wielki.

well lodka is small lodz is big as a statek is HUUUUUGE!

Merged: Nominative to instrumental?

As an exercise I was given a series of sentences to rewrite changing the structure and grammar from nominative to instrumental:
'Jan pracuje jako nauczyciel' (Jan works as a teacher).
'Jan jest nauczycielem' (Jan is a teacher).

Masc/Fem distinctions also appear.
Lekarka/lekarką. (f)
Inżynier/inżynierem. (m)
Policjant/policjantem. (m)

Here are examples of which I am unsure:
Beata pracuje jako sprzedawczyni.
?Beata jest sprzedawczyniką?

Maria pracuje jako psycholog.
Maria jest psychologką

Iwona pracuje jako księgowa.
Iwona jest księgowaką

I'm fairly sure the above 3 are wrong.
If someone could correct them and explain the reason/rule (or exception to rule) it would be a great help to mr.

Also Uczeń becomes Uczniem (masc nominative to instrumental)
Does the female nominative Uczennica become uczenniką ?

sprzedawczynią
psychologiem *
księgową
uczennicą

So generally, masculine nouns in instrumental case get the ending -em/-iem, while for the female nouns the final "-a" changes to "-ą" (probably there are exceptions, but I don't have the time to think about it right now).

You are trying to add -k to those forms, but you got the wrong impression, form the "lekarką" example.
-k ending has nothing to do with the instrumental case.

(Nominative) lekarz - lekarka (here the masculine -rz ending becomes -rka in the female variant, so this ending (-ka) serves often to make a female version of a male noun (especially words borrowed from the Latin), but many words (especially those with Slavic roots) that have existed in a female form for long time have different endings.

psycholog/psychologiem * - identical (masculine) forms for both male and female!
That's the patriarchic tradition, where many jobs were reserved to men only, now, with the social changes of the XX and XXI centuries, the language is simply "too slow" it doesn't change quick enough to describe the new reality (women excersing the previously "men-only" professions), so some words are still existing only in the male forms, some have had official female variants (like lekarka) for quite a long time, some got the female variants recently (filozof - filozofka), some are still considered (by my ortographic dictionary) as colloquial (for example psycholożka) or incorrect. As you may see "-ka" ending is popular here for the female versions.

You had male form used in nominative, so it has to be psychologiem, but if the nominative sentence was
"Maria pracuje jako psycholożka", then the instrumental would be "Maria jest psycholożką".
(You can see the same in English, actor-actress, waiter-waitress, because those professions were allowed or even more popular among women than among men for long time. Then you have some recent addition - policeman>>policewoman, and chairman>>chairperson, but some professions have still only the male versions, if I'm not wrong: doctor, psychiatrist etc.)

That's a real curve ball I was thrown!
I was aware of the principle of 'Pani Dyrektor' (A female title and a masculine gender profession) but I was given no hint that the exercise contained anything other than varients of the same process.

Thanks,
Krzysztof.

Are you taking a course or are you self-teaching through a certain book?

I'm taking one-to-one lessons (internet skype connection).
Before the lesson I receive an e-mail with attachments of pdf/audio files. The tutor and I work through the material and I listen to the audio files to aid my 'homework'.

As well as this method I use some self teaching materials (books, websites) and find the input of others invaluable.
Especially the feedback and direction I am given by the members of this forum.

Merged: Using the Instrumental case between two inaminate nouns A and B

Until the other day I was fairly clear on how and when to use the Instrumental case. But then I hit a snag... If 'one inanimate thing A' is 'another inaminate thing B' which 'thing, A or B' is put into the Instrumental case? One can say A is B, or B is A. In English there is no problem. But in Polish... For example:

The biggest obstacle was the Church. I translated this in an essay I was writing as: Najlepsza przeszkoda była Kościołem. My Polish Internet teacher marked this as being wrong. She said, and of course I do not doubt her, that the sentence should have been: Najlepszą przeszkodą był Kościoł. However, she had difficulty in explaining why Church/Kościoł is in the Nominative case and obstacle/przeszkodą is in the Instrumental case. What are the rules of Instrumental usage in such cases? Or would Polish people avoid the Instrumental construction/difficulty/confusion and find a different way of expressing the same idea? Any help in resolving this problem area for me would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

Not "najlepszą" but "największą".

This is a very advanced question. The problem is not about syntax (which is OK in both sentences) but about semantics. I can explain it to you, but it will be long and difficult. I hope you know the difference between syntax and semantics... Are you sure you will feel like reading and analysing it?

If you know the theme-rheme (or topic-focus) distinction, then, it will be a bit shorter.

It can also be najlepszą depending on the context.

No, it can't. "Najlepszą" means "the best".

Yes, and that might be what was meant.

If he meant "the best obstacle", he would write "the best obstacle", not "the biggest obstacle", I assume.
Anyway, I've never heard of good and bad obstacles. It just doesn't go together.

If I might risk making an ass of myself...

I believe that you can say

Osioł to nieudacznik
rather than
Osioł jest nieudacznikiem
or
Nieudacznik jest osłem


The best obstacle on an obstacle course - that might be the thing made out of rope that you have to climb along without falling into a big muddy puddle underneath.

Hi Switezianka - Yes, you are quite right - I meant to write największą (the biggest, or most important). I had written this sentence in the context of women's rights. Certainly in France the Roman Catholic Church was a major obstacle to women achieving equality. Be that as it may, yes, I would be very interested in your answer to this very advanced question. I thought it could well be a question of semantics. Yes I understand the difference between syntax and semantics :-) If you wish please email me the explanation, unless you feel other PF members would benefit from the explanation as well. ( I am sure some members would :-).) I look forward to receiving your explanation either in my email inbox or via PF. Many thanks for your initial response.

I'd certainly like to read Switezianka's explanation here, if possible! And I'm very grateful to her for introducing me to the word 'rheme':)

My own stumbling thoughts on the subject are that being "the biggest obstacle" is an aspect/characteristic of "Church", but this cannot apply vice versa.

Perhaps in the same way, in Pawel jest prawnikiem, being "a lawyer" is an aspect/characteristic of Pawel, but "Pawel" cannot conceptually be an aspect/characteristic of being "a lawyer". Of course, you could have an emphatic sentence, "The lawyer is Pawel", but perhaps that is too "demonstrative" (?) to invoke the instrumental... Prawnik, to Pawel ???!

Anyway, my head hurts! Thanks for a helpful thread:)

I want Switezianka's explanation too. Don't just tell us it's difficult and then leave us without any help. Some of us have reached expert level already. Okay, maybe not some of us, but certainly some people.

Great. I am very happy that you aren't another complete grammar ignorant who wants to get some advanced knowledge. It happened to me several times on this forum, that I answered advanced questions (but that's the most difficult I've found) and it came out that the people who asked them didn't understand very basic grammar terms I used.

So, I'll try to explain the problem in a way directed at someone who can deal with grammar.

Part 1.

If you've got a sentence like "John likes Mary", it answers 2 questions (about Noun Phrases): "Who does John like?" and "Who likes Mary". Quite obvious.

But in Polish we've got those damned cases. So, let's see how it goes in Polish.
Jaś lubi Marysię (John likes Mary), answers the following questions:
1)Kto lubi Marysię? (Who likes Mary; answer: Jaś)
2)Kogo lubi Jaś? (Who does John like?; answer: Marysię)

The answer to the "Kto?" (who) in q.1 is "Jaś". Both the words "kto?" and "Jaś" are in nominative case.

The answer to the "kogo?" (who, whom) in q.2. is "Marysię" - and both "kogo?" and "Marysię" are in accusative case.

So, we can see, that when we ask about a certain word in a sentence, the question word and the answer are in the same case

Let's take our problematic sentence:
The biggest obstacle was the church.

It's got 2 NPs: "the biggest obstacle" and "the church". So, in English, it answers 2 questions:
What was the biggest obstacle?
What was the church?

But in Polish it's a bit different.
Największą przeszkodą był Kościół , it answers questions:
1) Czym był Kościół? (ans: "największą przeszkodą")
(What was the church?)
2) Co było największą przeszkodą? (ans: Kościół) (What was the biggest obstacle?)

BUT...

"What was the church?" can in Polish be either "Czym (instr.) był kościół (nom.)?" or "Co (nom.) było kościołem (instr.)".

The same with "what was the biggest obstacle?" it can be either "Co (nom.) było największą przeszkodą (instr.)?" or "Czym (instr.) była największa przeszkoda (nom.)?"

Of course, the Noun Phrases of the answer to each of those question take case according to the cases in the questions they answer.

And how to know which of those question to answer?
It's the matter of semantics.

If you ask: Co było największą przeszkodą?, it means you want to identify the "obstacle".

If you ask Czym była największa przeszkoda? it is more like asking about some noun that would describe the "obstacle".

But sentence discussed is surely about identifying the "biggest obstacle". So, you must ask "Co", not "Czym?" and the answer would be "kościół", not "kościołem".

But I think that to get the semantic difference, you need more examples:

"Co jest twoim hobby?" (What's your hobby?)
"Wędkowanie" (fishing)

"Czym jest twoje hobby?"
"Sposobem na odprężenie się" (It's a way to relax)

"Kto jest lekarzem?" (Who's the doctor?)
"Grzesiek."

"Kim jest lekarz?" (Who's a doctor)
"Człowiekiem, który leczy ludzi" (A person who heals people).

"Kto będzie naszym nowym szefem?" (Who will be our new boss?)
"Andrzej."

"Kim będzie nasz nowy szef?"
"Niewyżytym sadystą"? (An unappeased sadist.)

But, why the hell is the nominative case not in the beginning of the sentence, as usual, but it goes after the copula?

I'll write it tomorrow. But word-order in Polish affects the meaning, too.

Hi again Switezianka!
Many thanks for the clear and well-expressed explanation (Part 1 :-) Your added examples towards the bottom of the explanation are really helpful. I've read it through several times and I think I have the hang of it. Polish is a lovely language, but oh so complicated :-) But being complicated makes it all that more interesting and challenging! I look forward to Part 2. I guess word order in Polish just had to affect the meaning of a sentence as well :-) Haha.

Yes it does. In the good old days of Communism, Polish people had to apply for a visa to visit the United Kingdom. That is just one very good example of a 'good obstacle'. I am sure that you too could think of many more should you sit down and think hard and long enough.

Just another approach (without Polish grammar):
You should learn Latin :)
Look at the English sentence first.
The biggest obstacle was the Church. (Największą przeszkodą był Kościoł.)
vs.
The Church was the biggest obstacle. (Kościoł był największą przeszkodą.)

The 2nd sentence has, IMHO, the natural order, for the English language, of Subject + Verb + ? (dunno how to call it in English).
You can say "Paul was an electrician", but "An electrician was Paul" doesn't sound good to me.
The Church/obstacle combination gives you the possibility to switch the order, but the Church remains the logical subject of the sentence.
You can say for example "the Church was acting as the main/biggest obstacle"
or "the role of the biggest obstacle was played by the Church"
- using passive voice you can clearly see which part is active (Church - logical subject) and which is passive (the biggest obstacle - grammatical subject)