Language / Instrumental and byc - Polish grammar issue [46]

Oh, I think that asking "why" is the whole fun of learning! And because many European languages come from the same root, it's even more interesting. There was an intrumental case in Old English and Old German, there was one in Sanskrit and even Latin had "instrumental ablative", a different case conveying the same meaning. I probably don't need to mention that in Russian you use intrumental pretty much the same as in Polish.

If you look at a handy grammar table (such as this excellent little thing here - lsa.umich.edu/slavic/dept/WebBasedLanguage/Polish/Grammar/CaseSummary/Instrumental.htm) it's hard to show any logic governing usage. Like what's the similiarity between intrumental in the sentences "Idzie z mamą", "Pisze piórem", "Stoi na ławce" and "Jest kobietą"? I don't really think that it's just arbitrary. Otherwise all those people in different languages wouldn't bother to copy that in their speech. It seems there must be something - it's just that I didn't find it yet:)

Language / Polish grammar, are these sentences correct? Najnowszy film kustariki ... [6]

Hey katiekustard28, let me not say anything about the first two sentences, because the verb "zawiódł" in this context is borderline grammatical, but 3-6 are fine. 3-4 are not semantically equivalent (in 4th sentence "Jego" cannot possibly refer to John). And 5th is clumsy, but grammatically correct - I'd say "Piłka Marka" and not "Marka piłka".

Edit: one more thing. If Jego means "john's" in the 4th sentence then it is grammatically incorrect. It's about how you arrange topics in a sentence, I think

Language / Instrumental and byc - Polish grammar issue [46]

You can think of "To (nie)(jest) noun in nominative" as a fixed expression. Sure, "To" means "this thing here that I can't really tell the gender of", but you're really using this in a more abstract sense when you say "To jest książka" or "To książka"

Think of the English expression "used to do something", like "I used to swim a lot". You can say "I used a keyboard", but it's completely different structure.

In "To nie jest kobieta" or "To nie kobieta" the word "to" doesn't really have a meaning on it's own, it's just a placeholder, it's part and parcel of the expression "to (nie) (jest) noun in nominative".

In negation you use it in the same context that I already talked about (introduction, pointing out something in the surroundings, question about something you have no idea, giving a strong opinion).

In the sentence "On/ona/ono nie jest kobietą" On/ona/ono does have a meaning. It's not part of a fixed expression, therefore it follows all the normal rules. You can substitute a lot of things for on/ona/ono here, like - "ten człowiek nie jest kobietą", "ten pies nie jest kobietą", "mężczyzna nie jest kobietą", "ten tu nie jest kobietą" (this one here is not a woman), "tamto nie jest kobietą" (that thing of a indetermined gender over there is not a woman), "to coś nie jest kobietą" (this noun refering to a thing in our immediate surroundings that I don't know how to call is not a woman) etc. Notice that in the final example "to" is not part of fixed expression, it's a particle in neuter gender that gives additional information about "coś" (noun of a neuter gender), a very similiar thing as "ten człowiek nie jest kobietą", "ta kobieta nie jest kobietą", "to dziecko nie jest kobietą" ("to" means "this here").

If you say "To nie jest kobietą" you don't really use the word "to" as part of a fixed expression. Fixed to belongs to "To+(nie)(jest)+nominative" and here you don't have nominative. Sure, you can say that. But the only meaningful context I can think of is if you see a monster from outer space that is neither on/ona/ono, you can't really say anything about it, but you want to say that it's not a woman:) And even then, more natural would be to say "To coś nie jest kobietą".

So, you can remember that whenever you want to make the verbal gesture you use "to + (nie)(jest) + noun in nominative" and that it's just a chunk of language. In all other cases normal rules apply. That's why you say "To nie jest prezydent" but "On nie jest prezydentem"

Language / Instrumental and byc - Polish grammar issue [46]

Phew! I am glad it was useful:) Fun fact is that in written Polish you won't see "być" too much! That's a question of style. Check out any news site, for example wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,18032,name,wiadomosci,kategoria.html and try to count all the "jest"s on the page. Forms of "być" are considered not very elegant in written language and using "być" a sentence right after another is a big no-no. Journalists and writers do anything they can to avoid that unless they want to sound unsophisticated (although sometimes "być" is unavoidable - for example when using passive voice)

On the other hand in spoken language "być" is used all the time, even by politicians, artists and other public figures.

Consider this example: you're having borscht at your aunt's place and you are about to say that you really, really like the soup. You want to make this verbal gesture we talked about and introduce your opinion, so you use "to jest + adjective" or "to jest + noun". Therefore you say "Ciociu, to jest pyszne" or "Ciociu, to jest pyszna zupa" (Dear Aunt! This is delicious or This is a delicious soup). But if you would then describe that whole situation in a letter you woud't write "Na obiad była zupa. To była pyszna zupa" (we had a soup for the dinner. It was a delicious soup) or "Na obiad była zupa. Zupa była pyszna". You'd try to avoid repetition, for example like this "Na obiad była pyszna zupa" or use some other verb than "być" - "Ciocia dała mi pyszną zupę" (Auntie gave me some delicious soup).

Language / Instrumental and byc - Polish grammar issue [46]

Hey, Tdx! Don't worry, that's not that illogical. DominicB posted a great TL;DR version.
Here's some background about usage:

1. You can think of "to (jest) + noun" as a verbal gesture - you're introducingsomething or someone. (like here usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/37741/FE_DA_120911iPhoneJobs425x283.jpg). That's why it makes some sense that introduced person/topic/animal/thing is in nominative case. You use it mostly when you meet someone "To (jest) mój mąż, Marek. Poznajcie się" or point something out "Patrz, to (jest) mój dom". You won't need that construction that often, but it's good to know.

2. "to (jest) + noun" is very important in learning Polish, because that's what you use in many questions. When you see a strange object or a noun you don't know you should ask "Co to jest?". For example: "Co to jest 'noc'?", "Co to jest?" (and point to the strange object) or "Co to było? (something's just happened and you don't have any idea what that was). You can also ask "kto to jest" about a third person you don't know, let's say you've heard name in a conversation and you don't know that person or you see a guy on the other side of the room at a party and you want to learn more about him.

3. "Noun to (jest) noun" is like noun = noun. it's the simplest form you can use to explain one thing with another. In writing "noun to (jest) noun" can be even replaced by a dash "noun - noun". That's used in definitions. Every article in Polish wikipedia begins with "XYZ - noun".

4. "To (jest) + adjective" is used all the time, because that's how you state you're strong opinion about something or react to something. "To głupie", "to fajne, że.." (it's cool that..), "to tak głupie, że aż fajne" (it's so stupid that it it's cool). Notice that the adjective agrees with "to" - it is in nominative neuter.

5. Let's combine points 1 and 4. "To (jest) + adjective + noun" is mainly used in descriptions: "To była ciemna, listopadowa noc.." It is also used to point something out and make an opinion at the same time. "To (jest) najlepszy dzień w moim życiu" or "To jest paskudna pogoda" (This is a nasty weather), "To jest fajny pomysł" (This is a cool idea). Notice that here the adjective agrees with the noun (it's in nominative case and gender is the same as the noun).

Remember: "To (jest)" is a verbal gesture. You use it whenever you're, the boss, the master of a certain situation - you have the knowledge and now everybody else learns. E.g. you're a host introducing a third person, a guide describing your surroundings or a writer and you desribe your world (usually in the past tense). Let's say you have some priviliged knowledge and you want to share it with others (e.g. make a dictionary definition). Also when you have a strong opinion you think everybody should know. You are Steve Jobs, you have this funny little thing and you're about to share it with the rest of the world. Frequently "to (jest) + adjective" is followed by exclamation mark ("To głupie!")

By the same logic, in questions you're pretty much asking somebody else to take on the role of the host, the boss. You're lost and you expect that person to know something about the world or about other people. ("Co to było?", "Co to jest", "Kto to jest?"). You don't pretend to have a faintest idea what's going on.

EVEN MORE BACKGROUND:

Compare all that with "być + instrumental". "Być+intrumental" is much more frequently used because here you expect the person you communicate with to know something basic about the subject of conversation and you focus on the place that thing or person take in a web of relations. When you see somebody at a party you can ask "Kto to jest?" but also "Kim on jest?", because you want to know thing like: his job, where did he come from, whose friend is he etc. That's why the aswer "On jest profesorem" sounds natural and "To jest profesor" not always. By saying "To jest profesor" you imply some sort of a definition or a description. You're telling that you have some important and revealing information about the nature of the person described. In English I'd translate this as "This is THE Professor". "Look! Let me introduce to you this amazing creature: THE PROFESSOR". (by the way, saying "To jest profesor Nowak" or "To jest mój profesor" makes more sense because you're sharing some information that makes him distinct).

Both questions ("Kto to jest" and "Kim on jest") are fine. But you ask either about the person him/herself (Kto to jest) or his or her place in the whole scheme of things (Kim on/ona jest). That's why you will frequently hear "On jest Polakiem" and not "To jest Polak". The latter sounds like you're a guide in a zoo and show some strange species: "Patrzcie! To jest małpa. To jest Polak. To jest profesor."

"Co to jest?" means "What is it?" but "Czym to jest?" is closer to "What is it used for". Sounds artificial. If you want to know a purpose of something ask "Do czego to jest?".

"Co to było?" can be useful. It can be used when you don't understand a situation that's just taken place or there was a loud noise and you don't know what's caused it. "Czym to było?" is very artificial. I can't even think of a context where you'd use such a structure.

"Co to jest 'noc'" is a great question because it is obvious for a native speaker that you are asking about the word - you need a definition. If you aks "Czym jest noc" they will know from context that you want to know the meaning of the word, but it can be also understood as a philosophical or poetic question about the night. Like: how does "the night" fit into the general scheme of things?