Koala
2 May 2011 / #31
A risky statement. Would you say, for example, "mamy tutaj do czynienia z poważną rozterką" instead of "mamy tutaj do czynienia
z poważnym dylematem"? Would you replace "dylemat moralny" with "rozterka moralna"? They can sometimes be used equivalently,
but cetainly not in "99.9% of cases".
The words "dylmat" and "rozterka" not only have different meanings, as it was explained before, but also the usage differs...
z poważnym dylematem"? Would you replace "dylemat moralny" with "rozterka moralna"? They can sometimes be used equivalently,
but cetainly not in "99.9% of cases".
The words "dylmat" and "rozterka" not only have different meanings, as it was explained before, but also the usage differs...
Yes, I would say that. I wouldn't replace them in the second case. The words are mostly intechangable and finding cases where they are not does not mean they fall outside of that 0.1% I suggested earlier (admittedly I pulled the number out of my cztery litery :), but it's probably correct, in spoken language at least).
"Mam rozterkę" is dodgy usage. The proper expression would be "jestem w rozterce".
Maybe, I had not thought about it. In polish using 'to have'+'internal state' is indeed not very common (as opposed to French or Spanish), though it is proper in some cases (mieć nadzieję or mieć przeczucie). Maybe using 'rozterka' in the same way is indeed incorrect, I don't know. I'll refrain myself from saying mieć rozterkę in case it is incorrect.
Interesting theory, Koala. So, not only do you undermine the great professors' expertise, but you also expose
the psychological roots of their behaviour. Quite interesting indeed, but I'm afraid we are moving dangerously
from a linguistic discussion into the area of stand-up comedy with statements like one quoted above :D
the psychological roots of their behaviour. Quite interesting indeed, but I'm afraid we are moving dangerously
from a linguistic discussion into the area of stand-up comedy with statements like one quoted above :D
I'm calling it how I see it.
That is a superficial analogy. "Dziewica" and "kutas" are examples of meaning change within Polish vocabulary
and there is no foreign influence here, whilst in case of "ciężko powiedzieć" the theory about it being an anglicism
and there is no foreign influence here, whilst in case of "ciężko powiedzieć" the theory about it being an anglicism
Three things:
-to sustain your ridiculous statement, you'd have to prove that every Polish word whose meaning shifted over centuries was not influenced by foreign languages, a formidable task you cannot do in you lifetime
-to sustain your ridiculous statement, you'd have to prove that dziewica and kutas were definitely not influenced by foreign languages. I think dziewica could very easily be influenced by foreign languages, seeing how all South Slavic languages use very similar words for it - dewica (Macedonian), djewica (Croatian), dewica (Serbian), djewica (Bosnian), dewica (Slovenian), dewica (Bulgarian) (Polish phonetic spelling) - the shift of the meaning could easily have come from Balkans. If it did, you'd have to categorically call the modern Polish usage of dziewica incorrect (even if it's not, you'd have to say that about any word in modern Polish that was changed by outside influences)! I hope you can now see how absurd your reasoning is.
-the theory that "ciężko" is an anglicyzm is not proven and far-fetched. The most basic meaning of hard and ciężki is very different (they denote different physical properties which are not easily mistaken, unlike for instance weight and mass). Ciężki is supposedly an anglicism because it was used as a translation to the word hard in a song 50 years ago, but only became commonly used (according to the same article) a couple years ago!
Well, the Internet edition of Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN lists one of the meanings of "ciężki" as "wymagający dużego wysiłku",
and sometimes it can be used in such context, i.e. "ciężka praca", "ciężko pracować" (not "trudno pracować" :-)), but still in case
of the expression "ciężko powiedzieć" we should rely on the opinion of the most revered Polish Philology professors, and consider
it a heavy colloquialism at best, or simply incorrect usage based on a vulgar anglicism.
and sometimes it can be used in such context, i.e. "ciężka praca", "ciężko pracować" (not "trudno pracować" :-)), but still in case
of the expression "ciężko powiedzieć" we should rely on the opinion of the most revered Polish Philology professors, and consider
it a heavy colloquialism at best, or simply incorrect usage based on a vulgar anglicism.
"Ciężkie zadanie matematyczne" - a mathematical exercise that requires a lot of effort to solve it. Equivalent and interchangable with "trudne" in this case. Etc etc. Since it is equivalent and interchangable in such cases, it's not a long stretch to see that it became interchangable in other cases, such as "ciężko powiedzieć". You should move on and accept the broadened meaning of "ciężki", because even if current Miodeks of the world disagree, Miodeks of the next generation will agree. It's a natural evolution of any language and fighting it is futile.