Z pięćdziesięciorgiem dwojgiem dzieci?

Is this correct? Are both parts of compound numbers declined this way? What would be the form for dzieci with the numerals 121 and, 1418 in a sentence such as:

To jest prezent dla..........dzieci.
We say dwoje, troje etc. ludzi. What about 37, 351?

pięćdziesięciorgiem

Sorry, typo (ę dropped out), but I was most concerned with the endings.

to jest prezent dla trzydziestu siedmiu dzieci.
trzydzieści siedem ludzi


to jest prezent dla trzystu pięćdziesięciu jeden dzieci
trzysta pięćdziesiąt jeden ludzi


to jest prezent dla tysiąc czterysta osiemnastu dzieci


to jest prezent dla stu dwudziestu jeden dzieci

Sorki, Jabłko, but that doesn't sound right.

I reckon it goes up to 99. Ze stu dziewięćdziesięciorgiem dziewięciorgiem dziećmi. Dziećmi, not dzieci.


Trzydzieścioro siedmioro ludzi. Trzystu pięćdziesięciu jeden ludzi. Ludzi is easier, it takes masculine quite easily. Dzieci is more of a problem. Trzysta pięćdziesięcioro [i]jedno dziecko.


Osiemnaściorga. Tysiąc czterysta osiemnaściorga. Dla stu dwadzieściorga jednego dziecka. Dla stu dwudziestu jeden dzieci... sounds quite popular, though, somehow. Although, yes, it has that burakish tint.

You don't have real problems, do you? :) Who counts hundreds of children with this accuracy.

edit: dla tysiąc czterystu osiemnaściorga. Sorry. Polska linga difficulta molto.

Nott, it should be "Ze stu dziewięćdziesięciorgiem dziewięciorgiem dzieci"

I was thinking about it some time after posting. I have no problem with 'z dwojgiem dzieci', 'z pięćdziesięciorgiem siedmiorgiem dzieci' etc. but when the number becomes longer, that is when it has 3 or more digits, my syntax changes, and 'ze 199 dzieci' just doesn't sound right.

At first I thought it's just some peculiarity of my personal Polish. But, how would you say 'with 100 children'? Ze stu dziećmi, isn't it? Or 'ze stoma dziećmi'... definitely 'z tysiącem dzieci', the numeral here becomes the object, at the expense of kids, and it feels similarly to me with 199. But then it's just a feeling, possibly the actual rule is that the weight of the last non-zero digit dictates the case...?

Presumably kids are kids, no matter what their biological gender may be, grammatically their still always neuter, no?

" with 100 chirlren" it's easiest: "z setką dzieci"

Yeah Dorota, I thought so.
Thanks!

Issues get complicated when the groups are mixed, like 100 kids, 10 men, four dogs, etc...
Know it well....and still make mistakes-:)) So:

Stu dzieci, dzieśięć mężczyźń i cztery psa przyjechali....???

Sto dzieci, dziesięciu mężczyzn i cztery psy. It's not complicated, you just got three independent groups, one after another.

-:)))

So then, let's see, if the figure in question were, say "fifty-five children", used as a collective numeral, I would translate "pięćdziesiciorgiem pięcioro dzieci", is that right?

Whoopsidaisy, here we go all over again AAAAAAaaaiii!!!

I think I should have typed ".....pięciorgiem....." for ending agreement purposes.

))))))))) 'Guess it ain't over 'till the fat kobieta zaśpiewa, ha!

What would you native speakers say to a streamlining grammatical reform of Polish? If you're for it, what simplifications would you suggest? Numerals seem obvious. I have seen professional TV presenters (educated native Poles) stumble when they got to large numbers. What say ye?

No.


Back to school.

Well, how about a spelling reform along Czech lines to eliminate those confusing and costly diagraphs: szcz, trz, przy, strz, etc. and perhaps some of the accent letters – ą and ę when not nasally pronounced.

For instance ‘w Šebřešynie hřonšè břmi w třcinie. And Dembkowski and reńka instead of Dębkowski and ręka; similarly only one ‘h’ sound (no more ch) and only u, no more ó.?

No.
---

Ahhem, while we're on the subject of 'language', resp. grammar, reforms, it is surely not only the Polish language which might be the focus of some attention, but what about the English language?? A spelling reform as has been attempted in several European linguae, ostensibly German of late, and has enjoyed a modicum of success, at the same time however, having reaped considerable confusion among the older generation, has never been tried in English. Lewis Carroll poked fun at the chaos of English spelling, but that's it. Maybe the Oxford Committee of Lexicographers or some such organization should-:)

Oh I know there's 'Globish' 'New English' etc..., yet none has really caught on as serious blueprints for language reform.

Big collective numerals are as easy to decline as small ones. If you decline 'with 50', [z pięćdziesięciorgiem] you should also decline 'with 5' [z pięciorgiem]; to decline ' with 55' is now as obvious as ever [you should join the former with the latter].


It really does seem strange! The question to the statement should be: [z kim, czym? - instrumental] z iloma dziećmi?

Nom. - Kto? co? [się znajduje] Dziewięcioro dzieci;
Gen. - Kogo? czego? [nie widziałem] Dziewięciorga dzieci;
Dat. - Komu? czemu? [się przyglądam] Dziewięciorgu dzieciom;
Acc. - Kogo? co? [widzę] Dziewięcioro dzieci;

Instr. - Z kim? z czym? [rozmawiam] Z dziewięciorgiem ???????? [according to the rule applied in the rest of the cases, it should be 'dziećmi', but I would definitely say 'dzieci' here; it looks as if the numeral in the instrumental case required its complement to be put in the genetive case !? But am I right? I don't know!

Loc. - O kim? o czym? [opowiadam] O dziewięciorgu dzieciach.

Sure, it make sense: z iloma dziećmi?

Z dwojgiem dzieci. Sounds absolutely natural.

Sense doesn't necessarily rule grammar. Seems to me somewhere there there's a switch between two grammatical constructs:
1. with (number of) children
2. with number (of children)

By logic dziewięcioro is a numeral, unlike dziewiątka, which is a collective noun. Z setką (dzieci) is Ok, collective noun. Ze (stu) dziećmi is Ok, numeral.

Z dwojgiem dzieci. Ze stu dziewięćdzięsięciorgiem dwojgiem dziećmi...

I am lost. I am waiting for somebody with a huge stamp of authority consecrated in Rome.

Edit:

'z dwojgiem dzieci' gives 321.000 Google results
'z dwojgiem dziećmi' gives 1.100 results

This confirms my instincts. Then why 'z dwoma mężczyznami' is correct also.

I guess I found something:

Składnię pozostałych liczebników wielowyrazowych dopasowuje się do ostatniego członu, np. ze sto pięćdziesięciorgiem dwojgiem dzieci,

grzegorj.w.interia.pl/gram/pl/liczeb02.html

There's (hell of a lot) more there. Happy counting :)

A second thought on this problem now - the collective numeral requires the genetive case in all of the cases [and not only in the instrumental case] for its complement. Thus the above declination table of mine should look as follows:

Nom. - Kto? co? [się znajduje] Dziewięcioro dzieci;
Gen. - Kogo? czego? [nie widziałem] Dziewięciorga dzieci;
Dat. - Komu? czemu? [się przyglądam] Dziewięciorgu dzieci;
Acc. - Kogo? co? [widzę] Dziewięcioro dzieci;
Instr. - Z kim? z czym? [rozmawiam] Z dziewięciorgiem dzieci
Loc. - O kim? o czym? [opowiadam] O dziewięciorgu dzieci.


In contrast to that, the complement is declined when it meets the 'normal' numeral, e.g. spotkałem się z dwoma mężczyznami, z dwiema kobietami, szedłem z dwiema paczkami.

My mistake in the original table had arisen from the influence of one declination patter on the other; the above mistake is - I am sure - very frequent among native speakers. Dear foreign users of Polish - please keep out of the collective or other Polish numerals as often as you can!

Dziewięcioro is a normal numeral. Just check the table at the link I provided and don't try to philosophise :) And the accompanying explanations. You got Dat. and Loc. wrong now. And this is according to my gut feeling too.


Pch... I wonder what they have that I lack that they even consider learning Polish. If I had seen those declination tables before having learnt this language I'd had gone to Burma first train. Poles are a vicious, cruel, inconsiderate bunch of sadists, to force this on innocent babies.

'Dziewięcioro" is a collective numeral [the so-called 'liczebnik zbiorowy' in Polish]; a 'normal' numeral would be 'dziewięć'.


With this I may agree now. My first, spontaneous, feeling was right then. Here what a certain web site which seems decent says on that:

------------------------------------------------
Użycie liczebników zbiorowych lub rzeczowników odliczebnikowych zasadniczo wymaga rzeczownika w dopełniaczu (liczby mnogiej), niezależnie od przypadka, w jakim został użyty liczebnik, np. dwoje studentów, z trójką dzieci, przez dwoje wrót, bez nas czworga. [...]

Uwaga! Dla liczebników zbiorowych wydawnictwa poprawnościowe przewidują związek zgody w celowniku i miejscowniku, np. trojgu uczniom, o czworgu uczniach (choć z dwojgiem uczniów, z obojgiem rodzeństwa w narzędniku) nie dopuszczając w ogóle związku rządu (tj. konstrukcji z dopełniaczem). Niemniej jednak jednak wyrażenia typu trojgu dzieci, o czworgu dzieci (z dopełniaczem) szerzą się we współczesnym języku. Oto więcej przykładów: dwojgu rannych, trojgu podróżnych, o dwojgu rodzeństwa – słowniki proponują jedynie dwojgu rannym, trojgu podróżnym, o dwojgu rodzeństwie – zwłaszcza ta ostatnia (podobno poprawna!) forma budzi sprzeciw i absolutnie nie przystaje do wyczucia języka.

------------------------------------------------

Generally, we may say that the problem of the Polish collective numeral is gramatically very complex and difficult. As has been shown in this thread, native speakers are confused and may change their opinions on them. Shall I remind that the whole discussion had started with Nott's wrong assumption of the case of the noun which accompanies the collective numeral used in the instrumental:


?

Is it? Why don't we use normal numerals with kids, then?

How much is it now to Burma...


Nah, there must be some legit rule....


Because nobody counts hundreds of children with this accuracy! Who'd bloody care...


Yeah, right. Just point at poor nott. I was trying to be helpful...

Sigh... right, it is confusing. You need to study it to get it right. I don't have to, I am Polish born and bred, my Polish is nigh to perfect. And if not, then it's a native error, possibly a norm in the near future. And during my whole life in Poland and I never had an opportunity to say anything like 'I was strolling with 192 kids.'

Bottom line, then... it's a rather artificial problem. Unless you keep to practical numbers, like dziewięcioro.

Edit:
Thanks for the inspiration, though.

Just to get a word in edgewise (once again..!!). I've heard the inflectional unpredictability of languages like Polish and Icelandic described here as elsewhere to be "sadistic" in their quixotic difficulty. Is English spelling actually any less "sadistic". I mean look:

Polish has case agreement rules, including numbers! - English has NO spelling rules.
Polish vocabulary is pretty transparent and homogeneous. - English vocab.'s chaotic.
Polish has no definite articles; context dictates logic. - English overuses articles.

And this is the 'short list' :)