Polish was chosen the HARDEST LANGUAGE in the world to learn... :D

The nature of your question shows that you are a very advanced learner (or may I call you 'very advanced user"?) of Polish indeed. I'm sure you can do it yourself, only bearing in mind that you will have to distiguish between groups of people of same sex versus mixed groups/groups of minors.

I can get the verbs and what not I'm just not grammatically correct. My girlfriend gets annoyed with me because she thinks I'm being lazy and not trying hard enough, then tries say that English is harder.

POLISH IS SOLID TO LEARN! Good job I had a basic grounding in it when I was little by the grandparents, seems to have stood me in semi-good stead.

Calm down, mate, calm down (and don't write everything in bold, what you'll write in normal letters will be perfectly visible)! I suggested to Fuzzy to translate the stuff himself as trying to do it on your own is better than simply reading what someone else has written.

"Five ears" would be pięcioro uszu, just as "two ears" would be "dwoje uszu", in the anatomical sense (human or animal ears). In the plural without any accompanying numeral it will be "uszy" as, for example, in the sentence "miej oczy i uszy otwarte". When we talk of ucho in the sense of the handle of a bag, it is: jedno ucho, dwa ucha, trzy ucha, cztery ucha, pięć/sześć/siedem etc. uch/usz/uszów.

I apologize for my bad English


what a RUBBISH I regret i cannot use bigger letters.

Give me an everagely intelligent person
and after two weeks, having daily 4x45 minutes
without any additional learninig after our lessons
she or he will be able not only to understand but also to use
and remember the most useful grammar structures.

Polish grammar is a LOGICAL system. If you are able to think
you will notice it soon unless you have either a poor teacher or none teacher
and no linguistic experiance.

I do not teach how to say "5 ears" in Polish. It does not make any sense
it is less useful then consecutio temporum in English (-:

But what make me angry very much it that very many Polish people would confirm what you say Falsk.

But I know, Polish people steal cars i Germany and Polish is impossible to learn. Fuck it guys! This is pure racism.

I have to learn 100s of forms of English verbs I have to understand your tense system, but you are too intelligent to learn Polish. Even when you join a Polish family having Polish wife or husband you "do not need to learn Polish" What a lack of respect.

Have you heard that in Germany divorsed Polish person cannot talk to his/her child in Polish
unless a German partner will give a permission?

Yes I take it a bit personally. But it is a bit tiring to hear all the time that grass is red.
The grass is green an Polish is just a foreign language you can learn.

Thank you to all foreign peopole I met and taught Polish.
I think we did together much to cross brorders of prejudices.

Do not forget:

The limits of our language mean the limits of our world (I wish I had bigger letters to write it.

Personal experience, Mark?

Then again, you could say that you struggle with the English language!

ziemowit wrote:


oooh ziemowit, always anxious to throw in the pot shots when good ole' Fuzzy writes something about Polish.

ziemowit wrote:


actually, your post made no such suggestion.

but now that you are, why would you assume I don't already know how to do it? OOOOHHH, that's right. I almost forgot how incredibly condescending your posts are every time I show some intelligence. FUZZYWICKETS couldn't possibly be qualified enough to discuss Polish on this kind of level.

does the lady in your life get as turned on as I do watching how masterfully you can conjugate Polish nouns? i bet you have that body paint stuff and go through all 7 cases....

Polish Tutor wrote:


you know, as well as I do, that this is utter bollocks.

as for the rest of your post............anyone?

Actually, it did.


I do assume you already know how to do it. That's why I wrote you should answer your question yourself.


What you are writing here is just too personal, so I'm not going to answer it. If you want to discuss such personal matters, I suggest that you turn to other members of this forum who would be eager to discuss these things with you. There are several threads on "Polish girls" and reading them and interfering with them could probably turn you on.

All in all, I understand you do not wish any comments from me on your Polish. Agreed, I promise I will never again intervene with your language questions or views regarding the Polish language.

ziemowit wrote:


ziemowit wrote:


two things:

1) If you assume I already know how to do it, why would you then give me advice on how to do it?

2) Why the hell would I write the answers to the questions????!!!!! I posted those questions to "show how inefficient the Polish language is," and all that good stuff. Why would I challenge people on this forum with questions, and then immediately thereafter post the answers???!!!

by the way pappy, I don't see any of your answers....;)

Ziemowit wrote:


oh, boo hoo hoo. quit back peddling. you made a snide comment towards me, as you always do, and then decided to not only assume I couldn't already do it on my own, but followed it up with advice on the subject I had never asked for. you're more than welcome to give advice, there's no doubt your Polish is better than mine, just don't be so snide about it, dear Yoda of Polish. maybe other posters tolerate it, but if you keep posting with that tone and continue to take pot shots, i'm going to call you out on it every time, pompadour.

for name of a place conjugation sometimes differ from the mainstream of grammar cases :)

- z ośmiorgiem dzieci

I am Polish, I was born in Poland, my native tongue is Polish and I've always lived in Poland except for the six month in the 1980s when I lived in the UK totally immersed in an native-English speaking environment; it why my Polish is probably better than yours, but I've never said yours might not be as good as mine or better.

FUZZYWICKETS

As I promised, I am not going to respond to any of your posts relating to langage any more, so please do not bother to engage me into any discussion on that, as you did in your last post (number 664).

I am not going to change my style of writing. If you don't like it, please do not read my messages. English is not my native language, I've been learning it mostly by myself, so my style may seem irritating to some.

I've never been calling ayone names on this forum, so I am not going to follow your example and address you by names such as "Yoda of something" or "pompadour", adding to it stuff like "boo hoo hoo" and "OOOHHH".

If you are going to "call me out on my tone of writing every time" I post, I'm going to quote what you've written towards me in post nr 662 every time you will call me out:


to show people you are rude enough to go into such personal insults at the same time critisizing someone else's "tone" of writing.

If you are a citizen of the world, you should observe rules of behaviour that are universal to people in Europe, America, Asia, Africa and Australia.

If you are only a frustrated American of the United States, you should read Rule 8 of this American Forum's "Rules and Code of Conduct" which is:

if, from the moderators perspective, the intention of the poster is to ridicule another poster, the offensive post may be removed without warning and the poster may be suspended,

since from now on I am going to report to moderators all your posts attempting to ridicule me, as threatened in your post 664, as posts violating Rule 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Ziemowit wrote:


hahahaha......oh paaaaleeease. first and foremost, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, me boy. this is why you've gotten yourself into this pickle. don't play the "it's not my first language so that's why it may come off as offensive to some" card. you know exactly what you said, how you said it, how snide it was, and you know exactly what your "tone" has been like in previous posts directed towards me. i don't have to give you past examples because you know exactly what i'm talking about.

and for what it's worth, my comment about the "body paint".......come on man, you're a big boy. talk about thin skinned. good luck reporting that one to the mods here.

"FUZZYWICKETS said that I conjugate nouns with body paint on my lady! I demand he be spoken to about this!"

i can already hear the mods laughing at that one.

Magdalena:

excellent work. I do however have one question:

with 4 men, with 4 women.....does "4" conjugate to "czterema" for both men and women? I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but I have heard from native Poles "czteroma".

?

A typical mistake, influenced by "pięcioma" (probably).

Dwiema dziewczynami / dwoma chłopakami
Trzema dziewczynami / chłopakami
Czterema dziewczynami / chłopakami
Pięcioma dziewczynami / chłopakami

poradyporady.fora.pl/gramatyka,3/czteroma-punktami,66.html


I can't figure out how THAT happened ;-)
I quoted from Fuzzywickets' post and you appeared as the quotee (or whatever the correct term is)...

I would rather say that it's a clear sign that Polish is a living language and like any living language is constantly evolving. I am sure your student friends would think twice about the grammatically correct forms if they were supposed to complete an exam test. Spoken, informal language never corresponds directly to written, formally correct ideals set down in textbooks. I am a translator so I try to be as grammatically correct as possible in writing, but in speech - I probably say any old thing that comes to my mind.

BTW - czwórka, ósemka dzieci / z czwórką, ósemką dzieci is a correct alternative to czworo, ośmioro
Dwójka, piątka, setka osób etc is another way of counting people (as groups of two, five etc).

Yeah.

I will have read - przeczytam

I would have been ready - byłbym gotowy

Have you had dinner yet? - Jadłeś obiad?

If she had had more time - gdyby miała więcej czasu

etc. etc.

Magdalena wrote:


i know the sheer number of English verb tenses can be a bit tedious to start, but you simply can't compare them to Polish.

let's see:

I will have......future perfect.....now insert ANY past participle of ANY verb, and you are set. Change the person from I to he, she, we, they, etc. etc., no difference.

Have you had....present perfect.....same story. insert ANY past participle of ANY verb, use the same I, we, he, she, they, it, you.....on and on.

Polish? you chose byc? ok.....

jestem, jestes, jestesmy, jestescie, jest, sa, bylem, bylam, byla, bylo, byl, bylismy, bylysmy, byliscie, bylyscie, byli, byly, bylbym, bylabym, bylby, bylaby, byloby, bylibysmy, bylybysmy, byliby, bylyby, bylibyscie, bylybyscie........bede, bedzie, bedziemy, bedziecie, bedziesz, beda......badz, badzmy, badzcie, bedac......on and on.

and we haven't even mentioned "bywac".

imagine how big a task that is for a Polish learner when a new verb is introduced.

once you hear a new verb in English, you can immediately insert it into a sentence using any person, any tense....all you need to know are the present, past and past participle forms. 3 things to remember per verb. the rest.....all English verbs follow the same damn pattern.

English most certainly has it's difficulties, but it's 100 fold easier to use and learn new English verbs compared to Polish.

I think you didn't quite get my point. I was trying to show that in every language, there are "easier" and "more difficult" bits. For any Slav, the English tense system is an absolute nightmare - probably comparable to what Anglo-Saxons think of inflections ;-)

Also, kindly remember your messy and illogical list of irregular verbs, the multi-tiered system of conditionals, and last but not least - phrasal verbs!

Take off, take on, take out, take in, take away, take for, take from, take to...
Look up, look down, look away, look into, look out, look for, look after, look to...

Plus your bewildering array of idioms and collocations... ;-P

The fact that difficulties in English lie elsewhere doesn't make English "easier" than Polish overall.

English is much more user-friendly at the start, granted. You only need a very rudimentary grasp of grammar plus a handful of verbs and nouns and off you go. This is one of the most important reasons it has been so popular for so long.

Nevertheless, once you try to read a novel or have an intelligent conversation in English...

Magdalena wrote:

I wasn't arguing against any of this so.......agreed.

Sample entrance essay by a pre-junior highschooler from Middletown, USA generously reprinted (unedited, I hasten to add!!!!) by the New York Times:

"Eye sea meny diference tipes uv stoodents in skule this tirm.
I du think divarsity iz besikly a good thing thow...."

Okay folks, I trust, hope and pray (not prey LOL) that every Pole of the same age and with a normal I.Q. can write with orthographical accuracy in his or her native tongue:-)

The above is NOT a joke!

Thanks for that too, Magda.

It's always been my contenion, on this and other venues, that language "difficulty" is really all relative to the learner's mother language.

This et al.....

that is pretty bad but I can still understand it, so it is possible that the person is either dyslexic or has had really poor education.

Thanks for sharing

Can't really complain about American English, I've seen some load of crap being written here in Glasgow.
It's true that American English is a truer version of pure English, I.E it hasn't evolved much over the past 100 years. British English evolves a lot more, probably in a few hundred years the English we use now will be foreign to most "English" speakers of the future. Panglish is spoken more over the world than any other version.

You've said is the hardest language in the world? And then you've put like an example the numerals, in this part maye is one of the most hard language, but not at all, it could be easy in comparation with anothers

"Panglish is spoken more over the world than any other version."

......and if so-called "broken" English spoken fluently becomes the new world substandard (LOL), then we'd better get ready for a pangldemic; a pandemic of misused English.

Aphrodisiac, if the student in question had been dyslexic for example, they would merely have reversed letters. This person apparently didn't or doesn't even know how to write correctly the words being used.

This isn't dyslexia, this is plain illiteracy pure and simple:-)

American English, i.e. the 'American accent' with its voiced 'r-sounds at the beginning, middle and end of almost every word (save for the Deep South, The Middle Atlantic States or part of New England), its dark 'l', above all its flat vs. 'broad Oxford 'a-sound', is actually just the Southwestern English of Devon, Bristol and the Bournemouth area, nothing more!

The English of Appalachia; Kemtucky, the hills 'm hollers of Tennessee etc..?? Pure Elizabethan variety: e.g. 'I'td sure pleasure me a might if ye took supper with us."

The Queen's English on the other hand?? A mere farce, mimicry of Victoria's German husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg with his broad 'a''s. Nothing 'British' about it at all.

Lyzko wrote:


congratulations, you just made fun of a child less than 11 years old (pre-junior high is below that age) who had an unfortunate upbringing and didn't learn to read or write properly and most likely cannot speak properly either.

and no, because the NY Times printed it doesn't make it any better.

trying not to sound too overly sensitive here, ale.....stary.......that child is not normal and you're making a mockery of him.

Fuzzywickets,

Sorry to appear addlebrained here, but what has normalcy to do, pray, with spelling one's native language???

Let's assume the pupil/student is eleven or even twelve. Again, brain damage would suggest some sort of incoherence, clearly not the case. The students thoughts about diversity were quite coherent, merely faultilly, i.e. phonetically, expressed.

The issue rather is the grave, nationwide failures in our education system.
As far as mocking a defenseless child, their name was (quite naturally) withheld from print, therefore it would appear you're making a mountain out of a molehill, as usual:-)

Lyzko wrote:


because to be THAT poor at spelling, that is not a child who had a normal upbringing.

Lyzko wrote:


let's not, because that's junior high school, not pre-junior high school.

Lyzko wrote:


children of below-normal I.Q. levels exist in every country and the child who wrote that clearly does not have a normal I.Q. (and probably terrible parents or lack there of), so what is the point of your post?