The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Language  % width posts: 47

iec conjugation


chaza 50 | 253
11 Jan 2010  #1
as i study this language, i have come across a confusing issue.
chciec
miec
wiedziec
widziec
all end in iec, why is that they dont all belong to the same conjugation group, miec takes on mam,ma,mamy
the others dont seem to follow the same rules.
why?

chaza
1jola 14 | 1,879
11 Jan 2010  #2
Not that there is no explanation, but your question is a little bit like why are there irregular verbs in English. Why don't we say "I readed a good article the other day, but I don't know were I puted it."

Sorry, I'm no help at all. :)
OP chaza 50 | 253
12 Jan 2010  #3
is the question undertsood well enough

chaza
strzyga 2 | 993
13 Jan 2010  #4
why is that they dont all belong to the same conjugation group

Will the knowledge of why they belong to different groups actually help you memorize these conjugations?

The answer, as usual, lies somewhere in the realm of historical grammar, but I doubt if it could be very helpful to you. Being just a native speaker, I can't explain it anyway... it would take somebody who has studied historical grammar of Polish in depth.
OP chaza 50 | 253
13 Jan 2010  #5
ok, understood. it was just a question that arose, but if its that unimportant i'll leave it alone. it doesn't effect my learning, it just removes a qusetion i had.

thank for that

chaza
stevepl 2 | 49
13 Jan 2010  #6
In english we also have irregular verbs but these are and are listed as exceptions. So you can learn them as a list and remember them ;)

In polish there are something like 17 000 verbs in current use but unfortunately there are over 350 different conjugation patterns.
I think it would be impossible to remember rules for all of them (if there are any).

Probably the only method is to develop a feeling for what sounds correct and give it your best shot.

Sorry my mistake there are 334 patterns listed in Stanisław Mędak's book. (I checked as soon as I got home).
OP chaza 50 | 253
13 Jan 2010  #7
i hear what you are saying, so are you saying them, that while mieć conjugates to mam, would it also be correct to say that wiedzieć can also conjugate to wiedzam for example.

chaza
stevepl 2 | 49
13 Jan 2010  #8
Close,

but wiedzieć conjugates to wiem / wiesz / wie / wiemy / wiecie / wiedzą

similar to mieć - mam / masz / ma / mamy / macie / mają
OP chaza 50 | 253
14 Jan 2010  #9
thanks for that steve
because there are so many patterns then, would i be very wrong if i put wieć down instead of mam, but wiję, which is one of the patterns i have for words ending in ' eć '. as you say you cant memorise all of them, so would that be right or acceptable.

chaza
strzyga 2 | 993
14 Jan 2010  #10
wiję means I weave or I writhe. Infinitive: wić.

There's no way around verb conjugations, really, unless you want to always use the infinitive+personal pronoun+tense qualifier (ja mieć teraz, ty mieć przedtem, on mieć potem). It would sound funny, but I guess people would understand it.

Or how about learning conjugations of at least basic verbs? For example, "mieć" and znać" conjugate the same way, so by learning one set of endings you get two (maybe more) useful verbs at once. Not a bad deal, huh?

mam, znam / masz, znasz / ma, zna / mamy, znamy...

When I was learning English irregular verbs I groupped them into patterns (buy-bought-bought, think-thought-thought...// drink-drank-drunk, sing-sang-sung...) It's easier to memorize them in groups.
You don't need to learn all the 17 000 verbs at once. Find the basic ones, the ones you'll most probably need, and group them in patterns.
OP chaza 50 | 253
15 Jan 2010  #11
that sound fair enough.

can someone clarify what is being said here, i'm a bit confused. from this excerpt of my material, i understand points 1 &2, but don't seem to grasp point 3. the bit about the consonents

But there are some exceptions:
1) verbs ending eć change the e to an "a" before ł.
2) verbs ending ąć and nąć change the ą to ę except in the masculine singular form.
3) verbs ending c, ść and żś:
imperfective: insert the same consonant as in their present tense before the l or ł
perfective: insert the same consonant as in the present tense of their imperfective counterpart
chaza
SzwedwPolsce 11 | 1,595
17 Jan 2010  #12
There are many exceptions in verb conjugation that you must learn by heart. That's just the way it is. Often there is no good explanation.
OP chaza 50 | 253
17 Jan 2010  #13
lets take the word jeść to eat. this part here says,
imperfective: insert the same consonant as in their present tense before the l or ł
perfective: insert the same consonant as in the present tense of their imperfective counterpart
th present tense will be; jem.
so the imperfect will be; jebyłem i was eating.
perfect; jebym; i eat.

have i got it, while i am trying to commit them to memory, i have to understand them before i do,
strzyga 2 | 993
17 Jan 2010  #14
jeść

Present: jem, jesz, je, jemy, jecie, jedzą
This is imperfective, as present tense can never be perfective (I think...)

Past imperfective (male): jadłem, jadłeś, jadł, jedliśmy, jedliście, jedli.
Past perfective: zjadłem, zjadłeś, zjadł, zjedliśmy, zjedliście, zjedli.

So perfective and imperfective are the same, the only difference is the prefix "z".

Frankly, I don't understand the explanations that you've quoted. Which consonant do they have in mind?
SzwedwPolsce 11 | 1,595
17 Jan 2010  #15
so the imperfect will be; jebyłem i was eating.

You don't know the difference between imperfect and past tense. It's 2 completely different things. You should read about the difference btw. perfective and imperfective forms. It's very hard to explain, but there are some threads about it, search. And learn from a proper book.

Present tense: jem
Past tense imperfective: jadłem/jadłam
Past tense perfective: zjadłem/zjadłam
Future imperfective (compound future): będę jadł/jadła (or jeść)
Future perfective (simple future): zjem

Check 301 Polish Verbs.
OP chaza 50 | 253
17 Jan 2010  #16
my book hasn't come yet, im not undertsanding where you get from jeś to jad. i haven't read anything telling me this.
i kniow its difficult, if it wasnt we would all be fluent

chaza
Ania86 - | 4
17 Jan 2010  #17
I think you must understand that there are many things in Polish that are just exceptions and it's far better to learn the declension by heart than apply some rules, which are hardly understandable. (at least the one you quoted)

'Jeść' is one of the essential verbs so first - there is a great chance it won't be regular, second - learning the declension by heart will really come in handy :)

But OK, let's try another one:

nieść
niosę - present, 1st person singular
niosłam - present, 1st person singular fem. imperfective
zaniosłam - present, 1st person singular fem. perfective

that's kind of as they say, but it's silly. /s/ is in all the forms. Now why shouldn't it?
SzwedwPolsce 11 | 1,595
17 Jan 2010  #18
im not undertsanding where you get from jeś to jad.

There is no rule for that. You must learn it by heart.

Start with learning the present tense.

For most verbs:
ja or -am
ty -sz
ona/on/ono no ending, only the stem
my -my
wy -cie
oni/one

Take it easy until you get your books. It's impossible to learn if you don't have a good book. If you are really interested in grammar you can get Basic Polish: A Grammar and Workbook (by Dana Bielec). It's very much grammar in it. But usually I don't recommend it for beginners since there is almost too much grammar in it.
OP chaza 50 | 253
18 Jan 2010  #19
ok guys, i am trying to learn these tense forms and learn them of by heart, so i have took some words at random, are they correct, if they are not, dont tell me why just yet.

raczejłbym = i would rather
pojechał = he rides/ he was riding
szukałem = i search/ i am searching
będę iść naprzółem = i will go forward
Święciam = i celebrate/ i am celebrating

chaza
SzwedwPolsce 11 | 1,595
18 Jan 2010  #20
raczejłbym = i would rather
pojechał = he rides/ he was riding
szukałem = i search/ i am searching
będę iść naprzółem = i will go forward
Święciam = i celebrate/ i am celebrating

pojechał = he was riding - Ok, maybe we can accept that. Or "he went".

The rest are unfortunately incorrect.

Verbs ending in -łem are always past tense (1 person singular, for a male).
---> szukałem, miałem, byłem, robiłem

Past tense singular endings:
ja -łem/łam
ty -łeś/łaś
on -ł
ona -ła
ono/to -ło

They are always like this. So the endings in past tense are very regular, but the stem can change.

You must learn one things before going on to the next, don't stress.
OP chaza 50 | 253
18 Jan 2010  #21
thanks for that, luck on the bright side, the more times i get it wrong the closer i come to getting it right. positive thinking yeah.

ok back to the drawing board?

chaza
strzyga 2 | 993
18 Jan 2010  #22
raczejłbym = i would ratherpojechał = he rides/ he was ridingszukałem = i search/ i am searchingbędę iść naprzółem = i will go forwardŚwięciam = i celebrate/ i am celebrating

raczejłbym = i would rather raczej is not a verb
pojechał = he rides/ he was riding he went
szukałem = i search/ i am searching I searched/was searching
będę iść naprzółem = i will go forward będę iść naprzód
Święciam = i celebrate/ i am celebrating święciłam - I was celebrating; święcę - I am celebrating
OP chaza 50 | 253
18 Jan 2010  #23
going back to the drawing board i realised my errors but they are a bit different,
raczej is an adj, so
łbym raczej = i would rather

this one pojechał = he rides/ he was riding he went i'm not sure about yet.
szukałem = before this posting i got to be I searched/i was searching
this one będę iść naprzółem = i will go forward. i got to be będę pójdę naprzód because naprzółem would be 'i was forward'

Święciam = i celebrated/ I was celebrating;

how did i do this time guys

chaza
strzyga 2 | 993
18 Jan 2010  #24
chaza

łbym raczej = i would rather right, but you need to put some verb in front of "łbym" as it doesn't appear on its own, e.g. byłbym, wolałbym, and its male, for female it would be: byłabym, wolałabym

this one pojechał = he rides/ he was riding he went i'm not sure about yet.
It's past tense, not present

szukałem = before this posting i got to be I searched/i was searching
also past tense so it's correct

this one będę iść naprzółem = i will go forward. i got to be będę pójdę naprzód because naprzółem would be 'i was forward'

either będę iść naprzód or pójdę naprzód; naprzółem doesn't exist as naprzód is an adverb, not a verb. Past tense would be: (po)szedłem naprzód.

Święciam = i celebrated/ I was celebrating;
święciłam
OP chaza 50 | 253
19 Jan 2010  #25
łbym raczej = i would rather right, but you need to put some verb in front of "łbym" as it doesn't appear on its own, e.g. byłbym, wolałbym, and its male, for female it would be: byłabym, wolałabym

this one i'll have to think about, the penny hasn't dropped yet.

pojechał = he rides/ he was riding he went i'm not sure about yet.
It's past tense, not present
in this case then it must be ' he rode' he had ridden'

this one będę iść naprzółem = i will go forward. i got to be będę pójdę naprzód because naprzółem would be 'i was forward'

either będę iść naprzód or pójdę naprzód; naprzółem doesn't exist as naprzód is an adverb, not a verb. Past tense would be: (po)szedłem naprzód.

so this while i get what you have said, what i have put them must read, i wll, i will go forward'

chaza
strzyga 2 | 993
20 Jan 2010  #26
byłabym, wolałabymthis one i'll have to think about, the penny hasn't dropped yet.

The conditional sufix "bym" must be glued to a verb.

' he rode' he had ridden'

or "he went/he had gone", but not on foot. You can jechać by car, by bus, by train... bike, cart... anything that has wheels. Doesn't matter if you're driving/riding the thing or if you're just a passenger.

będę pójdę naprzód

what i have put them must read, i wll, i will go forward'

no, it's more like "I will be go forward".
OP chaza 50 | 253
20 Jan 2010  #27
ok thats coming clearer, i have my book now and i am getting through it, but i do have a slight question. the word bym, is by +m. or byś = by+ś. does the by mean one thing, and the m or ś mean something else.

as i am reading the part about the different tenses its getting me lost a bit, maybe its me.
i am clear about the am,em łam,łem parts.
the book talks about nonfinite verbs and present passive participle, and presen passive active, we might even have gone over this ground before.

thanks

chaza
strzyga 2 | 993
20 Jan 2010  #28
"By" is, more or less, "would". It takes personal endings:

ja by+m
ty by+ś
on/ona/ono by
my by+śmy
wy by+ście
oni by

The above is: I would, you would... etc.

Next you need a proper verb to go with it. And now there are two ways to go about it: either you glue the "by"+ending to the verb or you put it before the verb:

(ja) bym poszedł or (ja) poszedłbym - I would go
(ty) byś poszedł or (ty) poszedłbyś - you would go
(on) by poszedł or (on) poszedłby - he would go
(ona) by poszła or (ona) poszłaby - she would go
(ono/to) by poszło or (ono/to) poszłoby - it would go
(my) byśmy poszli or (my) poszlibyśmy - we would go
(wy) byście poszli or (wy) poszlibyście - you would go (plural)
(oni) by poszli or (oni) poszliby - they would go - male
(one) by poszły or (one) poszłyby - they would go - non-male

Note that the verb "pójść" is used in the past tense conjugation.
The forst form (bym poszedł etc.) is more colloquial and used in speech, the second (poszedłbym) more formal and used also in writing.
OP chaza 50 | 253
21 Jan 2010  #29
hi strzyga
what about the present passive and active passive, these seem to me to be the 'doING, and the dONE forms. and nonfinite.

chaza
jonni 16 | 2,485
21 Jan 2010  #30
active passive

Dunno what "active passive" might mean, except in classical Greek, but the present passive is: 'am invited' or 'is being cooked'.


Home / Language / iec conjugation
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.