i don't understand this, "rozmawianO" and "pitO"?

"Rozmawiano by ze mną"
"Pito by za moje zdrowie"

i understand what the sentence is saying but why "rozmawianO" and "pitO"? with the"o" at the end? what part of polish grammar is this?

You use this construction when you do not want to indicate who is performing the action, it's a non-personal, passive construction, similar to English 'It's belived that...'

The actual suffix is not "O", but '-NO' or '-TO':
'zrobiono', 'umyto', np.:

Na Wszystkich Świętych umyto wszystkie groby = Wszystkie groby zostały umyte na Wszystkich Świętych.

It WAS believed/made etc. This construction is proper only for the past. And used in formal language.

Wszystkie groby zostały umyte na Wszystkich Świętych. => Na Wszystkich Świętych umyto wszystkie groby.

But you cannot change:
Ten grób jest teraz myty.
in similar way.

You can say:
Umyto ten grób.
But it would mean:
This grave WAS cleaned.

Both the above explanations concentrate on the first of the two impersonal forms ending with -no or -to. It is used in past tense: zrobio-no, umy-to, widzia-no, zobaczo-no.

There is however the second important form with -no and -to endings: the subjunctive form, such as zrobio-no by, widzia-no by, umy-to by. And this seems to be the gist of the OP's question, since he provides the following two examples in subjunctive form:

"Rozmawiano by ze mną"
"Pito by za moje zdrowie"

Both forms can be used in compound sequences, such as these second conditional sentences:
Gdyby mnie lubiano, pito by za moje zdrowie... i pito by i pito by ... ad nauseum.
[simple past impersonal form, followed by subjunctive impersonal form, imperfective aspect]

If I was liked my health would be toasted (and toasted and toasted).

Gdyby mnie zauważono, wypito by za moje zdrowie.
If I was noticed my health would be toasted [toasted once only. Here the perfective aspect is used in subjective impersonal form wypito by]

Evidently both perfective and imperfective forms can be used with subjunctive impersonal forms:
pito by
wypito by
rozmawiano by
porozmawiano by

The forms -no and -to can be replaced by the passive voice - as long as the verb is transitive:
widziano to ==> to było widziane [imperfective aspect]
widziano mnie => byłem widziany [imperfective aspect]

zuważono to => to zostało zauważone [perfective aspect]
zauważono mnie ==> zostałem zauważony [perfective aspect]

Many non-transitive verbs, however, make impersonal forms -no or -to, but yet do not form the corresponding passive voice
chodzono ==> no corresponding passive voice
płakano ==> no passive voice

wow! you guys rock! i understand this now. i was learning "tryb warunkowe" yesterday...and while i was reading, and having fun, this part of polish grammar killed my mood and confused me. so i just slept. now i'm going back to the book to continue ;)

@boletus are you a teacher?

He's the PF Oracle :)

No, god forbid. :-)
I actually knew my grammar the best at the age of 12-13. My mom, who was also my teacher, made sure that most, if not all, of us, knew the difference between "przydawka dopełnieniowa" and "przydawka dzierżawcza". But do not ask me such questions now. I would have to read about it first. :-)


You flatter me sir. :-)

good to have someone like you around @boletus

For present tense you use the 'robi się' construction instead:

Ten grób myje się teraz. - you don't translate this as 'the grave is cleaning itself' but "the grave is being cleaned', however in practice this construction is used mostly for habitual and repetitive actions e.g.:

Groby myje się zwykle przed Wszystkimi Świętymi - graves are usually cleaned before All Saints
śniadanie jada się rano - Breakfast is eaten in the morning
nie rozmawia się ze mną gdy jestem zajęty - hmm, I don't know how to translate this using Eng. passive voice but the meaning is more or less: I don't accept to be talked to (disturbed) when I'm busy

etc.

Cinek

Sorry, but this is simply not correct, you cannot say this way, it's ridiculous, only the passive construction is acceptable here, you may however say: W Polsce myje się groby na Wszystkich Świętych - In Poland graves are cleaned before All Saints Day.

^^
Subject-less sentences
grzegorj.w.interia.pl/gram/pl/skladnia02.html

There are about 15 types of sentences in Polish, which have no formal subject. These include:
h. sentences that describe actions or states of an unspecified subject, and also rules or prohibitions, using the 3rd person predicate with the particle "się".

Mówi się. Do kościoła idzie się pod górę. Tu się pracuje. Rybę je się widelcem. Uprasza się o niepalenie. Zabrania się postoju w tym miejscu. Powinno się uważać na to, co się mówi. Winno się zapobiegać takim wydarzeniom.

The examples below describe habitual actions:

Latem kąpie się w morzu, opala się, je się lody, pływa się w jeziorze, jeździ się na rowerze i chodzi się po górach.

Wiosną zakochuje się szybko, spaceruje się i nie nosi się czapki.
Jesienią zbiera się grzyby i kasztany, nosi się kalosze i słucha się muzyki.
Zimą jeździ się na nartach, rzuca się śnieżkami, zostaje się w domu i świętuje się Boże Narodzenie.

i. sentences that describe actions or states of an unspecified subject with respect to the past, using the predicate containing the impersonal form, ending with -no, -to.

Rozbito szybę. Chorego przewieziono do szpitala.
This case was already discussed above in this thread.

I do understand what Grzegorz Jagodziński meant in these examples and all these sentences make sense.

Sentence "Grób myje się" remains incorrect though (or causes ambiguity in meaning) because " grób" appears to be an agent here, not the patient, its meaning is basically equal to: "Grób myje siebie". Only because the impersonal form "myje się" is similar to 3rd person singular. Using inanimate nouns in these type of sentences requires more attention.

Compare these two:

*Grób myje się.
Ręce myje się przed jedzeniem.

Well yes, you are right, but Cinek just made one mistake, out of four examples, and I am sure he would readily admit to it.

For me, the most characteristic factor here is a concept of a habitual action, a.k.a. frequentative aspect. I quoted Jagodziński just in case anyone wants to follow his other examples, not because I disagreed with you.

Well, no, I think you are wrong here. The sentence in question cannot be compared to "Grób myje siebie" as "grób' in 'Grób myje się' very distinctively takes the accusative case, whereas "grób" in "Grób myje siebie" takes the nominative case. You will readily descover it when you replace the gender of the noun from masculine into feminine in order to get the following sentences "Salę sprząta się" and "Sala sprząta siebie".

Using inanimate nouns certainly requires more attention, but doesn't make using them in this type sentences incorrect per se.

Why do you think that polish grammar is disambiguous? I agree that this alone looks very odd, however imagine putting it (a little re-phrased) in context like this:

a. przepraszam, czy można?
b. proszę nie przeszkadzać, tu się teraz pracuje!
a. tak? a co dokładnie się robi?
b. tu sie teraz myje grób.

you still say that these sentences are grammatically incorrect or ambiguous?

Of course, I could imagine dialog like this only in a Bareja movie ore something like that, but I'm sure every Pole would understand it perfectly.

Cinek


It's exactly what I wanted to say.


and thanks for formal support :-)

Cinek (którego czasem do końca się nie rozumie, choć stara sie jak umie ;-)

If I may add ..

The structures here supposed to be subjectless. Aside from those related to permissions and prohibitions I can see here several major habitual cases. Here are just three:

Object + predicate + "się" + …
Śniadania jada się …
Groby myje się … . Talerze zmywa się … Ciało umywa (obmywa) się …
Rybę jada się …
Kalosze nosi się …
Czapki nie nosi się

Location adverbial + się + predicate + ...
Tu się pracuje ... (habitual)
Tu się zmywa naczynia .... (habitual)

Time adverbial + predicate + się + [object]
Latem pływa się …
Zimą jeżdzi się (na nartach)
Rankiem jada się śniadania, a wieczorem kolacje.
Teraz myje się grób … Teraz zmywa się naczynia ...

Formally the last two sequences are not habitual, because of present time "teraz". I am not saying they are wrong. They just sound strange to me. And not because of a connotation of a grave performing the self ablution; obviously "grób" is not a subject but object here. It is just a funny style. As you said - from Bareja movie. :-)

Yes, but the 'funny' thing with masculine inanimate nouns is that the nominative case=accusative and that's why the comic effect.

Maybe 'incorrect' was too strong word for it, but generally this is not an example of a good style in writing.

In spoken language almost anything goes, as we know it:)

Very good remarks by the way, thanks!

you guys are very brilliant. you're teaching me a lot!

but i don't understand why the polish language is so difficult!

just about 2 days ago...our mathematics analysis professor didn't know if she should use "oba" or "oboje" when she was teaching us!! and she's a Polish doctor :).