Talk:Polish language
|
|
We can put Polish transcription of words here.
As it is on Polish poets, we must insert unicode representations
of Polish national characters.
Contrary to what you state, Polish has *five* genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter in the singular number and male-personal and other in the plural number. This is seen in the five forms of the third-person pronoun: _on_, _ona_, _ono_, _oni_, and _one_.
The verbal aspects are perfective (not perfect) and imperfective (not imperfect).
Frank Y. Gladney Universion of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
There are some other mistaken terms: - verbs are conjugated rather than declined - "diacritics" is a more proper term than "accents"
As for Polish genders, according to the traditional Polish approach there are three genders in the singular number and two genders in the plural number (as Mr Gladney put it). Other reasonable approaches would be to claim that there are three genders (m, f, n) or there are five genders - feminine, neuter, masculine-personal, masculine-animate-impersonal and masculine-inanimate. The division into four genders (feminine, neuter, masculine-animate and masculine-inanimate) is valid in singular, but not in plural, so I don't find it correct. I'll change the article in a while.
Boraczek 14:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The article states: "Since 1945, as the result of mass education and mass migrations (forced by the socialist government on the society to suppress the development of the local communities), standard Polish has become far more homogeneous, although regional dialects persist." I thought these articles are supposed to be from a neutral point of view. Did the socialist goverrnment really force mass education on the society to suppress the development of local communities? Was that their stated objective? I am not a fan of the socialist government but I think this sentence should be changed.
I'll present the approach formulated by the president of the Polish Language Council, hold also by Encyklopedia Języka Polskiego (Encyclopedia of the Polish Language). According to these sources, there are five genders: masculine-personal, masculine-animate, masculine-inanimate, feminine, neuter.
Boraczek 14:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Total speakers
158.169.9.14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=158.169.9.14) wrote: > Total speakers: 60 Million
This number seems to be very overestimated. Could you please tell us what the source of these data is? Or where those Polish speakers live? Boraczek 10:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yesterday the same user changed such data in the German language version of Wikipedia and added wrong figures in the demographic sections of Germany and Poland. Maybe a nationalist? 82.82.120.181 11:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- OTOH, the number of 43 million seems a little low. There are approx. 39 millions speakers in Poland itself and the diaspora is estimated at 15-20 millions. The higher number might be the estimated quota of people speaking the language as opposed to 43 millions of mother-tongue speakers.Halibutt 09:33, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Żeście
Is co żeście zrobili correct? I've always thought it's not though it seems to be a very common mistake (even more than poszłem). What does ż- mean here anyway? It's neither że ("that") as in:
- Myślałem, żeście to zrobili. - "I thought that you had done it."
nor an exclamatory suffix -ż(e) as in:
- Cóżeście (co + -ż --> cóż + ście --> cóżeście) zrobili?
Kpalion 18:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Movable endings are remnants of the complex past tense. In the form closest to archaic Polish it was something like:
- co je?cie zrobili
Where je?cie was an appropriate form of the word to be.
The complex past evolved into simple past by merging of the auxiliary verb and the participle into one word (zrobili?cie). Historically, words like zrobili are not verbs but adjectival participles.
The auxiliary verb can attach to some other word (it doesn't attach to verbs, as zrobili isn't really a verb), like in wy?cie, co?cie etc. It can also function alone, but the je- changed into ?e- in modern Polish. So the ?e- doesn't mean anything – ?em ?e?, ?e?my and ?e?cie are forms of the verb by? (to be).
It gets confusing, because in the third person there was no ending to move, so zrobi?/zrobili can function as third person words. If one wants to be peculiarly historically correct, one can see zrobi? as a particle and a null verb.
In no case is ?e?my incorrect. Taw 05:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
New phonetic table
The English equivalents of Polish sounds given in this article are not always accurate. They're close, but not quite the same. Could anyone add X-SAMPA transcription too? Ausir 12:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Let's insert a table.
| Letter/digraph | The closest English sound | X-SAMPA |
Boraczek 15:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. Ausir 15:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Could someone add also X-SAMPA column to the table? Not everyone can see the IPA symbols... Ausir 01:00, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done. Now it doesn't look so good anymore but, well, let's just hope someday all browsers will be able to read IPA characters. Kpalion 01:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Excellent job, Kpalion! :-D I'm really impressed! :-D I'll make a couple of minor changes, if you don't mind. Of course, the changes are subject to discuss.
1. I'll change examples of Polish words with nasal vowels, because there are actually no nasal vowels in kąt and lęk (it's incorrect to pronounce nasal vowels in these words).
2. length, long => length, long (because it doesn't make too much sense to separate "n" and "g" in a digraph "ng", it's like writing mysz.
3. Polish ł and j are usually pronounced as non-syllabic u and i respectively rather than approximants.
4. In the tongue-twister chrząszcz is pronunced as [xSO~ZdZ] rather than [xSO~StS]
5. I'll add some more sounds in the "Other Phonetics Values" column.
I need help with IPA symbols! I can't type them. I'll put "?" instead. Could you please replace my ?'s with the symbols, Kpalion?
Boraczek 10:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! You're right about points 1,2,4, and I've already made the changes. As for ł and j, aren't semivowels a class of approximants?
- I don't think so. There's a great site with animations showing how people pronounce different sounds. It's a pity they only describe English and Spanish. But the site shows the difference between glides and non-syllabic vowels. See http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/about.html , click on "Launch Spanish Library" and you'll be able to watch animations for glides ("semi-consonantes" in Spanish) and correspondent non-syllabic vowels ("semi-vocales" in Spanish) :-)
- BTW I'm editing the Ortography section right now. Please don't touch it! ;-) Boraczek 11:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to add sounds in the table, if you think any are missing. As for IPA characters, I can't type them either; I copy-pasted them from SAMPA chart and other related articles. Kpalion 11:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done with the table of Polish letters. We had an editing conflict, but I think everything's all right now (I was careful so as not to overwrite your changes). I didn't manage to insert IPA symbols for [i_^] and [u_^]. Now I'm making an analogous table for Polish digraphs. Boraczek 12:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I couldn't find fonts with an inverted breve below i and u so I put those letters with an inverted breve above instead. I hope it won't cause too much confusion. Kpalion 17:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Stress
the word akurat ('exactly') - stress on the last syllable - that part seems to be incorrect. Perhaps it is so in some regional dialects, but I've neverd heard it stressed that way. Could anyone provide some more info?Halibutt 23:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This pronunciation ("akuRAT") is old-fashioned but still correct (together with a more modern altenrative - "aKUrat"). For example, it is still used by poets when they need a word stressed on the last syllable for a masculine rhyme. I mentioned it because it is probably the only Polish word (excluding one-syllable and compound words) which may be correctly stressed on the last syllable. Kpalion 00:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I can confirm what Kpalion said. "akuRAT" is correct even though it sounds strange. "aKUrat" is correct too. (source: "Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN" ed. by A. Markowski). BTW I'd have translated "akurat" as "just" rather than "exactly". But I agree that in some sentences "akurat" can be translated as "exactly", so the current translation isn't incorrect.
- Thanks for the corrections, Kpalion! My browser doesn't display IPA fonts, so I can't see my possible mistakes in IPA script. I hope you checked that too. Boraczek 10:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
akuRAT is not correct in any reasonably modern Polish. Neither is RzeczposPOlita. MateMAtyka, FIzyka etc. can be considered correct, but are rarely heard nowadays, with matemaTYka etc. being much more common. Taw 05:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You are likely true, but still when I was studying not so much time ago, everybody was stressing FIzyka. Then again, it was physics department, so it was a natural way to stress it, as this word was used quite often. I mean that if someone is within FIzyka or mateMAtyka professionally, she/he is almost always using the older (less common) stress. Przepla 11:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- RzeczpospoLIta. MatemaTYka and fiZYka are common mistakes, but are far from being a norm. My friends are somehow obsessed with correct Polish and I barely hear the incorrect forms. However, it is probable that in some time both forms will become equally correct. Halibutt 17:07, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
akuRAT, RzeczpospoLIta, matemaTYka, fiZYka are correct. My source: Nowy s³ownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN, red. Andrzej Markowski, PWN, Warszawa 2000. If you want to argue, please cite an alternative source. Boraczek 13:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Good Lord, you're right. It's time to die. Halibutt 13:20, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well, forms like FIzyka, mateMAtyka, rzeczposPOlita, akuRAT, cannot be (IMHO) considered obsolete or unnatural as long as there are persons who speak so naturally (i.e. without forcing themselves to pronounce words the correct way, but rather just because it was pronounced so at their home). I can prove that such persons exist (and I am one of them). 82.210.159.30 00:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lithuania and Wilno
Ok, could someone explain to me what is the exact status of the Polish language in Lithuanian Vilnius County? AFAIK it is an official language there. However, RickK erased this piece of info ([1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Polish_language&curid=22975&diff=0&oldid=0)). What's the fuzz then? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
What is the source of your information, Halibutt? As far as I know, the Polish minority is trying to make Lithuanian authorities respect rights of the Polish language as a local minority language. So Polish is even endangered in its position of a minority language, thus far from being an official language. Please confer these links (text in Polish): Ustawa Republiki Litewskiej o j?zyku pa?stwowym (http://www.wspolnota-polska.org.pl/index.php?id=l_uw5) 10-lecie polsko-litewskiego Traktatu (http://www.wspolnota-polska.org.pl/index.php?id=p40429)
Phonetics and voice samples
Some time ago I prepared voice samples for most of the Polish cities and some famous personalities. Perhaps I could prepare some voice samples with phonetics or some basic texts for the Polish language page? Any ideas? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:42, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I added those samples anyway. Any comments? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Boraczek recently sugested (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Polish_language&diff=8054814&oldid=8016807) we removed two of the samples. Indeed, the final consonants in those examples are voiceless, but this does not mean that they make no sound. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 18:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- ??? I think this is an obvious misunderstanding. You can't give a word which does not contain any voiced velar plosive consonant as an example of a voiced velar plosive consonant. The word bóg does not contain any voiced velar plosive consonant, it only contains a letter g. Therefore, I remove these examples. BTW thank you for adding soundclips! Boraczek 08:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Czech and Russian influence
I've seen some anon user erase the mention of Czech and Russian influence on the Polish language several times in a row. It is not clear to me why did he (or she) do so. There are zillions of Russian words in Polish and the Czech influence, although not that clear, is also visible. The Polish grammar is an almost exact copy of the Czech grammar coined by Jan Hus (with the notable difference of past tense construction). Whole morphology, parts of speech, declension model, usage of present and future tenses are almost identical. There are also countless lexical connections, for instance most of Polish words related to religion come from Czech language (msza, kościół, wierni, opat, poganin) as well as some military terms (rycerz, pułk). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
- "Whole morphology, parts of speech, declension model, usage of present and future tenses are almost identical." Because Polish and Czech are both West-Slavonic languauges, Polish and Czech are sister lang. not mother and sister as you suggest. Polish and Czech declension patterns differ in many point. eg. soft declensions in Czech compared with Polish ones are oft very "degenarated" (most vowels after soft consonnnt became 'i' in Czech). Yes, there are countless lexical connections, but in both direction. There are also words of polish origine in czech. They were borrowed in 19. century.
- Of course, but the main bulk of Czech lexicalisms in Polish came in 9th to 15th centuries, and the number of borrowed words is indeed awesome. Also you are right that the grammar is similar because both languages are Western Slavic. However, there are several parts of grammar in Polish that were actually modelled on purpose after the grammar of our southern neighbours. So, all in all, Polish language was influenced by Czech language heavily. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 20:28, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Halibutt, don't you mix the Czech influence on Polish with an influence of the Latin grammar system on both languages? 82.210.159.30 00:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
German Influence
Someone also erased the list of Polish words that originated from German. What is wrong with that? It is perfectly legitimate, and I'll be damned if s/he deleted it because s/he thought it was politically motivated or some other equally foolish reason.
- Thank you to the person who put it back in!
Word order
I have some remark on this fragment of the article:
These sentences mean the same ("Ala has a cat"):
* Ala ma kota * Ala kota ma * Kota ma Ala * Ma Ala kota * Kota Ala ma * Ma kota Ala
Yet only the first of these sounds natural in Polish, and others should be used for emphasis only, if at all.
In fact, all these sentences sound natural, and all of them are in daily usage; nevertheless this strongly depends on context. Only the first one is completely neutral from the point of view of grammar (and handbooks):
- Ala ma kota - Ala has a cat.
The remaining sentences depend on context and also imply something:
- Ala kota ma, (ale go nie karmi) - Ala does have a cat (but f.e. she doesn't feed it)
- Kota ma Ala, (a psa ma Ola) - Ala has the cat (but f.e. the dog belongs to Ola)
- Ma Ala kota, (ale nie ma psa) - Ala does have a cat (but f.e. she doesn't have a dog)
- Kota Ala ma, (ale nie ma nic poza tym) - Ala has a cat (but f.e. she doesn't have anything else)
- Ma kota Ala, (ale nie ma kota Ola) - Ala has a cat (but f.e. Ola doesn't have a cat)
82.210.159.30 01:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Number of speakers
I think the information on number of speakers in respective countries is quite informative. I believe it should stay as it does no harm. 14:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Russian
Is pure Russian mutually intelligible with Polish.? Please see Mutually intelligible languages--Jondel 04:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)