1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Polish
  4. >
  5. "Człowiek to zwierzę."

"Człowiek to zwierzę."

Translation:A human is an animal.

December 11, 2015



Humans are (a type) of animal. Would be the best translation in my opinion when you consider the following:

"Human" in this sentence is meant to refer to all of humanity. So, the translation just isn't right as is. You would say: "Humans". Since it is now plural, you must use "are". So, "Humans are..." But, if you were to put "Humans are animals" you would have a technically correct sentence but give the impression this is more a manifesto on the morality of humanity than a biological fact (which I presume is the intent of the sentence). So, to correctly convey that I would put: "Humans are a type of animal"


If you're going to down vote then give a reason. Otherwise I will stop contributing; I assume some people have found most of my input across the site useful


Dude ignore it, people seem to downvote a lot based just anything in this thread, the point of Duolingo is that we discuss and work out the issues we have with learning a language, don't let some troll scrolling through and hitting a down arrow derail that, your doing good by trying to keep the learning and conversation going, ignore the haters.


I downvoted it because your point doesn’t make sense to me.

Humans are animals, therefore a human is an animal. I don’t see the problem.

Maybe someone could explain it to me in other words?


I gave both your comments upvotes both to combat any nasty little trolls and for a good explanation! :)


It says I've downvoted several of the comments on this thread but I haven't, so I have to manually de-downvote them, which doesn't always work. No idea how or why it would do this but it's quite frustrating. Does the same with upvotes sometimes


I think people are downvoting because the article is implied: "a human is an animal"


I don't understand your point. Could you explain?


In polish, there are no articles. "the" and "a" don't exist. Człowiek to zwierzę could mean different things: "The human is the animal", "A human is an animal" "a human is the animal". These are all English translations, however, and the implication of the sentence could be slightly different. I would interpret this Polish sentence as having the meaning: "humans are a type of animal", but that is not what it translates to.


Okay, that makes sense. I think "A human is an animal" or "Humans are animals" is the best here.


I think it's 'A human' since there's no indefinite article in Polish, 'A human is an animal.'. Nie?


I like this, it is useful insight.


Z biologicznego punktu widzenia, człowiek, istota ludzka (human, human being) jest zwierzęciem, bo należy on do gatunku ludzkiego, jest w całym królestwie zwierząt gatunkiem, lub jest jednym przedstawicielem, osobnikiem gatunku homo sapiens.

Człowiek to zwierzę - A human/A human being is an animal/Humans are animals


"to"? Not jest?


You could say "człowiek jest zwierzęciem" and it would mean roughly the same.


Only roughly? What's the difference?


It would be exactly the same.


Is there any way of translating this which shows more accurately the differences? I understand perhaps the difference is too small, though I like to understand when to use what.


Well as it is interchangeable in this case, It's not always. As a rule of a thumb you can safely assume that you can use "to" as "być" in cases when you describe something as a part of a bigger whole/set/collection. Example: You can't say use "to" when you want to say: Mleko jest białe - Milk is white, there is no way to use "to" here. However when you want to say: Mleko jest napojem. - Milk is a drink. You can say: Mleko to napój - Noun+"to"+verb nominative case. Sun is a star - Słońce "to" gwiazda, same principal here. Hope it helps


It is easier, you just cannot use "TO" with adjectives or possesive pronouns. you can use "TO" only with noun is noun, and only in third person.


I don't know if there is any difference at all. (I'm Polish). "To" is very slightly less formal , so in this particular sentence, which has double meaning. TO ZWIERZĘ feels more about bestiality of human race, while JEST ZWIERZĘCIEM feels more about humans belonging in animal kingdom. And jest to is sometimes very formal. It feels like a beginning of longer definition.


They are the same but not exactly the same

For us beginners I would say we can ignore the subtle difference until more advanced stages... BUT, if anybody is interested out of curiosity, then yes, there is a very subtle difference.

Człowiek jest zwierzęciem means "a human is an animal"

Człowiek to zwierzę is like saying "a human = an animal"

I have no way of explaining how that '=' is different to 'is' but there is different feel/meaning.

But as I said, for us beginners, it is practically the same meaning.

I would say sometimes use 'jest' and sometimes 'to' because it drills the method of knowing when to use instrumental and when to not.

(Don't ever use to instead of jest when the subject is pronoun though. Do not ever say 'Ona to dziewczynka' for example. Use 'jest')


“to” is another way of defining things, it is followed by the Nominative form of the noun.


The English doesnt make much sense. Either both with an article or both without would be better?


I just wrote "Humans are animals"


Agree. "A man is an animal", would be even better.


'man is an animal' is probably most accurate. 'a man' suggests that only men and not the women are animals which is obviously untrue


Hehe. You're right in a way, but I'm not talking about man (or woman) in gender terms. I'm talking about a general concept of Man which covers both sexes as in evolution of Man. I should have capitalized the m in man.


You are not right God made us to his image not to something he make .ELVOLUTION NEVER HAPPEN GOD MADES US


In English, saying 'Man' refers to the species of mankind/human.

Saying 'A man' refers to a specific (male) person.

This difference was in the public and media spotlight when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon and uttered those famous words.

Some observers and commentators suggested that he said "that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"

Which would be incorrect as 'man' and 'mankind' means the same thing.

The correct, and more powerful sentence, was "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind".

Meaning that for "one specific person this is just a small step (when he took a step and walked onto the surface) but for the human species this is a giant leap"

Later indepth analysis showed that there was some signal or sound interference during his words which masked the letter 'a'.

Interesting story.

If he was Polish, we wouldnt have this problem lol. Just joking. Us English speakers would still be trying to work out if it was in nominative or accusative or instrumental lol


No, you can use Man in the sense of humanity with an indefinite article.


It seems to me, and granted I'll probably get down voted, as all comments on this thread seem to be, that polish does not translate exactly into english and will not ever make gramatical sense if you attempt to force it. Polish does not seem to have any form of "a" as we are so used to using it, you kind of have to fill in the blanks as you translate in your head, so "human is animal" would be "a human being is a type of animal".


I guess I'm the only one that had no problem with the lack of articles. In fact, after starting to learn Esperanto afterwards, I noticed I often dropped "la" (the) because I'm not used to using it outside of English.


I agree and is the hard part leaping from English to polish, the lack of articles leaves me feeling that my polish translation is missing something!


How how, pozdrawiam Was, ludzie.


So, "człowiek" means human/man/person in the sense of the species (homo sapiens)? And "osob" means person in the sense of a sentient and thinking individual? (Like in some example someone cited Spok and Elrond)


The basic form of the latter form is „osoba”. And I'm not sure how to explain it, but you are partially correct. In the first meaning only „człowiek” can be used, but in the second both can, and I don't know any particular rules that tells when to use one or the other.


Perhaps this comment can shed some more light: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/19428542

But in general yes, I agree. "Osoba to zwierzę" would mean "A person is an animal" so that's a different sentence and a strange one. But "Elrond jest osobą" means "Elrond is a person" and is definitely correct although of course Elrond is not a human being.


I am not an animal


I think that I am not a animal to that is a good way to say it i wish they would remove the frais from the list


In this example, is zwierzę in the accusative form and not the instrumental form? If so, is this due to the "to" construction and not the "jest" construction? "być" always takes instrumental, but do demonstratives such as "to" take accusative or ... ?


You use the Nominative after “to”, not the Instrumental (which is used after forms of “być”). “Zwierzę” is in the Nominative here. The “ę” at the end of the word is not a result of declension, it's just its basic form.


My greatest confusion with PL is simply seeing a word and not knowing if it's in dictionary form or being shown with a change in declination


Try looking at the gray parentheses next to hints. "Nom." is the Nominative – the "dictionary form".


Why not zwierzeciem?


człowiek jest zwierzęciem

człowiek to zwierzę

read tips and notes - defining,


"Man is an animal" should be accepted. "Man" is a commonly used way of referring to the human race


I added it, thanks!


Why is "a person" not accepted for "człowiek"?


Especially in this sentence, "a person" is not a translation of "człowiek". Isn't Spock from Star Trek a person? Or Elrond from LOTR?


They are people. I would call them "człowiek" in Polish-wouldn't you? Mind you, I would call Audrey 2 from little shop of horrors a person too (and he is an alien plant, not an animal).


No, I wouldn't call them "człowiek", because they are not human.

People? Really? Why?


It is a phylosophical issue. There is little to separate them from humans. They think, feel and are able to make judgements exactly like humans. I would say Data (the android from Star Trek Next Generation) is also a person. Person doesn't necessarily mean human. The latter is a biological term while the former is more than that. When you say "jesteś dobrym człowiekiem" you mean that the person is kind hearted and has good personality, surely (not that they are a good human specimen). Surely you could say the same to a kind alien who takes pity on you and saves you from an evil alien invasion. Or would you say "jesteś dobrym ufoludkiem"?


Your explanation makes no sense.


nice sentences about smile


No, a human is made in the image of God.


¿Porque dicen que un humano es un animal? Eso es falso estan enseñando algo muy errado, un humano es un ser viviente no es un animal


¿Crees que los animales no son seres vivientes?


Humans are spiritual animal-beings...


Humans are NOT animals


A human is not an animal


Classic definition of animal is: "bodily being with a soul (anima)". In that sense a human is an animal indeed. But mankind does not belong to the animal kingdom that is constituted by all other animals since we are created to be part of God's kingdom. Created in his image.


There are certain animals, for example Gorillas, who exhibit complex human-like social behaviour and express a whole range of human emotions like joy, sadness, disappointment, gratitude, compassion... Furthermore they are capable of understanding abstract concepts and are able to communicate them via sign language. Where's the big difference to cavemen (who undoubtedly were humans)?


Animals have Verstand. Humans have Verstand, plus Vernunft. Big difference.


Very scientific approach, bravo!


This doesn't make any sense in English


Yes,indeed really hard for people that have never spoken a slavic language.


that is sexist, when it translate to "man is an animal." that tell us it exclude women.


English is just like that; sometime it uses "man" to mean all humans.

Learn Polish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.