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"
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.
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.
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
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
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')
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.
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'.
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
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".
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.
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"?
You might also find this interesting https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/chimps-legal-personhood.html
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)?