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 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 it's 'A human' since there's no indefinite article in Polish, 'A human is an animal.'. Nie?
The English doesnt make much sense. Either both with an article or both without would be better?
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"?
You might also find this interesting https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/chimps-legal-personhood.html
You could say "człowiek jest zwierzęciem" and it would mean roughly 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.
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.
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.
“to” is another way of defining things, it is followed by the Nominative form of the noun.
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".
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 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!
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.
"Man is an animal" should be accepted. "Man" is a commonly used way of referring to the human race
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)?