No, but there are other dreadful situations sometimes taking place in polish supermarkets. Although, Poles would rather use "bydło"(literal meaning cattle but also: "(colloquial, offensive) rabble; uncultured or stupid people") in this context. ;)
I always had a hard time with this until I realized si and ci are always ś and ć. I couldn't figure out how to explain the sounds like she. Eventually, I realized all I have to do is write something like this: sz'i (I have used this ONLY for explaining sounds and doesn't mean anything in Polish)
To add to Harm609702's explanation, the 'c' in 'ci' is a palatized sound (your tongue is touching your palate), whereas in 'cz' it is not; 'cz' is closer to the English 'ch'. The Polish letter ć and the combination 'ci' are somewhat similar to the sound "Atchoo!" imitating a sneeze in English.
No, it isn't. In Slavic languages 'to' and its variations is used to name objects, to categorize them, to define one noun through another noun. I'm not a linguist, so I can't neither tell you the definition of that nor give you any English equivalent, but imagine the situation when you point at something and say 'this is [name it]'. In Slavic languages it'll be either 'to jest' or just 'to ' -like construction. 'To' actually means 'this' (which for me as Ukrainian is kind of funny and confusing at the same time as in my language it means 'that', so I offten mix them when translating). Now, imagine that you just name the object instead of pointing at it. It's like you put the object into virtual category and point at it.
By the word "to". It's one of the two options possible in a sentence "X is Y", when both X and Y are noun phrases. The other would be "Ci ludzie są zwierzętami", but in this specific example that would actually sound to me like they are literally animals, not just metaphorically.
Or maybe never even had it? Not sure, but while the word itself is from Proto-Slavic, it seems that it only has descendants in West Slavic languages and ended up in Ukrainian and Belarusian by borrowing from Polish(which given the history, is not surprising at all) – now, borrowing an expletive is more probable than a word for cattle, which, at least for peasants, had to be one that they used almost constantly since they learned to speak…
I don't know, I'm just guessing, because I can't find a good etymology information for the Ukrainian би́дло on the net. ;)
Yes, I mean ci and czy. Here the difference is way clearer, in audition lessons it wasn't so. Maybe I also tend to mix palatalized and normal 'ch' because in Russian they are always palatalized and in Ukrainian they are always not, so when bilingual locals talk, they may use them interchangeably, so I had no need to distinguish them before.
Maybe this would help
The rules for writing Ukrainian in Polish http://sjp.pwn.pl/zasady/318-Transliteracja-i-transkrypcja-wspolczesnego-alfabetu-ukrainskiego;629711.html
The rules for writing Russian in Polish http://sjp.pwn.pl/zasady/308-Transkrypcja-wspolczesnego-alfabetu-rosyjskiego;629697.html
Thank you, but it's rather useful when one wants to write their Ukrainian/Russian name in Polish than to understand the sound. For example, Polish 'c' doesn't actually sound as "ц" in the most of words, it's way closer to Russian 'ч' (maybe somewhere inbetween those two sounds) while 'cz' stands closer to Ukrainian 'ч'. Ukrainian and Russian "ц" actualy sounds as 'ts' or 'zz' in words 'pizza' or 'paparazzi', and it may be either palatalized or not.
Both can be used in an "X is Y" sentence.
"to" is kinda like saying "X = Y". Y takes Nominative in such a sentence. You can only use it if both X and Y are noun phrases.
"są" is the equivalent of "are" (3rd person plural). It's more descriptive. After "są", if Y is a noun phrase it takes Instrumental, and if it's just an adjective, it takes Nominative.
More info here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/16373167