człowiek - person, human (being) - PWN/Oxford Wielki Słownik (The Great Dictionary - the standard reference dictionary).
Yes, "person" is usually "osoba", but it can have a wider meaning than that, as here. A word in one language doesn't always have a mutually exclusive 1:1 equivalent in another. There is often some overlap.
And we simply can't say in English that "a child is a man" (the answer Duo gave me): it's a contradiction in terms. (Reported). "Man(kind)" may be the human race, but "a man" is always, by definition, an adult and never a child.
Only "a person" or "a human being", or at a pinch "a human", work here in English.
Fair enough, but I'd go for "person", myself. In Google Search, "a child is a person" gets 28 million hits, "a child is a human" 800,000, of which 500,000 are for "human being". I know these figures aren't very reliable, but I think the ratio of more than 30:1 gives you some idea. In Ngram's corpus of English books, "a child is a person" is also way out front.
It depends on context. Sometimes you can say "This human is such a terrible being" but you mean a person anyway, it's rather ironic (something like metaphor). If you'd translate it to Polish, you can use both versions, but if you'd use "osoba", then it would be the same sentence as "człowiek" but without this irony. Hope you understand :)
Sorry, but I don't think a native speaker of English would ever say "This human is such a terrible being".
Firstly, we never refer to a person as "this human" but as "this man/woman/person" etc.
And secondly, we would never say that someone was "a being", but "a human being".
The nearest I can think of (very negative) would be something like "This guy really is a sorry/sad/pathetic excuse for a human being"
We use eto in Russian the same way as to in Polish, except in Russian the present tense of the verb "is," jest', is always omitted unless used for emphasis.
Dieti eto liudi. Dieti - liudi. "Children are people."
Dieti jest' liudi! "The children are people!" (As in a heated argument.)
Also the omission of the verb jest' in Russian has given way to the verb являться (jawliat'sja). Dieti jawliajutsja liud'mi (notice the declension of the object when the verb is put back in).
no. It can mean the same sometimes.
To means this. But in Polish in "noun is noun" sentences you can write
Dziecko to jest człowiek.
The addition of "TO" changes case needed, instead of dziecko jest człowieKIEM, you say Dziecko to (jest) człowieK.
Other thing it changes is that jest is not necessary. It is still there, but does not have to be said, the same way we omit pronouns. (Ja) jestem.
No. It's other way round. "To jest" is only for "noun is noun" and "this is" sentences:
Pronoun +be+noun= pronoun +być+noun(instrumental)
noun is noun= noun jest noun (instrumental) , or noun to (jest) noun (nominative)
noun is adjective= noun jest adjective (nominative)
pronoun +be+adjective=pronoun +być+adjective(nominative)
this is/that is +noun= to(jest) noun (nominative)
this is/that is +adjective= to jest adjective (nominative, neuter)
these/those are +noune=to (są) noun (nominative)
these/those are +adjective= to są adjective (nominative, neuter)
Confused. The hint gives the translation of człowiek as man, and only man, but it won't accept man as a valid answer, only human. Annoying, because I actually changed my answer from human to man after checking the hint and thinking my answer was wrong.
It's interesting :) Do you have other DUAL forms that went from two things to three and four things?
I heard that Slovenian have still active dual form (like: singular, dual, plural). In Polish unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for not natives) we have only leavings, e.g.:
(1) in human parts: mam plamę na ręce (singular) - I have a stain on my hand, mam dziecko na ręku (dual) - I have a child in my arms, mam plamy na rękach (plural) - I have spots on my hands; dwoje oczu (dual) not "dwa oczy" - two eyes, dwa oka (plural) - two drops of fat floating on the surface of liquid, dwoje uszu (dual) not "dwa uszy" - two ears, dwa ucha (plural) - two handles
(2) in numbers of thing:
Polish have: jeden rok, dwa-cztery lata, pięć lat, jedenaście lat, dwadzieścia dwa lata. (1 year, 2-4,5,11,22 years)
Russian have: один год, два-четыре года, пять лет, одиннадцать лет, двадцать два года.
(3) in plural form you (but now it's not only for "SG you" and someone) -TA instead -CIE:
Co robita? Róbta co chceta. - What are you doing? Do what you want?
For me it's really interesting that Slavic people had dual. Our predecessors had to really like number two:
-2 < -1 < 0 > 1 > 2
przedwczoraj < wczoraj < dziś > jutro > pojutrze
the day before yesterday < yesterday < today > tomorrow > the day after tomorrow
przed-------przedprzedwczoraj - some day before yesterday
po-------popojutrze - some day after tommorow
But family we count up to at least three generations:
-3 < -2 < 1 < 0 > 1 > 2 > 3
pradziadkowie < dziadkowie < rodzice < ja > dzieci > wnuki > prawnuki
great-grandparents children> grandchildren> great-grandchildren
In Russian it's also plural liudi, but not with numbers. Dwa, tri, cietyrie cielowieka, but piat' cielowiek. It's an irregular word which uses the nominative singular form for all numbers except numbers ending in two, three, or four (except 12, 13, 14), for which the genitive singular is used.
With "year," it's odin god, dwa, tri, cietyrie goda, but piat' liet.