"Dziecko to człowiek."

Translation:A child is a human.

December 11, 2015

This discussion is locked.


It didn't accept "The child is a person". I've reported it :) Thank you for your hard work and patience with all the questions/queries, Polish team!


"Człowiek" means (hu)man. Only. The person is "osoba".

By the way, it's a very interesting word 'cause it can't be plural. If you want to say about two, three or twenty two humans, you use a word "ludzie" (humans, people). And "ludzie" can't be singular.


Exactly the same in Croatian, -Čovjek= human(only singular),and ˝Ljudi˝ =people(only plural). It's nice when someone outside gets it :)


Same in Russian too. Cielowiek is one. Liudi are many


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.


There are of course exceptions to every rule - In "A Man's a Man for 'A That", Burns is perhaps not thinking exclusively of adult males.



Deleted the options with 'man', but 'human' is the starred answer.


yeah, this insistence that człowiek only translates as "human" in English is starting to annoy me very hard.


Ok, thanks - I was just following the hints :)


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 :)


Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't questioning the hints, just my understanding of them :)


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"



I am a mom and i can confirm that Dziecko to zwierzę.


Before anyone gets upset, its a joke. Have you met toddlers?


They dog pellets ok, and little insect so the wing stick out of there mouths. Mine did, had to watch them closely.


Why is "człowiek" not in the instrumental case? This sentence defines "a child" as "a human".


Because there is a verb "to", not "jest". They mean the same but the nouns after them are differently inflected.


"To" is a verb? Doesn't it mean "it/this"? In Russian, there is a similar construction. Dieti eto liudi, meaning, "children: these are human beings."


"to" is not a verb, but it kind of replaces verb. In Polish you usually need verb in a sentence, but if there is "to", you can skip it.


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).


Would you be able to explain where the inflection is in a sentence that uses it? If it's used like in the Russian above, is there a pause before/after "to"?


Dziecko to człowiek, there is no inflection. Both the subject and object are in the nominative case.


I have read that replacing "byc" with "to" in naming things is less taxing to your memory in naming things because it stays the dictionary version


The nominative case, yes, after Polish to. After the verb być, however nouns take the instrumental case.


"jest" and "to" is the same...?


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.


Is there a rule for when to use "jest" and when to use "to (jest)"? Is "jest" only for "noun is adjective" sentences?


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)


So for "To jest/są adjective (nominative, neuter)", "jest/są" is required, but for "To jest/są noun", "jest/są" can be omitted. Is that correct?


yes, exactly.

If you omit jest/są with adjective it changes the meaning.

example: ta ładna= the pretty (one)

[deactivated user]

    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.


    I have no idea why the hint "human" was missing, I just added it. "human" is actually the exact meaning of the noun "człowiek", it's just that English quite often uses "man" for it.


    Yes, and in other sentences człowiek could be translated as a man but not in this one!


    Well, is "A child is a man" a thing people would really say in English?

    Not that "A child is a human" is such a probable thing to say, but still seems more likely to me...


    why does it usually have iem on the end, but not in this instance?


    -iem can be an Instrumental ending, but this sentence uses Nominative.

    It could also be "Dziecko jest człowiekiem".


    in bosnian 'covjek' has a plural until the number of four. afterwards it is 'ljudi'. Dva covjeka, tri covjeka, pet ljudi...


    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.


    why is the clowiek not in the instrumental? <like when one says: ja jestem chlapcem.???


    Jesteś chłopcem, ale Bosniacco to chłopiec.

    The object stays in the nominative case after to or to jest.

    Dziecko to jest człowiek.

    Dziecko jest człowiekiem.


    Why did it say dziecko means 'baby'? It said I was wrong


    "baby" is one of the accepted answers, but "child" is the main one.


    Why is the ...em ending not required here. It is a complement


    The instrumental case człowiekiem comes after the verb "jest" but not after "to" or "to jest"


    Someone tell the supreme court.


    Why do all these statments have to be so ovious! they so bug me


    Because it's the very beginning of the course. Every word and every grammar construction has to be introduced before, so... there's just no vocabulary nor grammar available at this point to create more complex sentences.


    Whaaaaaaaaaa... I thought they were just lumps of flesh


    Why is "jest not used instead of "to"?


    It can be. It's either "Dziecko to człowiek" or "Dziecko jest człowiekiem".

    More info here: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/16373167

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