"Ona jest zła."

Translation:She is angry.

December 11, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why isn't 'zla' in instrumental form?


When you use just an adjective without a noun, you use nominative case.


Thank you for the explanation.


In fact, the word "is" itself serves two different funtions in these two cases. In one, it means that one thing is an example (or identical to) another, e.g. "she is a girl." In the other, it means that the subject has a certain property, e.g. "she is evil."


Well I'd say both examples are covered by the definition of być (to be).

However in english we also use a form of 'to be' to describe a verb. We seem to have the notion of " 'to be' doing"

He is walking. He is eating. She was drinking. They were dancing.

But polish doesnt use a form of 'to be' for that purpose.

(But it explains why we’ve seen other beginners in these forums translating directly, eg. dogs are drinking as 'psy są pije')


Another option is "She is mad", and it is accepted.


Zła is angry, not mad. I know in English is synonims but in Poland is diffrent


So what is the difference?


I assumed that it is the same difference than in french : - angry is when you're upset - mad is being crazy


Angry is a more accurate term, I agree. But, in everyday language (esp. in N. America), we use "mad" as a synonym of "angry" very frequently (if not more frequently). Here are some examples: She is mad at me because I did not say hi to her. She is mad at her boyfriend because he looked at another girl. My mother was mad at me for saying ....... . The woman is mad at me for because I said she's ugly. Why are you mad at me?!
In all of the above examples, you can substitute "angry" for "mad" and the meaning will be exactly the same.
Then, you might use "mad" in a diff. context. Eg. Are you mad?! Which would be more like "Are you crazy?!".
So, there you go. It all depends on the context, and since there is no context, my answer ("She is mad") was correct, and it's also accepted by Duolingo.


I wrote "she is wrong" and it said it was incorrect. Even though the translation said "wrong". Can someone tell me why??


"Zły" in meaning "wrong" can be used only for things. For example "złe krzesło" (wrong chair - that blue one is the one I need, not this red). There's no such a usage for people.


Could this "bad" be used in the sense of "being mean" and "being bad at something"? Thanks :)


In Polish "zły" can mean bad, wrong, evil or angry. "Mean" is "złośliwy". There's no such a construction like "being bad at something" - we don't have a word for that.

You can say "on robi to źle" (he does it badly) if you mean that someone is bad at doing (!) something, etc.

If you want to say that someone is bad at something, you should use something similar, just like "On nie umie (can not, doesn't know how to do...)/nie rozumie (doesn't understand) matematyki (maths)." If you have any doubts, notify me.

  • 1048

being bad at something – być słabym/kiepskim z czegoś/w czymś


Oh my, I completely forgot about it! But well, every examples can be used.


In Ukrainian, 'слабий (slaby)' may also mean 'ill'. Is it so in Polish too?

  • 1048


But there is an adverb słabo, which apart from its literal meaning weakly/poorly, is also used in few set phrases:

słabo się czuć – 1) (z czegoś) to feel weak (at something) 2) to feel sick/nauseated/faint

słabo (komuś) się robi – (somebody) is getting sick/nauseated/faint


I did use Zła as in Croatian it means evil,it said i was wrong and corrected me to mean ˝bad˝


I typed evil right now and it's accepted


I realised i used ˝evil˝ in the fruit example,maybe that's why,or i must have just mistyped


well, if there is a 'talking moose' in Sweden course, than it would be pretty fair to allow 'evil fruit' in Polish.


why is the fish evil but the woman angry?


"Evil" is also accepted here. However, in this context, "angry" is much more likely.

Besides, I've never encountered an angry fish before.


Why is the woman evil and the man bad ? Mad bad and evil don't mean the same thing


I have noticed the same thing!


It can mean all of those, but you'd have to pay attention to the context. In this example, it can be any of the definitions, because there's no real context. She can be evil or angry or bad or wrong. So that's why it accepts all those definitions (for these kinds of questions anyway. I imagine there will not be the same flexibility in future lessons, with more complex sentences that provide context.)


How can one word be translated to "wrong" and "evil?" In English, there is a huge difference between those two words. If I say, "You are wrong," it means something entirely different from "You are evil." Please explain!


"zły" can just have many meanings, it's how it is. It's sometimes hard to use because of that. It can be 'bad', 'evil', 'angry'...

But it cannot mean "wrong" in "you are wrong". It can mean it in "wrong answer".


So does that mean it's all down to context and interpretation?


Yes, I'm afraid. It's a surprisingly problematic word.


But English also has many words which can translate to two different things.

Read/read (pr./past) Knife/knife (noun/vrb) Type/type (adj./vrb) Court/court (noun/vrb) House/house (noun/vrb) Look/look (vrb/noun) Shell/shell (vrb/noun)

Hundreds more.

It's just a feature of language... It is not peculiar to Polish


um, I literally can't get this right because it marks the right answer wrong?


Do POL->ENG exercises have 'check all the correct answers' tasks? If yes, then this one has both "She is bad" and "She is evil" as the starred answers.

If no, then I guess it was a bug :/


Bo to zła kobieta była..


How I can understand if she evel at all or she too angry right now?


You can't tell from just "zła", so it depends on the context. Precising what she's angry at could help though: "Ona jest zła na ciebie." (she's mad at you).


Evil might not be the best translation. Bad is better


Is there a nominative and instrumental version of zła?

Like on jest zwierzęciem and on to zwierzę (he is an animal)


"Is there?" Well, sure there is, every adjective and every noun has a form for every case.

It just won't work here: you won't say "Ona jest złą" on its own. Noun phrases can take Instrumental in such phrases (Ona jest złą kobietą), but a standalone adjective just takes Nominative.


As a native speaker, the Pilish means "She is angry" not "evil" you would need to use a differert phrase like "niedobra"


"zła" can easily mean both. "niedobra" doesn't sound (to me) serious enough for "evil".


Look, context is important to meaning and it generally doesn't translate from one language to another. While "niedobra" has the contextual meaning of "bad/naughty", it's way more appropriate for everyday use which is what this app is supposed to be teaching. If you prefer, you could also use "złą osobą" which is "evil person" but "zła" in this context, without the person part, means angry.


I don't disagree... okay, we can make 'angry' the main answer.


What is the difference of 'zła', 'złe' & 'zly'?


You forgot the special character in "zły" :)

Those are: feminine, neuter & masculine forms.


Could it be "she is evil"?


That is an accepted answer.


I don't usually complain when my answer is marked as correct, but my response was: Ona jest złe, which I just found out from the discussion that it should be zła.


Also "she is evil" or "she is bad?"


Both possibilities are accepted.


Ela está brava

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