"boy" is also accepted since there is only the one word and I would bet "a boy" also.
The Ch at the beginning seems to be pronounced differently here and when recorded by native speakers in the internet - without this K sound sometimes. Is that a regional thing?
There isn't any K sound, sorry for confusion - Cyrillic Х is one sound, which is read the same as Polish Ch, and for some reason transliterated as "kh." Same goes for Ж - equivalent of Polish Ż, transliterated as "zh."
Some Poles do pronounce Ch and H slightly differently, but it'll still be totally correct if you just pronounce both of them like "H" in "Hans" ;).
As far as any learner here is concerned, that's true, but it's fun fact time! "Ch" and "h" used to be separate sounds up until the 17th century at least. The written language in this case reflects an earlier state of the spoken language, but some dialects have kept this distinction.
My grandma still does that. And a lot of other older people too. So "No Poles pronounce "ch" and "h" in different way !!" is just not true.
When I say ch my tounge is higher than when i say h, but its regional thing, I also pronounce ż and rz differently
Thanks, but doesn't the "ch" make a "k" sound? It sounds to me like "kwah-piets".
Not exactly. English doesn't really have the exact sound. If you're familiar with Cyrillic, it's more like the Russian Х.
What is the difference between "chłopiec" and "chłopak"? Both English translations are "a boy".
"Chłopiec" is young (from 5 to 10 years old) and "chłopak" is older then "chłopiec" (from 10 to 14 years old). :)
Those age borders are veeeeeery subjective. But generally, yes, chłopak is older.
Both mean "a boy." If you are trying to make a point of someone being very young, you're more likely to use "chłopiec." Grammatically, it's a bit more diminutive compared to "chłopak."
I'm curious what is the limit range of someone being very young in your opinion.
Being the school age, we called our peers and older boys "chłopaki" - "chłopiec" was a boy a few years younger. Now, as an adult, i would call a grown teenager or young adult "chłopak" and one younger than that - either word.
I am struggling with this word, I am hearing kwopietz or kwogedz - which is correct please?
If something, then definitely the first one. But the first sound is not a K. For English natives, our "h" ("h" and "ch" are the same sound, it's only a matter of orthography) is compared to the original pronunciation of ch in "Loch Ness".
Hello, I have a question. why from Polish "Chłopiec" is a boy, but from English "A boy" becomes "Chłopak" ? Maybe something wrong in system? :)
When i write "Chłopiec" is wrong.
Must have been a bug, cause "Chłopiec" is the main answer here.
Basically "[a/the] boy" has two translations that we teach, and a third one which we accept.
"chłopiec" is generally a young boy. "chłopak" is older and in a proper context it can also mean "boyfriend". There is no clear border of age, that's totally subjective. But I wouldn't use "chłopiec" for someone older than 12-13, that would sound too childish to me.
"chłopczyk" is not taught, but accepted. It really is a young boy, a child. I wouldn't use it for someone older than 6-7.
"chłopiec" is Nominative (the basic form, like in a dictionary)
"chłopcem" is Instrumental. Among other usages, Instrumental is used in sentences like "He is a boy".
I wonder why they accept the boy its doesnt really make sense bit a boy does make sense
Why wouldn't 'the boy' make sense? It's also a perfectly fine translation.
Well, it's kinda true, natives can make a lot of mistakes. In any language, I guess.
mistakes like poszłem/poszedłam, any spelling errors (ex. menrzczyzna), włanczać/wyłanczać. the list doesnt end
You can also say chłop. It means the same. "iec" is just an additional suffix
no. "chłop" is a very informal equivalent of "a man", that literally means "peasant" and has nothing to do with the translation of "boy"