"Wy nosicie spodnie."

Translation:You wear trousers.

December 13, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why „You are wearing pants” is not correct?


Why can't it be translated as present continuous "You are wearing trousers"?


Surely "You are wearing trousers" is okay?


Doesn't "Wy" mean 'you (plural)' ? "Ty" is 'you'


Indeed, it does.


I wrote 'You all' and got it wrong. Maybe it should accept both?


You all is not used in all of the English speaking world, so they have probably just not thought about adding it. If you think it should be accepted you should report it


It kind'a sort of is depending upon where in the English speaking world you are - such as the American south - where it normally would be shortened to y'all (and yes - they really do use this term).


I agree. I think "you all" should be accepted because from a learning point of view, it clarifies that you mean plural you.


"You all" or "y'all" is an idiom and is not proper usage. Plus it is not even used widely throughout the English-speaking world. Only in one part of one English-speaking country.

If you go down that route, then they would have to allow "you guys" (US/Intl. usage); "you lot" (UK usage); "youse 'uns" (Belfast usage) etc.

All ways to distinguish you (sing.) from you (plural). But all are idioms and local usage.


Believe it or not, once you've lived in the South for a while, you can develop a real appreciation for the term, " y'all." While it has none of the formality of vous or ustedes, it is very handy to have an unequivocal second person plural. The term is widely accepted in the region, so to say that is not proper usage is debatable. Further, English is by nature an extremely idiomatic language. I would agree however, that it is informal usage and should be avoided in writing.


"Y'all" is terrific. It is casual, but it's incredibly convenient. It is widely used in Texas.


"You guys" seems to have become non-sexist here in the U.K. It can apparently be used with mixed groups or all female groups too!


@KristineKr465965 I definitely heard "you guys" said by a woman to a group of women in movies/shows. Not that I understand the logic behind it.


It also avoids the sexist equivalent of "you guys".

I'm Canadian and i fell in love with y'all over the course of my southern travels. I wish it was more commonly used in the English world!


Basically, why English is terrible in many aspects.


Terrible and wonderful simultaneously.


What makes it improper? Just because it doesn't meet the "standard" version? There is nothing wrong with it. It is proper in the relevant dialect(s).


Surely "You are wearing trousers" is ok?


"you are wearing pants" should be correct also.


What on earth is the difference between "wears" and "is wearing"?????


Pants, to me, means underpants or knickers, and I understand that in America it means trousers, but why not use the word that makes sense to both american- and british-english speakers?


We started with trousers, but well, the truth is that this is an American website and the American terms should be used as default ones... so we changed it to "pants" (possibly not everywhere) and added "majtki" (underpants) to the accepted answers.


How come "spodnie" is nominative here?

I thought that "to wear" something was considered an action, thus making it accusative, like "nosze sukienke" (can't make the e's sorry)


it's easy. You need accusative after nosić, but spodnie have nominative=accusative.

This is a rule for all plural nouns that don't describe a person (and spodnie are always plural word).
In singular all neuter nouns and many masculine nouns have accusative-nominative.


So the nominative works as accusative when the plural word doesn't describe a person? Do you have an example of a word that has accusative-nominative? Thank you very much!


Only feminine and some other a-ending nouns have unique accusative forms in Polish (and only in singular), all other nouns have either accusative=nominative or accusative=genitive.



masculine personal (boy)
singular : N-chłopiec- G chłopca -A chłopca
plural: N chłopcy G-chłopców A chłopców

Masculine animated not personal (dog)
singular : N-pies G-psa A psa
plural N psy G psów A psy

Masculine not animated (pencil)
singular : N ołówek G ołówka A ołówek
plural N ołówki G ołówków A ołówki

singular : N dziewczynka G dziewczynki A dziewczynkę
plural N dziewczynki G dziewczynek A dziewczynki

book singular : N książka G ksiązki A książkę
plural N książki G książek A książki

Neuter (window)
singular : N okno G okna A okno
plural N okna G okien A okno


You wear and you are wearing mean the same


We almost never say trousers in the states, it's always pants. You ar giving us sophistication we do not posess. You can't make a silk purse out of an sow's ear.


"pants" work, obviously.


Why is "you are wearing..." unacceptable?


Another example of a case where "pants" should be the term used in the default translation


Yeah, I guess...

Changed the main version to "pants". Added "majtki" as an accepted answer in Polish, for British English users.


Though archaic, and now primarily associated with Shakespearean language or Biblical speech, when thee, thou, and thy were used, it was easy to know the difference between "thou" (singular, informal you) and you plural. It would eliminate this type of confusion.


In the north of the US, no one says "y'all". But they will say "you guys". It's so slang. Proper English is just to say "you" to be plural and have the context of the sentence have it make sense.


i really thought this form was a question form and

"Do you wear..."


Nosic means also "to carry". Can one also translate "You carry trousers", as in holding trousers in one's hand?


Why is pants not acceptable?. Who uses the word trousers these days besides Brits? And they don't matter anymore now anyway.


"Pants" is perfectly acceptable.

Were you trying a sentence with "are wearing"?


There are numerous comments from moderators in this thread who confirm that 'pants' is accepted.


The audio sounds more like "Wynosicie spodnie" which would mean "You carry out the trousers"


I think the old audio sounds kinda like that, the new one makes the space between the words a bit more clear. But yeah, that's true that those could be confused.


You are wearing trousers means the same. Polish doesn't distinguish


Trousers are a word we seldom if ever use in the states, the word most commonly used by all is pants. We aren't all sophisticated


We almost always use American words in the main answers, this is an exception because "pants" mean a completely different thing in the USA and in the UK. "trousers" should be recognizable to the Americans as well and it's an unambiguous word.


There is a connotation in British English that the one wearing the trousers is in charge. So "she wears the trousers in that family" implies that the wife is the boss. I presume no such meaning is associated with the Polish phrase.


It doesn't seem to me like a saying that common that it would be everyone's first thought, but it does exist, it has this meaning.

"W moim domu to moja żona nosi spodnie" - "In my house it's my wife who wears the trousers", or something like that. "to" here is like "it is her".

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