1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Polish
  4. >
  5. "Człowiek jest zwierzęciem."

"Człowiek jest zwierzęciem."

Translation:A human is an animal.

December 14, 2015

This discussion is locked.


To say this sentence is killing me!


Same. I'm glad it only gets harder.


To spell this sentence is killing me.


I'm killing this sentence


It killed me just to understand it


Good thing I am a native Slavic language speaker and it's relatively easy for me to pronounce)


As my coworker famously quoted: Człowiek człowiekowi wilkiem, ale zambi zambi zambi


"Zambi"? A nie przypadkiem „zombie” (polska wymowa: zombi)?

PS: This sentence, by the way, is very interesting. The first half is a classical proverb which shows the efficiency of a case-based system, despite the bigger challenge in learning it. All you need is to deduct the verb (jest) and it's fully understandable. The second half shows what happens, when you introduce words that can't be declined. It might be easier to learners, but it is taking that advantage away. „zombie zombie zombie” is understandable only because it is directly comparable with the previous part and normally would need to be clarified with auxiliary words.


No tak, też myslałem że jest "zombi" ale Google powidzał że jest "zambi" i... Polish is not my native language so I usually defer to anyone else. At least to me, the pronunciation is close enough that I can reasonably hear either version.

But that's what I love about this sentence. You just can't decline Zombie so that's what you get. Plus: to a Zombie, a Zombie is just a Zombie. It's a very egalitarian society.


"Człowiek człowiekowi wilkiem, a zombie zombie zombie" Paulo Coeljo… Що дослівно в перекладі: "Людина людині вовк, і зомбі зомбі зомбі".


Homo homini lupus... / Homo homini lupus (est)
Człowiek człowiekowi wilkiem/ Człowiek (jest) dla człowieka wilkiem
Zombie zombie zombie - (Jeden) Zombi (jest) dla (drugiego) zombi - zombi


I feel that the article "a" is not necessarily needed in the English translation. Therefore, I believe that "man is an animal" ought to be correct as well. What do you think?

Yes, I read the comments about whether or not "man" is gender neutral or not in this discussion board, and I feel that it is since it does come from "human" or "mankind." However, I'm not entering that conversation, I just want to focus on the article "a" here. :)


I think you're right, let's hope we're right ;) Allowed now.


Dzieki bardzo, Jellei!!


"Dzięki, Jellei!!", or:
"Dziękuję bardzo, Jellei!!"


Albo "Dzięki wielkie Jellei!"


so this helped me - ł in polish is like the w sound in english.


Relatively few languages have this (Polish)"ł" = (English)"w" sound.

Polish speakers are often easily identifiable because they can say "You're welcome" instead of "You're velcome".


Why is there zwierzę for dogs and cats, but we are zwierzęciem? I looked it up on Google and was told that zwierzęciem is beast but zwierzę is just animal? Someone please explain this to me.


From what I understand, zwierzę is the nominative case (aka default) form of the word, and zwierzęciem is the instrumental case form of the word. The verb "to be" (być I think) in Polish requires the object to be in the instrumental case, but you could also use to constructions, in which both nouns would be nominative.

So, "Kot to zwierzę" and "Kot jest zwierzęciem" both mean
"(A/The) cat(s) is/are animal(s)" and same for człowiek,
"Człowiek to zwierzę" and "Człowiek jest zwierzęciem".

(I'm a Russian speaker and it works a bit differently so sorry if I am mistaken).


That makes so much sense. Thank you!

Also, I'm surprised you knew that from Russian. Russians don't normally use the word "to be." My Russian professor said it's used in religious context like Бог есть любовь or something like that.


Google takes most often used phrases - zwierzę in singular instrumental is not very common, it's mostly sth is an animal or with an animal - but with an animal, we don'write a lot, more ofen plural animals, or the species name or diminutives -zwierzątko, zwierzak, with leaves us with very common expression -you/he is an animal (or I guess a beast).

That is why we do not trust google translate.


Apart from the two ways of defining things, there are two different words:

zwierzę - an animal (no matter how big or small)
zwierz - an animal, but, in hunting terms, the very big and wild one (the
beast, when mad...)

In the past, there were some big social events organized, associated with
the hunt or hunting for the "big animal" (polowanie na "grubego zwierza").
Nowadays, the expression might be used as a figure of speech meaning:
"the hunt for the boss or the head of a criminal ring, the "big fish", or like.


After reading the other comments regarding the use of "man" as meaning human, and many American English speakers who consider the term to be sexist, or out of date, I have felt those who don't understand the use of "man" in this way, are pretty ignorant of the use in the English language. They seem to display this ignorance by wanting to change the use and make the language more cumbersome rather than try to learn the common useage.


Literally who in this entire comment thread is saying that it's "sexist?" I see no one, so what is the point of your comment. It seems as though you're simply making up people to argue against.


Why not "A person is an animal"?


When you look it up a "person" is also translated to "człowiek". This should be accepted. Even a quick Google search shows that there is just as much discourse around "is a person an animal" as there is around "is a human an animal" and the in fact native English speakers are more likely to use "person" than "human".

Also, since the term "man" and "mankind" have been accepted above, those are not biological terms, and so by that established criteria "person" would also be acceptable.


In scientific terms, humans (man) are part of the animal kingdom. I am not offended when a phrase says "man is an animal", as in all humans are mammals and all mammals are animals, because I think of it scientifically, not socially. Anyone can choose to be offended by what a phrase says. Language is always evolving, but I wish to learn what the connotation is in Polish, translated as best as possible into English. Not having to be the center of the universe, I can accept that concepts can be different wtih others. Try seeing it from another point of view.


d'accord pour tout! and a lingot for the reaction!


No one is arguing against anything you're saying on this thread. Are you making up "complainers" just to proclaim how "unoffended" you are?


Can i say ,,to,, instead of jest ??


Yes, "Człowiek to zwierzę".


Am i right in thinking the first word sounds like it starts with a "T" sound in english?


No, not really. It's roughly the first sound of "chance".

  • 1318

Well, one Greek philosopher (Aristotle, if I don't make a mistake) told that human by nature is a social animal..But it's not a common opinion))


Is the last wird pronouned correctly by Duolingo? The stress is on the last syllable.


All sounds are correct, but stress should be like usually on the second syllable from the end.


I laughed a bit when i saw the word victm


It feels like the speaker gave it an extra syllable. Does the first z in zwierzęciem sometimes blend with the w and sometimes not?


Can anyone explain the rule of when is it best to use 'to' and when is it best to use 'jest'


I'd say that the Instrumental form (with 'jest') is always more elegant. But generally they're interchangeable, unless the sentence is like "He is a doctor" (with a personal pronoun on the left side), then the 'to' option is really quite clumsy and we wouldn't accept it.


Why not "Człowiek jest zwierzę"?


"An X is a Y" type sentence using "jest" requires the use of the Instrumental case for "Y". Please see https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/16373167/A-guide-on-X-is-Y-and-This-is-Y-constructions for more details.

An alternative form using "to" is also possible, in which case "Y" is in the Nominative.


Człowiek is "human" but not a person?


If you say "On jest dobrym człowiekiem", then yes, it's natural to translate it as "He is a good person". But in such a sentence like this one, "człowiek" is basically the name for the species known as homo sapiens.


Except that there is plenty of discourse in English for native speakers around a "person" being an "animal". So as a bilingual English-Polish speaker I would say "a person is an animal" more comfortably than I would "a human is an animal" as native English speakers usually refer to homo sapiens as people, not as humans.


Please produce some links then :) When I google the exact quote "is a person an animal?", this very discussion is the 4th (!) result. And at least three results on the first page direct to the same article on therianthropy, or shapeshifting.

If I don't use quotation marks, the results tend to be the other way round, "are animals persons?" and similar.


Please allow "a person" instead of "a human" as in native English we do not commonly use the biological terms and this is a common philosophical question ("is a person an animal?" and "are people animals?"). It is grammatically correct and logically sound to translate this sentence using the "person" noun.


I think this phrase is slang or at least it is very improper


I think you need to look up what 'slang' means...


Last sentence was Czlowiek to zwierze which translated to "A human is an animal". The same english sentence here translates to Czlowiek jest zwierzecirm. Someone please explain I'm just not able to get this.

(I'm writing this from mobile and it doesn't support accent marks. Sorry for that)


I think that the explanation here will help:


The first part pretty much covers it.


When to use zwierceciam or zwierce


"An X is a Y" type sentence using "jest" requires the use of the Instrumental case for "Y". Please see https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/16373167/A-guide-on-X-is-Y-and-This-is-Y-constructions for more details.

An alternative form using "to" is also possible, in which case "Y" is in the Nominative.

Then, take a look at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zwierz%C4%99#Polish for the cases of this noun and their correct spellings.


Philosophical discussions aside, can someone explain what the difference is in the fast and slow version of the audio for this sentence? If I listen to the slow version "jest' is apparent. But the normal speed version I don't hear "jest" at all.


I have no idea, on my side every audio file pronounces "jest" clearly :|


Can you use "to" and "jest" interchangeably in these kinds of sentences? (I know you'd have to change the cases)


Yes, provided that it's comparing one noun (or noun phrase) with another. If you compared a noun with an adjective, you can only use "jest".


But an animal is not a human!


człowiek - person Why do it say, that I've one mistake? człowiek - no on


Telling us one word of your rejected answer doesn't help us to help you. We need to know all the words of your answer, exactly as you typed it, to be able to answer your question.


Well, "A person is an animal" is not really the same. Here we treat "człowiek" as the species (homo sapiens), and the species is not called "person" in English.


A human is not an animal

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