"A horse is an animal."

Translation:Koń to zwierzę.

December 15, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Am i the only one who cant understand the difference betwen "jest" and "to"?


It was hard for me to know when to differentiate. Sometimes I do "to jest" which seems to deal more with humans. For "to" I noticed it's used more with animals? Still trying to understand


No, there are no such rules, although we consider too clumsy to say "On to mój tata", so for "He is my dad" that should be "On jest moim tatą". So in this way "to" is used less with people, I guess.

Using "to jest" ("Koń to jest zwierzę") is possible, but relatively rare, we don't teach it, we just accept it.

https://www.duolingo.com/comment/16373167 - you may check if this article helps you.


I dont understand what is happening here.


My problem is knowing when to put the longer ending


Slightly confused. Shouldn't 'Koń jest zwierzem' be correct too? Or maybe I am just doing it wrong :x


Koń jest zwierzęciem should (as zwierzęciem is the instrumental form of zwierzę, neuter, most of the -ę nouns decline with additional -t-/-ci- in the root).

Zwierzem also exists, and is instrumental of zwierz (masculine), which can also mean animal, but sounds odd and wouldn’t be used in normal speech (Wiktionary suggests it is poetical and figurative)


Oh, alright, thank you! Zwierz is referring more to a beast than to an animal, isn't it?


Yup. Or a game (hunted) animals (but for that there is yet another more popular word, zwierzyna).


I translated it as 'Koń jest zwierzeciem' (without ę) and it was accepted. So which one is it? Should I report it? Is 'ę' pronounced same as 'e' here (as in 'zwierzę')?


It should be zwierzęciem. I think this course would just accept everything without Polish diacritics – but that is wrong. You should probably report it.

And ę here is pronounced differently than in zwierzę. It would be something like [zvʲɛˈʐɛ̃ɲt͡ɕɛm] – as if it was written *zwierzeńciem – because the /ć/ sound that appears after /ę/ is soft (palatal), the /ę/ is realised as /eń/.

Before /t/, /d/, /s/, /z/ (some dental, and hard, ie. non-palatal, consonants) it would be pronounced as /en/.

Before /b/ and /p/ (bilabial consonants) it would be /em/.

And so forth – /ę/ is pronounced always as nasalised /e/ followed by a nasal consonant with the same place of articulation as the next consonant. And just as /e/ if it is at the end of a word.


Thanks a lot! Reported it :)


My problem is knowing when now tell us in plain englishto put the longer ending


"The longer ending" is pretty vague. But for that sentence, I can be sure that you refer to "zwierzę" vs "zwierzęciem". Use 'the longer ending' in a sentence built as "[some animal] is an animal".


Shorter ending:
Longer ending:
try to go with shorter one as the noun goes in the nominative case, which is much, much easier


Please when do i use zwierze and zwierzeciem ?


When you use the verb ”być”/„to be” (in 3rd singular person it is conjugated as ”jest”) you say:
- koń jest zwierzęciem
But when you use to (which is not a verb) for the same statement, then you say:
- koń to zwierzę


How does jest transform to to?


Why was słoń jest zwierziem ok but no koń jest zwierziem?


Neither of those answers should have been accepted, because the proper declension is 'zwierzęciem'.


Not sure when i should add iem to the end of the subject and when not


-em/-iem is a masculine/neuter Instrumental ending. Instrumental is mostly used after the word "z" = "with", when something is used 'as an instrument', and a sentence like this one.

Read more about it here: https://mowicpopolsku.com/polish-grammar/cases/instrumental/


We do not use instrumental in English and I wouldn't say that animal is the instrument by which horse is. So, is the basic idea here that this is referring to "an animal" vs. "the animal"?


No. Both koń to zwierzę and koń jest zwierzęciem mean exactly the same, and without context would be understood as ‘a horse is an animal’ (but in some contexts both could mean that ‘the horse is the animal’).

Using być (the ‘to be’ verb) + instrumental is just one way for making copular (defining) sentences in Polish (and some other Slavic languages, like Czech).

Why instrumental is actually used here, and not some other case? For the answer we would probably have to ask some Proto-Slavs or even Proto-Balto-Slavs, from over thousand (or more) years ago, as they started to use that construction.


it's emotionally wrong. While technically "zwierzak" is augmentative, it works more like diminutive/endearment.

wsjp. pl = zwierzę, w stosunku do którego mówiący odczuwa sympatię lub współczucie / animal that speaker likes or feels symphaty/compassion

sjp.pwn; wikitionary -zwierzak= tenderly "zwierzę"


Duo was saying that was a correct answer. Should I report it?

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