It's different case: ryba is nominative ('To jest ryba'), rybę is accusative ('Mam/widzę rybę')
yes, Same as ParGrain asked. CAn you please explain a little more about how to know which word of fish in Polish to choose? Can you give examples of how fish would be nominative vs accusative in an English sentence? Thanks.
In order to give a more grammatical explanation for the examples of mati2065: Nominative is used for the subject of the sentence, i.e. when the fish does something or is described. On the other hand, when the fish is the direct object of the sentence, thus when someone does something to the fish directly, you use accusative.
It was mentioned some lessons before - you can use nominative with verbs like "być" (to be) or "zostać" (to become). We are using accusative in Polish with verbs like "mieć" (to have), "lubić" (to like), "jeść" (to eat). The noun in accusative somehow describes/explain/reveal what you have/like/eat etc. Sorry for my English, I hope it helps you ;)
Nominative is used for the subject of a sentence; accusative is used for the direct object.
Nominative is also used for the predicate nominative which refers back to the subject after the verb "to be" or "to become". I am a student. I = student (same person)
I know it is random, and maybe you already know it, but your surname would be spelt "Światkowski" in Poland :)
We can still see the old English case system in the pronouns. I (nom) - me (acc). He (nom) - him (acc). She - her. We - us.
I love him. She loves me. He has her. We have her.
So Polish treats the object being possessed for "has" as a direct object? Weird. I took Latin back in the day and it just conjugated those as nominative.
I also took Latin. Perhaps you need to brush up on your Latin. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin/Lesson_2#Case
http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl?possess Bonum animum habere (to be of good courage) actually translates to "To have good courage" If you look carefully, courage is in Accusative case.
The nouns that come after the verb "to be" or "to become" are the ones that stay in the Nominative case because they refer back to the subject. In "I am a student.", I = student (same person).
In "I have a cat.", cat is the direct object which would be in Accusative case.
Now if you were to say "The student's cat is a small animal." "Student" would be in Genitive case, "cat" would be in Nominative case and "animal" would be in Nominative case.
The word "I've" in English normally isn't used in a possessive scentence unless it's with "I've got"
Yes, I think that the Duolingo program recognizes "I've" as also meaning "I have", but they have not programmed it to understand that this form is only used when "have" is an auxiliary or helping verb. This exists for all the languages, translating to or from English. The program would have to see if another verb were coming after it before allowing the contraction, but programming can be rather long and I don't see this being resolved too soon.
"I've got" is a colloquialism and grammatically incorrect. First of all got is past tense for a non-existent present tense word, or slang for "had". The present participle would be "have gotten." That's for what "I've got" is shorthand. Bad bad English
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. "Got" is both the simple past for the verb "to get," and can also be used as the past participle, although its use in this manner is chiefly used in the U.K. In America, we say, "I get, I got, I have gotten," while in London one often says, "I get, I got, I have got OR I have gotten." Its usage is standard, not colloquial or incorrect.
In London? The rest of the country speaks British English too you know. We never say gotten in British English, it's an Americanism.
It's wrong anyway, Americanism or not. Badok Ladoh? What the hell is that? If you can't read Russian, don't write gibberish in English.
Because i don't speak russian you feel you can insult me? How about a true British phrase for you? Go and ❤❤❤❤ yourself you stupid twat.
You're right. "Got" is past tense of "to get." I stand corrected--with exception. "Have got" is purely colloquial, even in London. It's shorthand for the present participle "have gotten." It's grammatically incorrect. It would be like saying "I have ate," is correct. It isn't. "I have eaten," is grammatically correct. What tense is "have got"? Present? No. "I have," or "I get," is present. Present participle? No. "I have gotten," is present participle. Past tense? No. "I got," is past. Past participle? No. "I had gotten," is past participle. "Have got" may not be wrong in colloquial speech, but it is GRAMMATICALLY non-existent.
Actually, "have got" is correct. It's the present perfect simple tense. (See https://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/present-perfect-simple). Also, either "got" or "gotten" is an acceptable past participle of "to get." Please see: https://www.google.com/search?q=past+participle+of+get&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. Saying "I have got" is not the equivalent of "I have ate," which is clearly wrong.
And finally, here's a useful article on the usage of this phrase specifically: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-have-got-acceptable-english. Notice that the author says, "[A]ll four sources I consulted about the 'have got' issue agree that this phrase is, in fact, good English."
I think we've got it right! ;-)
Sorry, but I did read them.
The first link was posted merely to answer your question as to what tense it was. I am aware that it doesn't mention the phrase we had been discussing.
The second link is nothing more than a Google search for the parts of speech of "to get." It shows the simple past, "got," as well as the past participle, "got" OR "gotten."
The third link describes the phrase in detail. The article states, that, yes, in a particular usage of the phrase "have got," namely, related to obligation, it is a colloquialism. That is pointed out in the last paragraph of the article.
So that others may read the article conveniently for themselves, if they so desire, I'll simply cut and paste it below, and let others glean from it whether it's "grammatically incorrect," as you say, or not.
My reason for responding is not to pick a fight with you. It's simply so that all of us can study the issue and get the correct answer, as there are many people from all over the world on this forum, and many of them are rightfully curious about what is and what's not correct in English. I'm not saying I know it all, but I think it's not right to make blanket statements saying something is incorrect when it is, in fact, correct.
Best wishes to you.
Is "Have Got" Acceptable English?
Today’s topic is whether the phrase “have got” is good English or not.
And now, Bonnie Trenga (author of this week's show) answers an e-mail from a listener, Lee, who says, “A pet peeve of mine is the frequent use of the ‘have got’ phrase, such as ‘I have got a [something or other]’ or ‘I’ve got a [something or other],’ when ‘I have a [something or other]’ is completely sufficient.”
We all have phrases that bother us. I hate it when I see “It was a chill night” instead of “It was a chilly night.” Alas, I get all bent out of shape for no reason. Much as I dislike “chill” instead of “chilly,” there’s nothing wrong with it. Likewise, all four sources I consulted about the “have got” issue agree that this phrase is, in fact, good English.
The phrases “has got” and “have got” are somewhat informal and are often contracted, as in “He’s got” and “They’ve got.” Although this expression has long been criticized as an unnecessary substitution for the verb “to have,” it is perfectly idiomatic. It simply adds emphasis (1). In American English, “have got” is an intensive form of “have” (2). For example, if I say, “I’ve got a really big TV,” I’m placing more emphasis on my possession of the TV than if I say, “I have a really big TV.” If you say you haven’t got any money, you’re stressing the fact that you’re broke. Note that you can use “has got” or “have got” only in the present tense. If you want to talk in the past tense about your enormous TV, you would say, “I had a really big TV.” You would probably use expressive intonation to add emphasis.
American English Versus British English
How often you use “have got” instead of “have” depends on where you’re from. In American speech, “the form without ‘got’ is used more than in the UK” (3), so in other words, Americans tend to say, “have” and the British tend to say, “have got.” For example, according to The New Fowler's Modern English Usage*, in Britain, you’re more likely to hear the question “Have you got this book in stock?” whereas in America, “Do you have this book in stock?” would be more common (4). As I’ve said, it’s perfectly fine to say, “have got” if you’re in America, though it is less formal than plain old “have.” Even less formal than “have got”—and probably considered objectionable by most grammarians—is simply “got” by itself. You might have heard of the Spike Lee movie “He Got Game.” I don’t think Spike considered calling it “He Has Game.” “He got” is a very colloquial way of saying, “he has.” Obligation
“Have got” also has another meaning: to indicate necessity or obligation. Saying, “have got” is a little stronger than saying, “must” (5). So if I’m running late, I might tell my friend, “I have got to go now,” with the emphasis on the word “got.” And my friend might tell me, “You have got to stop being late so often.” When we’re speaking to friends, we might leave out the “have,” as in “I got to go now.” We might even say, “I gotta go now.” These two are considered colloquial English. You shouldn’t write these two sentences in a formal English essay. You can use “must” or “have to” instead.
Garner, B. Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003, pp. 381-82. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 208. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences. Accessed June 26, 2008. Burchfield, R. W, ed. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Third edition. New York: Oxford, 1996, p. 352. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 216.</pre>
I love when people post weblink sources that they don't read themselves hahaha! The first link you cited has no mention of "have got" whatsoever! The second link has this, which proves my point:
"In informal contexts, many speakers use have got, 've got, or simply got to mean "have" or "must." You SHOULD AVOID this usage of the verb get in your writing; instead, use have or must.
We have got several problems on our hands. IMPROVED:
We have several problems on our hands. UNACCEPTABLE:
We got several problems on our hands. ACCEPTABLE:
We have several problems on our hands.
We've got to find a solution to our problems. IMPROVED:
We must find a solution to our problems."
In your third web link, it says:
"Although this expression has long been criticized as an unnecessary substitution for the verb “to have,” it is perfectly IDIOMATIC. It simply adds emphasis."
An idiom is something that doesn't literally mean what it says. So "have got" like I said, is a colloquialism. It's an improper tense that is to be avoided, according to your own post.
I could reply directly to Badok Ladoh - I got is not acceptable English. I don't care what your grammatical argument is. English is a living language and native speakers say I have or I have got.
This argument is moot. I was saying from the beginning that it's a colloquialism! We agree! And your own citations confirm that it's idiomatic. "I feel under the weather," is also an idiom! It's OK to say it, but it's not grammatically correct to "feel under, over, or next to" anything! This argument doesn't change the fact that it's not GRAMMATICALLY proper. Hear me now: IT IS PERFECTLY OKAY TO SAY "HAVE GOT" IN ENGLISH. It is just "weak" English.
"I am having fish," in English means that I am eating or will eat fish. In Polish, Mam rybę means literally that I have a fish in my possession. Literally, "I have a fish."
nie rozumiecie polskiego a przecież to mój język ojczysty :( czemu... to prościzna np : dziadek, dżokej, herbata itd. itp.
No, because that would mean that these are plural fish. There was just one fish in Polish.
So, if you're having fish for supper, say, a few filets, would it be singular or plural? You might not know if it's from one fish or two because you bought it at the store, let's say.