"Lew nie jest psem."

Translation:A lion is not a dog.

December 16, 2015

This discussion is locked.


How do you say "duh" (more rude version of "obviously") in Polish? :P


"Serio" is also an option. I doubt we have any shorter, fixed reaction for that. Apart from some random sounds, obviously ^.^


Also, "duh" is an exclamation, not an adverb.


sarcastic "Eureka!" (when someone discovers the... obvious)
happy "Eureka!" (when someone discovers sth new and exciting)

The "Eu" in "Eureka!" sounds like in the Spanish "Europa".


What is the difference between "pies" and "psem"?

[deactivated user]

    pies is in the nominative case psem is in the instrumental case


    What is nominative and instrumental??


    They are cases. Read more about 7 polish cases here


    This link doesn't appear to work.. are hyperlinks broken now?


    On the phone you can't click embedded links, only full addresses.



    Ah, that makes sense! Thanks.


    What dors that even mean?


    Is it more common to use "jest" or "to"?


    As a native speaker, I'd say they're equally common but that's just based on my feeling, I don't about any actual statistics ;)


    Okay, so I just started thoroughly reading all these comments, and the nominative and instrumental confuses me. I understand how the gender is decided, but that's really it


    I soooooo agree


    Why psem and not "pies"


    A lion is a cat - Lew TO kot [lew (nominative case) = kot (nominative)]
    The sentence "Lew TO kot" means: "A lion" = "a cat" (the same thing)

    A lion IS a cat - Lew JEST kotem [lew (nom) JEST kotem (instrumental)]
    The sentence "Lew JEST kotem" uses the verb JEST to define, to describe
    the lion, and requires that descriptive noun be in the instrumental case.

    Lew JEST psem (instrumental)
    Lew nie JEST psem (instrumental)


    whats the difference between 'To nie' and 'Nie jestem'?


    To nie = this is not..., nie jestem = I am no...


    The audio quality goes to rubbish on "psem" - is it supposed to sound like "spem"?


    The male voice sounds very good.

    The female voice has always had problems with dogs being at the end of the sentence... but at least it's not "spem", it's rather "ps-em". That doesn't change the fact that it's of course really bad. Nothing we can do about it, I'm afraid.


    A different angle: is TO more like the translation is, in the context of existence (sort of a passive understanding of is), whereas JEST is more along the lines of a state of being (in an active sense)? Therefore instrumental is needed after JEST because it has to describe what a person/animal/thing is being? As opposed to TO which is just a statement — “This is ____.”

    If I would reword it, I might say Lew nie jest psem. A lion is not (in the state of being) a dog.

    Lew to nie pies. A lion is not a dog. (Statement of fact. Or one could say, this means the definition of a lion is not compatible with that of a dog. Therefore A lion ≠ a dog.)

    An alternative implication for JEST could be that a lion is not (continuing - in the sense of an ongoing state - to be) a dog.

    If one could respond to this comment, so I know that I am considering the differentiations in these set phrases correctly, that would be immensely helpful. Dzięnkuję!!!


    So, I think that you've got some point, but frankly I'm not sure if it's worth thinking so much about the difference here, because those sentences would rather be considered identical by most people anyway.


    Lew to nie pies but who would thing a lion is a dog


    Children, maybe?

    "Lew to nie pies" works.


    Since these are two nouns and not pronouns, could it also be correct to say "Lew nie to pies"?


    "Nie" goes in front of the negated word, verb or noun:

    jest psem - nie jest psem
    to (jest) pies - to nie (jest) pies

    Lew jest psem - Lew nie jest psem
    Lew to (jest) pies - Lew to nie (jest) pies


    "lew to nie pies", but i'm not sure how naturally it sounds.


    Why is this not classed as Nominative case?


    to be - być
    it is - JEST

    Instrumental - Narzędnik (kim? czym?) JEST psem/Nie JEST psem
    This case is used to define, or to describe thing(s) in a full sentence.

    The verb JEST puts the noun in direct object and needs the instrumental:
    Lew (nominative) JEST psem (instrumental) - A lion IS a dog
    Lew (nominative) nie JEST psem (instrumental) - A lion IS not a dog

    In the phrase: "Lew TO (jest) pies" - "jest" goes to the back of your head.
    The "TO" gives enough information: a lion (subject) = a dog (same thing)

    Therefore, "TO" behaves like the English predicate nominative, which refers
    back to the subject (nominative) after the verbs "to be" and "to become":

    Lew TO pies (nominative) - A lion (nominative) is a dog (nominative)
    Lew TO nie pies (nominative) - A lion (nominative) is not a dog (nominative)


    I thought after the negative you used the genitive.


    Only sentences with the accusative change to genitive when negated, all other cases stay the same.


    why is it lew nie jest psem but lew to nie pies where does the 'nie' belong?


    The construction "Lew to pies" works as if there was some kind of an invisible 'jest' in there. In fact, while it's not as common, it's still okay to write "Lew to jest pies".

    So when you negate "Lew jest psem", you negate the whole idea of 'being a dog' and end up at "Lew nie jest psem". You should do the same with "Lew to (jest) pies" - you negate the whole idea of 'being a dog', including that invisible 'jest', and end up at "Lew to nie (jest) pies".

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