54 Comments
My grammar book (which I'm sure you're all sick of hearing about by now lol) says the Instrumental plural endings are -ami across the board (across all genders). So ludzie - ludzieami....
But "ludzieami" looks decidedly un-Polish (more like Romanian?) so I guess they first dropped the extra vowels "ea" giving "ludzimi".
Then some bright spark realised that they could save even more space by combining the z and i to make "ź", hence arriving at "ludźmi".
Or is this just another example of the irregularity of the root word "człowiek"?
Yes actually I was just musing there but I realised an important point. The root word is "człowiek" so with the ending its "człowiekami"... therefore I think its just a case of complete irregularity...
the root would be "ludź",
I did a bit of research and there are more nouns with -mi instrumental gośćmi, końmi, liśćmi, . This ending is now slowly less and less common.But not archaic. You need to check in dictionary which one to use.
Ok, I think I agree with you more this time ;-)
"ludzie" is soft stem, masc. plural... (ok, the endings for soft stem nom. masc. plural are: 'i / e, so ludzie is slightly irregular, but it still has an ending... "ie" so take the ending off the nom. masc. plural -> "ludz", or you say "ludź" which I'll go with
Then add -ami ok, still not exactly what I'd expect but i'll submit that I forgot to take the nom. masc. plural ending off before applying the instr. masc. plural
I tried to tell you that we have less common -mi ending after ść dź ź that now is being replaced in many words with -ami.
Or here: http://aztekium.pl/przypadki.py This site isn't always correct, but if the color is green, you know it is correct. I found it very helpful.
Things following forms of the verb 'to be' (in this case są) are in the instrumental case; 'ludźmi' is the instrumental case version of 'ludźie'.
I'm sorry to correct, it's "ludzie" in nominative. The thing is "dzi" and "dź" sound somewhat the same (these are the so called "soft sounds") but "i" comes before vowels and "marked letter" (ź,ń,ś,ć) before consonants. For example (Nominative to Instrumental, singular to plural in all except "ludzie"): ludzie > ludźmi, jaźń > jaźniami, maść > maściami, spadź > spadziami, tatuś > tatusiami, paź > paziami.
Hi ^^ I am a bit new on Duolingo, so I didn't understand the whole thing... Why is there no "writen lesson" like in the previous steps (you know : cases, verbs endings...) ? So, I was counting on the website to teach me those things, but ... Do I have to search lessons on other websites or in books to learn fully the language ? Please, can someone tell me ? :)
The course is still a work in progress. Right now TIps and notes are written only until the first checkpoint. Later you have to use outside resources, you can read comments and some very good information on the forum. We hope to write more Tips and Notes in the future.
well most important is to enlarge the exercises and the sound recording , it is not that bad to use outside resources to inform yourself about the rules, the comments here are also very helpful
I thought it was necessary to use he Genitive case when using negation... Why is the instrumental used here?
...and it's the third Wednesday after Pentecost and your postie's on holiday. ;)
So "ludźmi" can mean people, men and humans. One thing that throws me off with Polish is that depending on context and certain words used in a sentence determines the meaning. Is this sentence normally interpreted as "They are not people"? I wrote my answer as "They are not men" and it was correct.
OK, so generally "człowiek" (and its plural "ludzie") means a homo sapiens. In most sentences it will be "people", some sentences sound more like talking about species (you can always imagine a sci-fi context) and may have "humans" as the main answer. And "men"... well, English generally can use "men" for "people" in some contexts. Not in this one, though, I think. Here it would mean that "They are not men" = "They are women", and that is not an acceptable interpretation of the Polish sentence. Fixed now, thanks.
Jestem zmieszany. Nauczyłem się języka polskiego inaczej. Lubie Duolingo chociaż.
We are all fish. It's just that we have adapted to spend quite a lot of time out of water these recent hundreds of million years.
Surely this should be genitive ludzi as it is a negative , not ludźmi instrumental?
You made one of the most typical mistakes that our learners do - don't worry, it still happens a lot.
Basically, people are taking the rule too far and assume that there is such rule as "negation = Genitive". There is no such rule. The rule is actually "negated Accusative = Genitive". And as Accusative is the most common case, and also as some comments (including some of my older comments, probably) aren't specific enough, people assume that it's for all negations. But it's not. Only Accusative changes case when negated, everything else stays the same.
Hello, I would like to know if "ludzie" is an adjective or a noun, in this sentence. Thanks
I am finding all this very complicated . I know little about all the people are talking about in these threads i do research on internet and i have various books but i am still confused . Can i contiue this course the way i am?
Of course. Ask questions under specific sentences if needed, and don't give up :)
1127
If they are not people then they are not men. If not masculine personal plural then shouldn't it be "One nie są ..." not "Oni ..." ?
- 1631
They may be Space Invaders ('kosmiczni najeźdźcy'), who are masculine personal plural ;)
When i read this, my first reaction was… Man, Duolingo, racist now? xD It made me think of WWII when the English and Americans had anti-German propaganda, like they were not people, and the Germans did the same for jsut about everyone. The Japanese were pretty ruthless to the Koreans and Chinese too. To get to the point, each side would say "They are not men!"
Initially I agreed with Webb.Paul. But, on second thought, maybe they ARE men--so 'oni' is correct--and the statement that they are not 'ludźmi' is simply FALSE.
laymans terms, some clarity on accusative vs instrumental. dont think basic english grammar used these when i learned it
It did not - English stopped using cases almost entirely (it still has who/whom, for example) centuries ago.
Check this topic for links to topics on Cases.
Also this website is really good.
And "whom" is dead in many dialects. In the United States, even American Standard English doesn't really have it. Some academic sources still use it, but it still isn't always used. I only use the word who.
I completely disagree. Who/whom is still used on a regular basis in the States. I often hear the correct usage of the words. On the rare occasions I hear the incorrect usage (ex: By who?) I shudder.
I said "many" dialects. This is even accepted in "standard" and in academic English, though more "elite" institutions, writers, and the like often use "whom." However, most people do not use it.
Here in the UK, it is common for people not to use 'whom'. They just use 'who' and remember these are native speakers. The fact is that even in the UK there are a number of variations (dialects) of English, London, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales etc. Who is right. Well no-one and everyone. Like most languages English is a living language and as such is is slowly changing over time. common useage determines what is right. Example: At school I was grilled, NEVER end a sentence with a preposition. (e.g ."Who are you speaking to", Wrong! The apparrently correct version is "To who/whom are you speaking?") I don't know anyone that would now say the second version. It sounds pompous and would be mocked.
So how do you determine something else is right when everyone else says something else? Did you watch the AAVE video? Maybe in some dialects it is still common, but not in most, if not all, of the United States. Do you also think Americans are wrong because they don't spell the word honor with a u (honour)?
The vast majority of people do NOT say it. You think the VAST MAJORITY of people are wrong? Who determines what is right? What do you think about AAVE? I suggest watching this short video (very interesting video about the linguistics of AAVE): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkzVOXKXfQk
Well, that would be wrong in most contexts, but works here, actually. It should have been accepted.
