Yes, I agree. It wouldn't be a bad idea to split this lesson up into two or three smaller segments; to better show the different forms of formal you and what it does with a verb.
Also, I wouldn't mind learning which basic phrases to (not) use in formal situations, e.g. not cześć, dzięki, jak się masz or hej, but dzień dobry etc. It's already going in that direction, but it could use more examples and an explanatory text.
"Folks is generally viewed as more respectful and polite and therefore tends to be used by adults talking to adults. For example, someone might ask an elderly couple, "Do you folks need help with your luggage?""
This might be a word in transition. I personally would use it to refer politely to a group.
Thanks for the fixup on my sentence. Jeszcze uczy się
I have had this discussion with others: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-s-the-difference-between-folks-and-guys
And, I agree with you to some extend. I think this might be a word in transition from informal to formal depending on the cultural setting.
I can see, and have used "folks" to refer to elderly couples with the greatest of respect. However, too many politicians use it to try and be "one of your pals" so I get the informal part.
In my corner of the english-speaking world it's quite formal, but I can't speak for everyone else. We usually use "you guys" regardless of gender, or the occasional "ya guyses" if you're REALLY in a colloquial area like a bluecollar neighborhood of the city or a small town.
That's an elementary school grammar rule before the 1980s. It no longer applies. You can definitely end a sentence with a preposition.
As much as "who" has overtaken "whom" in common colloquial English, who/whom is still a valid grammar rule just like he/him, she/her, I/me, they/them.
"That's the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put!" - Winston Churchill.
Exactly. It is very old-fashioned, to insist on avoiding ending a sentence or even a clause with a preposition, and it may sound quite awkward to a modern ear, as Churchill was trying to demonstrate. It is, nevertheless, correct, grammatically speaking! And mis-use of this rule does not sit easily in a sentence in which pains have been taken over the correct use of who/whom! Anyone British remember Nellie Pledge? Do you really want to sound like her?
@AOwler are you referring to the eccentric 17th-century drivel of the late writer John Dryden? He was the first notable figure in the history of English grammar to insist that sentences must not end in prepositions, but it seems his colleagues did not agree with him. He was brilliant and highly respected, for sure, but on this point, he was merely spewing his opinion. Like @va-dim said, it's a style, not a rule.
Not true! You're wrong! It's not a grammar rule! Stop the propaganda!
Heh heh. Thank you for your link. The sentences marked as "unnatural" are certainly how my father-in-law would have spoken! Well-educated, and well before the 1980s. The phrasal verbs are, I think, pretty modern constructions, so would not have had a more formal/traditional equivalent in earlier days. Adding a noun after the directional verbs would avoid a prepostion at the end, eg go out + of the shop, or wherever (oops)! My Polish is pretty poor, so it does not behove me to criticise others' use of English. I really don't mind in what style you speak, you know! And (oops), by the way, I don't actually speak formally in real life.
Language evolves, and that's no longer a grammar rule.
No, this is a myth. This was maybe a very old English grammar rule, but it hasn't existed in English in a very long time.
Check the Corpus of Contemporary American English:
Who BE PRON *ing for ?
311 results (our main answer)
For whom BE PRON *ing ?
5 results (your suggestion)
If one of those were to be considered incorrect, then it's the latter and yet we still accept it.
Do u really want the world of duo learners to speak American English or English English? - perhaps read between the lines here. From where did English originate?,:):) I know its the spoken word but I do think that duo actually should accept the correct English as well- which it hasn't.- Not sure whether it has been changed recently. Duo is great for accurate Polish so ditto for English please.
Modern English originated from Middle English, which was, yes, in England, but both modern British English and American English both evolved out of Middle English. It is not true to say that American English comes from British English. It doesn't. They both come from Middle English. A modern Brit speaks very differently from an Englishman from Elizabethan times. Same thing with a modern American.
In fact, Shakespearean scholars say that his plays sounded more like today's American accent than most of today's British accents.
I don't like using the British National Corpus, because it's much smaller than the American one. But feel free to paste the same syntax into the BNC search window and see what happens. Here's the link:
I've just checked again, and "For whom are you looking?" has been accepted for many years now.
It's not standard! It's common and has recently become acceptable in English, but the standard is "whom" when used as an object in a sentence. I really wish Duolingo would teach proper, correct English, not mutations. The word "whom" is unambiguously used as the object and does not create confusion. The word "who" does create confusion because using it as both a subject and an object are both acceptable, even though grammatically correct would be to use it only as a subject, not an object.
"Proper, correct English" is whatever variety of English accomplishes your goals in speaking English. If your goal is to sound refined and educated, then "Whom are you looking for?" is correct. If your goal is to sound casual and relatable, then "Whom are you looking for?" is certainly wrong, because the word "whom" doesn't sound casual and relatable at all.
Not whatever variety. Some varieties and evolutions of words and phrases are correct. Some varieties are purely incorrect slang and are not correct English as defined by linguistics. All languages have guiding rules that change over time. Level of education in those rules matter in its correct usage, otherwise being ignorant of those rules will cause a speaker to choose incorrect grammar and lexicon as defined by the linguistics of the current time.
'Who are you looking for' is not correct English. It is commonly used, but nevertheless wrong.
"Who/he" are subject pronouns. "Whom/him" are object pronouns. The subject is DOING the looking, the object is RECEIVING the looking.
Person A: 'He is looking for him.'
Person B: 'Who is looking for whom?'
Person C: 'Yeah, whom is who looking for?'
I know about subjective and objective pronouns, but I think that whether we like it or not, the use of "whom" is dying out in today's English. I think that "whom do you seek?" is more clear and elegant than "who are you looking for", but the latter is so common and widespread that it might as well be considered the standard now.
In the end, your opinion on this will depend on whether you want to take a prescriptive or a descriptive approach to the study of language.
I was inviting trouble when I chose the word "standard" above. But using "who" in place of "whom" is very common, and it is the default for most people in most situations, whereas using whom could potentially sound awkward. I'm not against saying whom, but I think people should look at how English is being used today and make their own conclusions.
Anyway, this course is about learning Polish, so let's not got too distracted by discussions on English usage.
You can, it surely can help you remember which one is which. Then "pan" would be "sir", "pani" is "ma'am", "panowie" are "gentlemen", and "panie" are "ladies".
However, I am not aware of any natural translation of "państwo". Sometimes "ladies and gentlemen" are correct, but that's rather rare, plus "państwo" can easily mean "one lady and one gentleman"...
Meanwhile, you cannot omit the formal pronoun, so it will always be e.g. "Kogo panowie szukają?" for "Who are you looking for, gentlemen?". So "Kogo szukają?" will undoubtedly mean "Who are they looking for?".
This is something that always confuses me in Spanish, which works a bit similarly, but can omit the formal pronoun, so one sentence can mean both "Who are you looking for?" and "Who are they looking for?". But Polish is unambiguous here.
The native speakers who still use "whom" fought an epic battle with the native spakers who only use "who", but they lost, I'm afraid. We accept "whom", though. And I would use it myself. But really, we have a lot less complaining in the forum since we decided to go with "who".
Check @alik1989 comment up near the top. The Corpus of Contemporary American English results in 311 vs. 5 results your way. If they're "educated," they should know that it's perfectly fine in English to end a sentence with a preposition. If they think that rule still exists in English, then they're education is not up-to-date. To my ears, a person who says "for whom are you looking" out loud, is a pedantic weirdo. All educated people I know, including myself, don't speak like that.
It's the Collins one. None of the dictionaries are much use for Polish cases, though Collins has the genitive for words, which is of some slight help. I'm not clear on the verb forms either. .....aja is normally for the they form but here it appears as the form for looking in who are you looking for? Maybe all verbs use it as the equivalent of ing?
We accept "you all" (which makes "y'all" accepted automatically) for "wy" (so informal 2nd person plural), but this really does not seem to be a good equivalent for "państwo"... it's like substituting "Good evening, ladies and gentlemen!" with "Good evening, y'all!", the register is quite different.
In a greeting we would say, "Good evening, ladies and gentlemen", in a formal setting as opposed to, "y'all", but when asking questions we wouldn't say, "Who are you ladies and gentlemen looking for?", it doesn't sound right. In that case we'd use, "y'all", regardless of the formality of the situation.
I respect your opinion, but all major dictionaries classify it as informal, so we're just going to leave it at that.
How is, "y'all", not a real word? Is it because it's a colloquial? Is it because it isn't recognized as proper English even though a good percentage of native English speakers in the U.S., particularly the Southern U.S. use it. The meaning is well understood and it certainly isn't gibberish.
That's not entirely correct va-diim. "You are", in modern English, can refer to both singular and plural "you" — depending on context. For example, when speaking to an individual you might say "I hope to see you later". In this instance you are using the singular "you", however, if you were to say "I hope to see you later" to a group of people, you would be using the plural "you".
As for English not having a "formal you", that's not entirely correct either! Back in the 1970's, there used to be an English television program called "Are You Being Served". The actors played sales staff in a large department store. Whenever they addressed customers, they would invariably use expressions such as, "Is sir/madam being served", "Does madam/sir want to try on the garment?" etc. The sales staff always addressed their customers using the "formal you" as is done in Poland today.
What I am trying to say is that although "formal you" is now archaic, it still exists, but is used very rarely these days. Nowadays, to be extra polite, a salesperson would most probably say something like, "Are you happy with your purchase, madam"? Whereas, in the past the salesperson would have said "Is madam happy with her purchase" — using formal "you".