I continue to take a bit of umbrage with the continued translation of ta/tam/tego as 'this' and not 'that'. When using the word 'this' in English the context must be entirely clear. Like, you have the thing in your hand.
Imagine 2 cups of coffee on a table and I say "this coffee is hot" and give no indication as to which I am referring. So, which cup is "this"?
November image the same question, but I am holding a cup in my hand. Now which one is "this"? Unquestionably the one in your hand.
And it's the same with "that" - "that man" must already have been mentioned, or standing "over there". For me the easiest thing, especially at this early stage, is just to go with the flow - "ten" approximates to "this", and "tamten" to "that", although of course, these "equivalents" are used differently in every language. But mastering that is probably outwith the scope of this course (and yes, "outwith" is a word).
I'd never heard of "outwith". It seems to be an archaic replacement for "beyond" with the added bonus of making the speaker seem grandiloquent. Fun!
Good comment tho
Hi, I put it in just for the fun of it. It's no doubt old but certainly not archaic where I come from. Nor with us is it grandiloquent, being a fairly everyday word, although it does tend to be used more in educated language: in newspapers, by the professions etc. But it is admittedly regional, or should I say national, not being heard much outwith the confines of Scotland. And as you suggest, it means beyond, not part of, outside (as preposition only).
Thanks for offering your origin so I don't feel unenlightened for not using this word outwith Scotland (like in US).
Tego is accusative, living, masculine, which is also the same form as genitive. Accusative takes special form with living things
What's the difference between tego and the demonstratives we covered earlier (e.g., ten and tamten)? Thanks!
Not exactly. Both mean "they", but "Oni" is almost exclusively used for "groups of people including at least one man", and "one" for anything else - mostly groups of women-only, but technically that could refer also to dogs, or boxes.
I think I remember hearing/reading at one point that the masculine personal plural could also be used for groups with at least one (not necessarily male) person and one (not necessarily personal) masculine noun. In other words, a group consisting of Weronika (personal but not masculine) and some unnamed cats (masculine but not personal) would also be "oni". Is that true?
Thank you! I know this information probably has limited utility, but I study linguistics so I really enjoy learning this kind of stuff when studying a language. :)
oni can be (and masculine personal plural verb forms are used)
groups of people that include at least one man
groups of people of unknown gender, described with masculine personal noun
group of people that we know include only women, but are described by masculine noun- for verbs,
a man and an animal
a woman and animal that is described by masculine noun when the animal is referred to by that noun ( I think neuter noun too, but I am not sure and can't find the rule)
two male animals that are referred to by it's names
I thought "on" was he, and "ona" she...which makes you think "one" would be one. Or am I mixing things up with Russian?
I translated 'tego' as 'that' and was marked correct. But looking back, doesn't 'tego' just mean 'this' in the accusative, whereas for 'that' I would need 'tamtego'?
Is this a mistake? Or can 'tego' also mean 'that' in the accusative?
You are generally correct, but what you're talking about are the direct translations.
In fact, Polish and English think about determiners differently. So [tego/tego/tamtego] (and other forms) translate to [this/that/that]. The middle parts overlap. That's why 'that' should always be an acceptable interpretation.