"Nie ma go tutaj."

Translation:He is not here.

January 1, 2016

This discussion is locked.


"She is not here" = "Nie ma jej tutaj"?


Can one say "on nie jest tutaj"?


I am not sure if this is correct Polish. You will be understood, it looks like a correct grammatically sentence, but sounds so artificial, and strange.


What triggers this construction? Another exercise in this section was "mój tata tu jest" - how is this different?


there are two things here :

1 tu/tutaj are interchangeable,

2) we use "nie ma"(+genitive) , whenever we talk about somebody or something not being somewhere, or something not existing, or instead of "there are no... "


So you would never use ma for a positive statement about location or existence? Always "On jest tu(taj)", or "Nie ma go tu(taj)"?


Yes , nie ma is only for negative.


It does not have him here?


Literally, yes. That's how we construct this... construction.


I was about to ask this same question. Even if we wouldn't say that in English, I think it's helpful to know the literal meaning.


Nie ma go tutaj? ~there is no 'he' here? Whaat


Polish is really difficult, normally, I just don't notice that. :D

The pronoun "He" is in the sentence, but it is inflected, so instead of "on", we get "go". I wish I could explain it in a better way but nothing comes to my mind now. If I think about anything else you could find useful, I'll let you know.


Direct objects in the negative are generally declined into the genitive. Genitive of "on" is "go". Think of it as "there is none of him here" or "there is no sign of him here". Does that make sense?


‘There is no him here’…?


He is not here. This structore can be translated as "... am/is/are not here" for nouns denoting people, and "There is/are no..." for nouns denoting things


Any Glossika users? Nie ma go tutaj. On jest w szkole.


I just looked it up. Have you paid for it? Do you recommend it as a supplement to duo? What's your experience with Glossika?


I did (during a sale). I'm over 2/3 into the course and gotta say some structures are taking root in my head. I can't really judge tho, because I mixed in a bit of other resources (Duolingo eg) and I haven't tried conversing yet. It's also a nightmare for people with "choice disorder" like me (hahaha) because it's very flexible: you can choose between hard work (my choice) or slower progress, or mix and match their two methods however you want. The point is to get their sentences stuck in your head and let it figure the rest out, but I also opted to explore the grammar inside. Sometimes it actually requires other sources of vocabulary like Duolingo, but quite some recurring structures / phrases (just eg, w przyszłym tygodniu) come up so often that it'd be impossible for them not to roll of your tongue. I'm planning to write a full review on my blog, so I dunno why I'm writing so much here X) Edit: in case you're wondering what I meant in my original comment, that's one of the first sentences, which got absolutely stuck in my head


Is there any difference between tu and tutaj?


I believe that they are interchangeable; however, I prefer to use "tutaj" for disambiguation purposes.....


Out of interest, can this construction have different tenses? "Nie miało go tutaj"/"Nie będzie mieć go tutaj"?


Interesting question. No, this weird construction with "mieć" only exists in Present Tense, Past and Future are more logical and use "być".

Nie było go tutaj / Nie będzie go tutaj.


So would we say "jest go tutaj" or "on jest tutaj"?


"On jest tutaj". It's only the 'not being here' that is so weird and luckily it's only in Present Tense.


This sentence confuses me :P


I thought it looked strange, too, until I thought about it some more. A literal English translation would be "It does not have him here." When I pondered this Yoda-ish sentence for a moment, it seemed to logically match up with the proper translation. So yeah, OK, I get it.


If I were to replace "he" with a noun, would this be correct? Nie ma mój tata tutaj.


I think it has to be put into the genitive (general rule for the object of negative verbs). So "mojego taty" I believe.


What a convoluted construction a verb with no subject but with an object(which should be the subject)and that in the genitive rather than the accusative


Direct objects in the negative are generally declined into the genitive. Genitive of "on" is "go". Think of it as "there is none of him here" or "there is no sign of him here". Does that make sense?


Here we are speaking of a neuter subject ? Like a child? Otherwise it would be jego ?


No. It can be "jego" in certain word orders, when "he" is being emphasised.


What would be the diffrence between "go" and "jego" here ?


"go" is the basic form, "jego" is the emphasized one.

"- Czyli co, nie ma jej tu? - Nie, mówiłem, że jego tu nie ma. Ona stoi tam."

" - So, she's not here? - No, I said that he is not here. She's standing over there."

In that example the emphasized form is used to correct the first person's wrong impression.

Most pronouns don't have a separate emphasized form though.


"Nie ma go tu" should be accepted though, since tu/tutaj are pretty much interchangable.


And it is accepted. If it was not accepted for you, a screen shot would be good.


"You are not here"=="Nie ma cie tutaj"?


Yes. Well, "cię" anyway...

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