The number of times Maria, Marek and some others have had to explain the habitual and continuous stuff just on this lesson is ridiculous, let alone on various other lessons in the course; it's a shame Duolingo doesn't offer the facility to have this explanation given at some point as a sort of lesson before the exercises.
The number of times I've had chodzić, iść, pójść, jechać, pojechać etc. explained to me is also ridiculous. Not just by Maria and Marek, but also my teacher, native speaker friends and several textbooks. Even so, I still can't seem to make the right choice without a good deal of thought.
Iść is to go/ walk with a purpose in some direction (right now)
Chodzić is -
-go/walk usually/often etc
-to walk without a purpose , take a walk
- to have ability to walk
Only in imperative, it's an expression.
as a normal verb "to come" is przybyć/przybywać, przyjść/przychodzić, przyjechać/przyjeżdżać etc
I put "are you going?" (i know, i was wrong) but it sugested me "are you walking?" as a correct soulution. what's the problem??? is this word translated as in Continious as well??? i understood that the difference between "idzie" and "chodzi" is like between "goes" and "walks". But how can i define the difference between Continious and Non-Continious in such a case???
No, that's not exactly the difference between "goes" and "walks", because as far as someone "goes" on foot, it's the same. Like, when you say "I'm going to the shop" you don't mention if you go there on foot or by car. So in some way "goes" and "walks" are synonymous. And in a way they also are very different. But both work as translation because this 'going' may be on foot unless it's specified otherwise.
The difference between "iść" and "chodzić" is generally between Present Continuous (iść) and Present Simple (chodzić). BUT: if "chodzić" is used without any direction mentioned, if it's just walking around (and this sentence here doesn't have any context), "to be walking" also works. But "to be going" does not.
- to be going, to be walking -> iść (right now)
to go, to walk -> chodzić (generally, habitually)
to be walking (right now, but without a purpose nor direction) -> chodzić
"Idziesz?" or "Wychodzisz?" for leaving (although "idziesz" is fine as well for leaving, just less literal)
RE: "to be walking (right now, but without a purpose nor direction) -> chodzić". Do you mean "to take a walk"?
"to take a walk" is "spacerować", literally. "Spacer" is "a walk" in this meaning.
You can for example be walking around the room nervously, it's hard to call it taking a walk ;)
So, as I understood: "iść" = "to be going, to be walking"; "chodzić" = "to go (/to be going), to walk (/to be walking)" +/"to take a walk". Am I correct? PS: "You are walking to school" had also been accepted as a correct solution for "Ty chodzisz do szkoły".
As I wrote above, not exactly taking a walk, although in a way it suits it.
School context messes a lot with this distinction, due to some more idiomatic usages. I will check if it's correct or wrong, but right now I think it may be wrong.
Quote from a native:
"And yet in a way it could work, eg. "Are you walking to school in the mornings, or do you take the bus?" Which is hardly an ideal sentence, but might be said."
"Still, I think it's probably rare enough it doesn't need to be accepted."
So, as it seems it's rather rare and only confusing, I will delete it.
EDIT: Actually "you are walking to school" is not among the accepted answers for that sentence. "you are going to" somehow works and is accepted.
Verbs of Motion are the rare exceptions when it actually matters whether you translate it into Present Simple or Present Continuous. "chodzić" happens 'generally, not 'right now'.
Although without a context, without any specific direction, "chodzić" can also mean "to be walking" (walking around). But not 'to be going'.
@alukasiak's article about VoM: https://www.clozemaster.com/blog/polish-verbs-of-motion/