"Zwierzę, człowiek, maszyna"

Translation:An animal, a human, a machine

January 7, 2016

This discussion is locked.


The words "human" and "person" both refer to a human individual. The difference in English depends on the context in which the word is used.

"Human" is the word you are more likely to use in a scientific or biological description. "Person" is more appropriate in a social or legal context, and is a more respectful way of referring to someone. For example, you wouldn't say "I talked to a human yesterday".

In the passage for translation, either "human" or "person" could be appropriate English usage, depending on what you were saying.

If you were giving a scientific description, then "human" would be correct. However, if you were referring to a particular individual, then it would be more respectful to refer to them as a "person".

Jellie's comment shows that the authors intended the scientific / biological sense. The problem for readers arises because the exercise gives no context to guide the choice of the appropriate word. It is not clear that it is the scientific / biological sense that is intended. For this reason, native English speakers are as likely to write "person" as "human".

Could "person" be accepted as "another correct solution"? Alternatively, could the question be rephrased to make it clear that it is the biological sense that is intended?


A person isn't exactly an equivalent of "człowiek". If you consider science-fiction races, or fantasy races, all sentient beings should be considered 'persons', but they're aren't human.


That's ridiculous. In English 'person' and 'human' are synonymous. I'm not even sure that fantastical races would be considered people.


Yeah, exactly, not people, but they are persons, they are conscious.

Let me put it this way: if you open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human - can you substitute "human" with "person"? Does "Persons are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina." or "The closest living relatives of persons are chimpanzees (genus Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla)" make sense? Do we speak about "global person population"? I don't think so.

We accept "person" in most sentences, if the word "człowiek" refers to a specific person (exactly) and not the species, like in "He is a nice man/person". But not here.


Aside from what Jellei already mentioned, you wouldn't substitute person with human either. Or would you ever say: "I like this human!" ?


Actually, yes. You often read or hear "you're my favorite humam" as "you're my favorite person". Anyway, the fact that there is no common consensus should leave the door open for both "human" and "person" imo


Why not and a machine?


There was no "i" in the Polish phrase, just a comma.

[deactivated user]

    A man is not anymore a person or even a human ?


    "man" works, "human" is the main answer, but "person" is too vague for this phrase.


    I can't get 'zwierzę', why is it written this way?


    What bother you? "rz" is pronounced like "ż", final "ę" can be denasalized so it can be pronounced similarly to "e"


    Because "zwierzę" is actually the nominative form of the word. It's not an accusative feminine noun.


    True. But some words just look like that, although there are not many of them. Also for example "źrebię" (a foal) and "cielę" (a calf).


    I don't get what confuses you. How would you like it to be written?


    what part you don't understand ? rz? ę? ę sounds like e (polish one) at the and of word. nouns in Nominative end with ę - and you hear that ę in other cases zwierzęcia....zwierzęta rz sounds exactly like ż and while there are sometimes rules for which is when I don't recall any that applies to zwierzę


    We shall ascend to our destined evolutionary purpose, oh my droogs


    is maszyna car or what?


    No, it's not like in Russian. It's any machine, like in English.


    A person is a human, why is my answer wrong?

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