1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Polish
  4. >
  5. "Thirty years is not much."

"Thirty years is not much."

Translation:Trzydzieści lat to nie jest dużo.

January 17, 2016



Why does this sentence require to here?


I hope I'm not messing something up with explanation, but you need to use a sentence with „to” when you compare with an adverb.


Why is, "Trzydzieści lat nie jest dużo," incorrect without to? Can it also be translated as, "Trzydzieści lat to nie dużo"?


"Trzydzieści lat to nie dużo" seems acceptable, added.

"Trzydzieści lat nie jest dużo" won't work. As for why... I'd say that it's because on the right side of "jest" (Y position) it is neither a noun phrase nor an adjective? Although it's also hard to imagine an adjective there... Anyway, "Trzydzieści lat nie jest długim okresem czasu" is maybe an a bit surprising sentence, but grammatically seems correct. But in the construction here you need this "to". Maybe someone can explain better "why".


The reason I asked is because so far, in this DL course, to jest has not been required to be used together. Wherever there has been to, the jest has been optional--until this exercise.


So I added an option without "jest" (although this is a bit different than most of the examples), but one without "to" would be wrong...


No i still don't understand...


What is sometimes frustrating with Duolingo is that you are required to translate something without any hint whatsoever on how to do that. In the case of this sentence, it's never explained that you should use either "to" nor "dużo", with the suggestion being "niedużo". So it's an incredibly confusing experience.


It's almost always because of the bug which makes multi-part hints always display on top, even if they do not apply to the given sentence. This may make the actual applicable hint not display, because not more than 3 hints are displayed.

I just created a hint "to nie jest dużo" on "is not much", so it should be on top soon.

"niedużo", however, is also correct. It's not a word we teach, but it itself means "not much". So you could go with "to nie jest dużo" or "to niedużo" here.


Trzydzieści lat nie jest tak dużo...why is it incorrect?


You need "to" (Trzydzieści lat to nie jest tak dużo), plus 'tak' (so) is your own addition to the sentence.


Często to jest dużo... Na przykład we więźniu, pracy, i inne...


"w więzieniu" (Nominative: "więzienie") ;)

"w więźniu" is "in the prisoner" (Nominative: "więzień").


Can it be "Trzydzieści lat nie są dużo"?



Firstly, the noun phrase "trzydzieści lat", despite its obviously plural meaning, takes singular verbs. That is true for all noun phrases built as "numeral + a noun in Genitive", and most numerals take nouns in Genitive.

Secondly, I'm not sure how to explain it better than "it just is this way", but such a sentence with a quantifier (dużo) on the right side of "is" just needs the word "to".


why : Trzydzieści lat and ona ma trzydzieści trzy lata ?


2,3,4 endings are lata (except 12-14). All other plural uses the genitive plural case lat.


Why not use malo because it means not much? Why duzo? Why go into to nie jest duzo?


I wouldn't be so sure that "to mało" and "to nie jest dużo" mean exactly the same. There's also some neutral, 'average' area, after all.

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