"Thirty years is not much."

Translation:Trzydzieści lat to nie jest dużo.

January 17, 2016

7 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/emetelak

Why does this sentence require to here?

January 17, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/Vengir

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.

January 18, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/va-diim

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

September 4, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/Jellei

"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".

September 5, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/va-diim

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.

September 5, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/Jellei

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...

September 5, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/Denis873163

No i still don't understand...

April 11, 2016
Learn Polish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.