- Forum >
- Topic: Polish >
- "On nie je, więc jest słaby."
22 Comments
I'm 99% sure Babcia said this word-for-word. An old friend's babcia could only say two things in English - "Is nice" and "EAT, EAT".
I do not know your friend's babcia, but it is highly probable she used "to" instead of "więc" (I see as slightly more formal, but it could be that it is more common in other regions)
'dlatego' is like 'that's the reason why...', and 'więc' is simple 'therefore'.
It might be a little old fashioned, but 'He eats not, therefore he is weak' is a correct English sentence and should be accepted as far as I know?
It's so incredibly archaic as to be pointless - nobody would have written or spoken like that later than the year 1650 or so (this is often called "Early Modern English").
Why is "therefore" marked wrong when the site's own definition includes the word "therefore" and "He does not eat therefore he is weak" makes perfect sense in English?
762
I'd think that "therefore" should have worked and worked for me in this sentence before (not 100% sure). Maybe you had an other mistake and because Duo showed the starred answer with "so" instead of "therefore" you mistakenly thought it meant that word to be the error?
- 762
To say: "If he does not eat, he will be weak." would this be possible?
"Jeśli on nie je, więc jest słaby."
(out of interest, not suggesting it as an alternative answer)
No, you can only use one of those for the sentence to make sense: either "jeśli" or "więc".
- 303
What is the difference between doesn't or does not? Doesn't is wrong in this answer.. I don't get it
Whenever "does not" is accepted, "doesn't" is accepted automatically, so unless some weird bug happened, the most likely answer is that you had a mistake (typo) somewhere else in the sentence and then the answer that is presented to you has "does not" because that's what is put in our main answer.
