"He is not here."
Translation:Nie ma go tutaj.
why not? what if this "he" is somewhere else? e.g. "on nie jest tutaj, on jest u diabła na rogach"
just a directly translated russian idiom, kinda "in the middle of nowhere". thanks for answer)
This is an interesting discussion. Coming from an English-speaking background I fell for the false construction of 'on nie jest tutaj.' So, the correct answer 'nie ma go tutaj' would be translated literally into English as 'There is no him here," I suppose. :-) Now, when you say "He is here.", would that be "On jest tutaj."?
I agree with vytah's translation, but not his remark about word order. "On nie ma tutaj [konta]"(He doesn't have [a (bank) account] here) is in my opinion perfectly normal word order.
Side note: What you wanted to construct in first comment would work if it would be: "Jego nie ma tutaj", but that word order is not usual, at least in my opinion.
The gender is explicitly put in this sentence, it's just that the construction is grammatically very different. You shouldn't look for "ona" or "on", because the Polish way of saying "He is not here" could literally be translated as "There has no him here". So you're looking for "him" (or "her") and then you find it as "go". Which indeed is "him", ergo, we have a sentence about a guy.
Nie ma is the negative form of jest when the meaning is "to be (located) somewhere". If, however, jest is used as a copula (he is smart, he is a doctor) then the negative form is simply nie jest.
When negating with nie ma, the subject of the positive jest-sentence turns into an object. (Literally: He is here -> it hasn't him here = this place doesn't contain him). Negated direct objects take the genitive case, which turns on into go.
Non-emphatic (=unstressed) object pronouns like go can never be put at the beginning of a sentence and don't go at the end either, unless there is no other place to put it.