"They will have to do it tomorrow."
Translation:Będą musieli zrobić to jutro.
Does someone knows the differences between "będę + infinitive" and "będę + past"?
My Polish book explicitly states that "móc", "chcieć" and "musieć" only take the past form for the future (czas przyszły, aspekt niedokonany), and then I find this sentence... Is it because of "zrobić" is dokonany? Is it a dialect difference? Why is it "będą musieć" and not "będą musieli"?
Also, my wife (native Polish speaker) says that there is no difference between using infinitive or past, but Duo rejects any sentence that doesn't use the "right" form. Was there any specific reason for that? Or should I report them?
Usually there is no difference, just personal preference, and you can use infinitive when you do not know the persons gender. But móc", "chcieć" and "musieć" need infinitive, there was a discussion about using double infinitive https://www.duolingo.com/comment/14127074
nobody found a rule against it, but all Polish speakers agreed that it sounds unnatural
I am confused, and I am not sure if I am reading you wrong now, or I am reading the linked thread wrong. You say here that "móc", "chcieć" and "musieć" need infinitive, but the discussion you link says the opposite, that "teraz będzie móc być szczęśliwy" sounds unnatural for native speakers and should be "teraz będzie mógł..." (using past form).
"móc", "chcieć" and "musieć" are modal verbs, so they connect with infinitive of another verb:
- Ja(1st person-singular) muszę(1st person singular present verb form) chcieć(infinitive) – I need to want
- Ty(2nd person singular) musisz(2nd person singular present verb form) zjeść(infinitive) – You need to eat
- Ona(3rd person singular) musiała(3rd person singular past verb form) pójść(infinitive) – She had to go
The point of the linked debate was that because of that particular need of modal verbs, you should avoid the modal verb itself in infinitive, because it is somehow bad style to have infinitive after infinitive. Note through, that is only a thing when the verbs are one after another – "Będę móc to zrobić po poniedziałku"(I will be able to do it after Monday) is somehow acceptable to my ears, even if I would still prefer "Będę mógł to zrobić po poniedziałku".
You can report it, both forms are correct. However, "będę + infinitive" is more often used by women, according to this: http://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/bede-robila-czy-bede-robic;2836.html But still, no difference :)
TBH, your example sentence feels wrong to me, but I started to think where would I use 3 verbs in a row and I came up with:
- Mógł zacząć zarabiać pieniądze.
Now, that doesn't feel that weird, but I would still render it as:
- Mógł zacząć był zarabiać pieniądze.
At this point, "Mógł chcieć był pomalować płot" stopped "hurting". ;-)
So, thinking this might be dialectal, I did NKJP(Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego) query: "mógł [pos=inf] [pos=inf]"(that translates to mógł followed by any infinitive followed by any infinitive) – 475 results, first two pages are from Kurier Zachodni and Gazeta Poznańska, third page of results is from Dziennik Łódzki…
Based on that, I would say that this is simply something we do not do here in Małopolska, like ever. :-P But I guess it is indeed a thing in the North of the country.
I live in Podkarpackie, and my dialect is mix from "Małopolska" and "South Kresy/Lwów" and "Mógł zacząć był zarabiać pieniądze" hurts.
EDIT : Pluperfect like Br0d4 mentioned is ok for me. I'm no linguist but I noticed there are 3 versions of Kraków dialect, - actual Kraków dialect , małopolski dialect, that the books show, and Galicja dialect.
Well, now I would be inclined to say "Żeście mnie zdziwili" – I'm really surprised, especially by immery response, so I did a bit of googling:
"Formy analityczne czasu przeszłego. Formy czasu przeszłego jedynie z zaimkiem w funkcji wykładnika osoby, typu ja był, ty widział, my znali, wy chodzili, są rzadkie w gwarach polskich. Występują wyłącznie lub obocznie do form końcówkowych w gwarach pogranicza wschodniego (polsko-białoruskiego i polsko-ukraińskiego), południowo-wschodniej Małopolski[…]
Są one rozpowszechnione również w polszczyźnie kresowej, zarówno w północno-, jak i w południowokresowej, choć nie na wszystkich obszarach kresowych są wyłączne"
That could fit – my grandmother was from Lviv(Lwów) suburbs. Also:
"W dialekcie małopolskim można znaleźć wiele cech innych niż w wielkopolskim, pewne zaś są wspólne. […]
10 . Rzadka jest konstrukcja typu robili my (tylko na po łudniu i zachodzie rejonu)."
This fits even better – my grandfather was born in one of the villages south of Kraków, I was born in Kraków and lived there most of my life and currently reside in south western Małopolska, close to Slovakia border.
I don't remember my grandmother that well, but I think she used to speak like that, and the second construction is part of my everyday speech – I guess I just analysed both of those forms creatively and created something new, that is probably existing just in my idiolect. ;-)
Anyway, in 99.5% of cases, I would just restructure the sentence to avoid such a clusterf*ck of verbs – at a minimum, I would move it to present, because somehow so much infinitives in present tense aren't at all problematic to me, it's just the past tense which feels stylistically "wrong".
And by the way, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "Kraków dialect" – There is gwara krakowska(which I used to know enough to speak, but was never really "mine", so to speak), but since it's not spread among all social classes, it is not considered dialect(but gwara, instead).
Speaking as someone from the north, "Mógł chcieć był pomalować płot" or "Mógł zacząć był zarabiać pieniądze" - it hurts me, too. In the contrary, "Mógł był chcieć pomalować płot" or "Mógł był zacząć zarabiać pieniądze" are perfectly OK, except that this is pluperfect tense. My grandma might had said that, or I would say this maybe if speaking about someone already deceased... While "Mógł zacząć zarabiać pieniądze" is simple past, and it is also perfectly OK to me.
Deleted "będą musieć" from the best answers, but it needs a more knowledgeable person to me to say if it's just unnatural (I agree) or absolutely wrong per se. Polish Wiktionary may not be a top authority that guarantees correctness, but it also shows forms like "będą musieć"...
If it quacks like a duck…
Not a single native said that it sounds OK to him/her yet, and you know, language is how we natives use it – if none of us would ever use that form, it has to go from the course, even as an accepted answer, IMHO.
Wiktionary is right in that you can use it like „Będą musieć to w końcu zjeść”, but even that doesn't sound that great(but it is acceptable, to me). Nevertheless, „będą musieć zrobić”… Just no – if it isn't a rule yet, let's just make one up and say you can't use infinitive right after infinitive like that, full-stop. ;)
Think of it like that, if a non-native speaker would say to you something like „będą musieć zrobić [cośtam]”, would you correct him/her? I would and it seems everybody else who posted here and in "Now he will be able to be happy." would do that too, so we simply shouldn't accept that as an answer, based on that – no point accepting something that will be immediately corrected by any native in real-life, even if some obscure bookish literary language rules say you can say it(assuming there is one – I doubt it :P ).
I’m afraid to ask but I switched up the word order ...because I like to test boundaries, I guess. I entered “Będą jutro musieli zrobić to.” ..it was rejected. Would there be any other word order that would be accepted? Like: “Jutro będą musieli zrobić to.”...I do see radzikiem’s approved examples.
Firstly, you should remember, that while in Polish the word order is somewhat flexible, the phrase with a changed word order does not mean exactly the same. In Polish, the last word in the phrase is the most important for its meaning.
Secondly, in Polish there are two levels of accent: the accent of the word itself, and the accent of the whole phrase. Some short words (notably the short forms of pronouns) do not have its own accent, so in speech they are linked to the preceding word. It is generally wrong to put a short form of pronoun at the end of the phrase, because as the last word is the most important, it should have its own second level (phrase) accent. The only exception is for two word phrases, like "Ubierz się!" (Dress yourself!), because it is forbidden to put the short pronoun at the beginning of the phrase - so it has to go at the end ("się" is the short reflexive pronoun; its long form is "siebie", but in case of such a phrase the meaning of "się" and "siebie" is somewhat different: "siebie" serves for distinction between two persons, and "się" is only reflexive).
The pronoun "to" does not have its long form, so it is not exactly a mistake to put it at the end of the phrase, but it sounds very bad in Polish, and should be avoided, unless you really know what you are saying. Therefore, in very few contexts, you proposal could be correct - but I would be somewhat surprised if it were accepted in the course below C2 level.