"Ser to nie warzywo."

Translation:Cheese is not a vegetable.

June 5, 2016

This discussion is locked.


Waiting patiently for the "mayonnaise is an instrument" question.


Why "to" included instead of "jest"?


There are two possibilities here, but in a limited context. A lot of people recently asked why cannot 'to' be used in a given sentence, so have a look here for example.

But this is quite a simple "X is Y" sentence with both of them being noun phrases (and it doesn't matter that Y is negated), and it can be written in both ways: "X to (nie) Y", with both of them being in nominative; and "X (nie) jest Y", (Ser nie jest warzywem), with X in nominative and Y in instrumental.

So the option with 'jest' must be definitely accepted, but it looks differently grammatically.


Where do they get these sentences from?


Their heads, mostly.


Cheese is a kind of meat


A tasty yellow treat


Why does the Z sound like J in warzyvo? I thought it needed a dot above or an 'i' after it?


[Rz] is a digraph which corresponds to [ż]. There are very few exceptions where those two letters are pronounced separately.


Why is the order of 'nie' to the verb not the same? Once it's 'nie jest' and once 'to nie'.


Although we don't teach it, a construction like "Ser to jest warzywo" (Cheese is a vegetable, nevermind that it's factually incorrect) is also acceptable. "Ser jest warzywem" and "Ser to warzywo" are just more common.

Thinking of "Ser to jest warzywo" as having this (usually invisible) "jest" makes it easier to understand where the negation goes - before this invisible "jest". Ser to nie warzywo.

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