"Moja córka pisze list."
Translation:My daughter is writing a letter.
16 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I have been told by my workmates to be careful with the pronunciation on 'CÓRKA' as my accent makes it sound like a different word that maybe offensive. Any explanations here?
Nothing that comes to my mind... maybe only 'dziurka' (little hole), but the "c" sound should be easier to pronounce than 'dź' so that doesn't make much sense...
Yeah, you probably got it. Especially with British accent that makes the 'r' disappear before a consonant (don't do that in Polish!)... mispronouncing the c (think of it as 'ts'), and then you end up calling someone a bitch. Both literally (female dog) and 'metaphorically'.
Yes that was it! I am very good with rolling (trilling) my 'r's now, something brits from Scotland, Wales and far north of England do habitually but lost from the accents of southern English, North American English and Australian English speakers.
I remember now, when I used to pronounce Córka, it was with an 'S' sound. My work mate had to stress the 'C' ('ts') sound. This phonetic is difficult for us to hear. Thanks guys!
Is it? Damn, for a native Polish person it's just sometimes so hard to understand the difficulties the learners have with phonetics... so be careful, not only because of this example, but simply because it's a completely different sound ;)
If the noun 'list' was later referred to as 'it'.... Would it then come before pisze?
"Moja córka pisze list. Its true, please believe me... Moja córka to pisze!!"
I don't think it would be "to". "to" could be translated as "it", "this", "that" - and I'm not sure if you'd say "It's true, my daughter is writing this!".
To translate "it" when we know what it refers to, you'd need to show the gender, so basically translate it as if it was "him" (obviously not a person but it refers to something masculine). So "Moja córka go pisze".
But I have to say that this particular example just sounds rather strange to me.
I was just trying to fully imprint in my brain how "object: list" comes after pisze, and as soon as the object becomes a pronoun, it changes and now, even if continued in the same sentence, comes beforethe verb.
Moja córka pisze list. Really, I'm not lying... moja córka go pisze
Was just playing around with grammar, so I think I was right
In "proper" English, there is a distinction to be made between the two (between 'a letter' and 'an e-mail').
However, this distinction is not usually adhered to and is often lazily overlooked (I don't object to that - languages evolve. But I'll explain it anyway)
The confusuion comes from 2 variables.
1) the fact that a "proper letter" these days can be created in various ways (electronic typing, written by pen, etc)
and 2) the fact that it can then be sent in various ways (by post, by attaching it to an email, by hand).
These 2 issues are do not directly cause or affect the other.
A hand written note could be delivered electronically (scanned, whatsapp photo etc), and an electronically-typed letter could be delivered by hand or by post.
What needs to be defined is what a "proper letter" is.
That is a seperate issue but as just an example, imagine a letter with the sender's address on the top right, the reciever's address a bit lower on the left, maybe a letterhead or logo at the top, etc (this is just an example)
A "proper letter" (eg from a govt official, a doctor, a solicitor, a contract) can be delivered by hand, by post, or electronically.
Here's the issue.....
If delivered electronically (ie. by e-mail) it is usually 'attached' to the e-mail in the formal of an 'attachment'. This is separate to the body of the e-mail.
In this case, people lazily will say "I sent him an e-mail" instead of "I sent him a letter BY e-mail".
The word 'e-mail' here is the equivalent of an envelope (by post) etc. It is the 'method of delivery'. Electronic mail.
You would not say "I sent him an envelope" so you shouldn't say "I sent him an e-mail"
But.... You could however say "I sent him a letter in an envelope/by post" and so then you could also say "I sent him a letter by e-mail".
Official letters are ALWAYS typed separately and then added to the e-mail body as an 'attachment'. Usually with a note saying 'Please find attached' or something.
The e-mail could be sent to a secretary, but the "letter" inside it would be naming the main person.
When that "letter" is printed for, for example, proof in a court case or historical archiving etc, the letter itself will NOT state the 'date of delivery' or 'method of delivery' or sender's e-mail address or time it was sent.
Just like you wouldn't keep the envelope or the stamp. You should't be able to tell JUST ONLY from the letter, how it was delivered or if it was delivered at all.
Ofcourse we exchange many many e-mails during the day, several back and forth in a minute sometimes. But these are rarely called "letters". For example, if confirming a meeting later on, or discussing things, that would be the right place to say "I've sent him an e-mail".
Anything more formal, or once fully discussed, will then usually by formalised into a " proper letter" and then sent by post or attachment.
There has recently been discussion if the body of a casual e-mail could legally be counted in court as "official correspondence" and I think it can. But in proper English, I still wouldn't call an informal, casual paragraph or two "a letter".
But hey, languages evolve.
^^ many typos above. Several in fact.
Hopefully it's still clear what I was explaining