"Koszula to nie sukienka."

Translation:A shirt is not a dress.

July 23, 2016

This discussion is locked.


Unless it's a shirt dress! :-)


Came here to say this lol


Since "to" denotes a general rule, shouldn't "Shirts aren't dresses" be accepted as well?


That would be "Koszule to nie sukienki". Theoretically it could be "This shirt is not a dress (but that one is)", so I wouldn't claim that it's a general rule, although it often may be.


Koszula nie jest sukienka?


Is "a shirt is no dress" not proper English?


I love pokemon water types


Why not "Koszula nie to sukienka?" As it is, it seems to say "A shirt is a not-dress," or "A shirt is no dress." Also, in this construction, is "to" a verb, pronoun, or what?


I will begin with your second question: In Polish, in constructions where you would normally use 'jest' and Instrumental, it is possible to omit the 'jest' and use only 'to', where the object then stays in Nominative. This works with positive or negative statements.

-> Słoń nie jest ptakiem, kurczak jest ptakiem

-> Słoń to nie ptak, kurczak to ptak.

So 'to' is like a pointer, which gives one noun the property of being the same or from the same category as the other. (I think you can in some constructions even use both, like 'Słoń to jest bardzo dużym zwierzęciem")

The to needs to go before the negation, but I don't know why exactly. Maybe it is just the way Polish works :) I think about it as "A shirt (koszula) is/equals (to) not (nie) a dress (sukienka)"

Happy to help, dear natives I am equally happy about constructive criticisms as always :)


Well, "Słoń to jest bardzo dużym zwierzęciem" doesn't make sense, I'm afraid, you cannot use both constructions in the same sentence. Maybe you confused it with what I'm about to mention now:

But other than that, you're right. Basically I'd say you can imagine a sentence like "Słoń to (nie) ptak" to have an invisible "jest": "Słoń to (nie) (jest) ptak". Using 'jest' here (Słoń to nie jest ptak) is technically correct, but relatively rare. Anyway, this helps understanding why negation is in that place.


Good day to you Jellei, and thanks a lot for the clarification. One question still remains, could one say "Sloń to jest duze zwierzę"? Or is this only possible with the rare negated version?

Other than that, I get the rule: if "to" is used in "X to Z", don't use narzędnik/instrumental, regardless if there is "some form of być" in the sentence.

Hope I understood correctly :)


You could say that. One of the users started asking for accepting such a construction and we reluctantly agreed - it's not everyday language though, I just don't recommend it.

Yes, the 'to' construction is only used with noun phrases in Nominative on both sides.


It is like after "to" is empty verb seems "to be" To (empty verb) koszula. Koszula to nie (emtpty verb) jabłko.


It should be shirt is not a dress as i am learning Polish not English and there is no equivalent word for a as well


I'm not an expert, but the grammar works differently in both languages. Another way to look at it is that in Polish there's no need to say the equivalent of 'a' in front of the word, because a more direct translation of the word might be 'a shirt' rather than just 'shirt'. Language isn't just about learning translations, it's also about learning how the words fit together. (This is just what I've picked up from the course, sorry if I'm wrong or not meant to answer or being too obvious or whatever)


Why "Shirt isnt dress" is considered wrong?

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