Is there a difference in nuance? Why does “stroszy” sound more natural to you?That example could also read "Boi się, jest głodne, stroszy kolce, prycha, bywa zagubione." I'd say it would sound even more natural that way.
Why “nastrasza” and not “nastroszy”? Isn’t the infinitive “nastroszyć”?
It was was used in the imperfective mode, which I don't particularly like. But this might be just me.Why “nastrasza” and not “nastroszy”? Isn’t the infinitive “nastroszyć”?
As @zaffy already explained, the former has an imperfective aspect, while the latter - the perfective aspect.Why “nastrasza” and not “nastroszy”?
In the Slavic grammars - and Polish is not different with this respect - the aspect is "above" of all the conjugations, and is a lexical phenomenon rather than grammatical. In simple English it means that the verbs in question ('stroszyć', 'nastraszać' and 'nastroszyć') are considered independent from one another (except for the related meaning) and each of them has its own infinitive.Isn’t the infinitive “nastroszyć”?
"Stroszy" would sound more natural to me as well. However when I looked for it in google, to my surprise it found more hits with "nastraszać" than "stroszyć". Perhaps because it could be also derived from "nastraszyć", which is ambiguous. .Is there a difference in nuance?
A logical explanation would be based on how the perfective vs. imperfective verbs function together.Why does “stroszy” sound more natural to you?
OK so is "nastrasza" an adjective here? I should say I'm a beginner with Polish.
Nastraszać is a secondary imperfective verb, formed from the perfective nastroszyć. Using this verb in present tense is actually superfluous and stylistically wrong.I 'm not a beginner with Polish .., but it seems difficult to me..
stroszyć impf. (perfective nastroszyć)
on stroszy = on nastrasza
(transitive) to dishevel, to ruffle, to rumple, to tousle.
Synonyms: czochrać, jeżyć, kudlić, mierzwić, tarmosić, wichrzyć.
(reflexive) to posture, to preen, to show off.