Polish Equivalent of "Read"/ "Say"

< Previous | Next >
Status
Not open for further replies.

BezierCurve

Senior Member
I merely have the audacity to note that more and more people nationwide use the shortcuts you find despicable.

As for the people you know - they might either have survived similar linguistic trauma in their childhood or simply got corrected by you too many times to allow themselves to use "tu pisze".
 
  • Most of the people I know - be it educated or uneducated - say "(tu) jest napisane". Actually, it's a vast majority of them. As for generational changes, if my daughter should ever catch on the horrible sounding and looking "tu pisze", yes, I will definitely correct her. :)
     

    dreamlike

    Senior Member
    Polish
    Is "shortcut" a euphemism for "mistake" in your dictionary, Bezier? As far as "tu pisze" goes, one can label it as "shortcut", although I'd be more inclined to use the words "error" or "linguistic sloppiness" - but "poszłem" certainly doesn't qualify as such, no matter how badly you want it.

    As for the number of people who take such linguistic "shortcuts", my impression is that people are becoming increasingly aware of the language they use, and most of them try to speak decent Polish. But maybe it's more of a wishful thinking than the real state of affairs..
     

    BezierCurve

    Senior Member
    We could talk about mistakes in maths or physics, where you have strict rules that do not change over time. In language it's more of an agreement between its users, who in fact own it.

    Depending on what's the priority for you - is it the leading linguists' opinion or the average user, you may assume something is accepted or not. As the average user usually makes it accepted over time, I'd go for the latter. But I agree that sticking to the "rules" helps to make this change gradually, which is easier for all.

    As for authoritative opinions - Mirosław Bańko sees "tu pisze" as acceptable in everyday speech, not acceptable (yet) in writing.
     
    Depending on what's the priority for you - is it the leading linguists' opinion or the average user, you may assume something is accepted or not.

    As for authoritative opinions - Mirosław Bańko sees "tu pisze" as acceptable in everyday speech, not acceptable (yet) in writing.
    What if both of these differ in the "correct" usage? ;)
    As far as I remember Mr Bańko's entry from the PWN Poradnia, he labelled this construction incorrect in careful speech, but I might be mistaken.
     

    BezierCurve

    Senior Member
    I think he did (I was referring to the colloquial speech here). But that's a question of the register we're using though, which makes the whole concept of "correctness" even more blurred.
     

    Thomas1

    Senior Member
    polszczyzna warszawska
    This discussion sort of reminds me about the one we had about 'czym..., tym...'.
    Anyway, there is another wording, which is hardly ever used in Modern Polish, but still you can find it once in a while: [gdzieś] stało, że... For instance: W gazecie stało, że X zabił Y. The meaning is the same as of 'w gazecie pisało, że...'.


    Here is something interesting:
    [...] pisało w gazecie; stało w gazecie. Jest to bardzo często używana forma powołania się na jakiś komunikat drukowany w prasie, która mimo swojej bezosobowości nie ma podtekstu lekceważenia. Ten sam obiektywny charakter ma również zwrot: mówili przez radio, który jest bezosobowy w treści, chociaż osobowy w formie.
    Source: Rocznik warszawski, Tom 12, Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy., 1974
    I am very curious as to what the history of these two wordings is.

    I am wondering why it is so that if many other Slavic languages treat the '[gdzieś] pisze, że...' construction as correct, we in Polish deem it blatantly incorrect, although there are many people who have been using it for a very long time, which is not even a moot point. Can't it be treated for example as colloquial as 'czym..., tym...' has recently been found? Bądź tu mądry i pisz wiersze. :confused:
     

    POLSKAdoBOJU

    Senior Member
    Canadian English, Polish
    I am wondering why it is so that if many other Slavic languages treat the '[gdzieś] pisze, że...' construction as correct, we in Polish deem it blatantly incorrect,
    Respectfully, I fail to see how what other Slavic languages deem to be correct or not should have any bearing on proper contemporary Polish grammar.
    Godzina (or it's derivatives) means year in most other Slavic languages ex: Croatian/Serbian/Bulgarian/Macedonian godina, Russian god, Belorussian hod.
    This does mean the Polish meaning should be changed.
     

    ryba

    Senior Member
    Anyway, there is another wording, which is hardly ever used in Modern Polish, but still you can find it once in a while: [gdzieś] stało, że... For instance: W gazecie stało, że X zabił Y. The meaning is the same as of 'w gazecie pisało, że...'.
    Yes, it's a nice one. I mentioned it in posts #16 and #20. It may be a calque of German stehen, used in the same manner. As you can see here, its equivalents are to be found in other Slavic languages, too (e.g. in Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian and in Slovak), but, again, it may still be a loan translation from German, as German culture (and print culture!) has always been influential in Central Europe and the Balkans.


    Here is something interesting:
    [...] pisało w gazecie; stało w gazecie. Jest to bardzo często używana forma powołania się na jakiś komunikat drukowany w prasie, która mimo swojej bezosobowości nie ma podtekstu lekceważenia. Ten sam obiektywny charakter ma również zwrot: mówili przez radio, który jest bezosobowy w treści, chociaż osobowy w formie.
    Source:Rocznik warszawski, Tom 12, Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy., 1974
    I am very curious as to what the history of these two wordings is.
    So am I. I wish there was a Polish linguist capable of giving a competent answer. It's a really interesting research topic. Do all filologowie polscy write about literature?!:D

    Respectfully, I fail to see how what other Slavic languages deem to be correct or not should have any bearing on proper contemporary Polish grammar.
    Because it gives us hints about its history. First of all, it helps us dismiss the urban legend that impersonal pisać is some kind of novelty in our language. The presence of Pisać [coś] (gdzieś) in languages related, yet distant (Slovenian! BCS! Bulgarian!) suggests it has been around for a while (it or *SOMETHING we're no longer aware of, something that contributed to its appearance in all of them, whatever it might have been). It suggests it's been around for a while just like the very similar impersonal construction chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś) I mentioned in posts #67, #70, and, above all, #75.

    If you take a closer look at both of them, you'll see they look and work alike.

    3 os. l. poj. czasownika „Chodzić” + Miejscownik + (Określenie miejsca).
    3 os. l. poj. czasownika „Pisać” + Biernik + (Określenie miejsca).

    For purely semantic reasons, as this impersonal pisać is inherently communicative in nature (in an even more direct manner than the personal pisać, which affords the possibility of using synechdoche/metonymy, cf. pisać listy), most of the time this Accusative (Biernik) assumes the form of a subordinate clause („że...”, e.g. Pisało, że zdałeś) or of a direct quote („...”, e.g. Pisało „Press OK to validate the request”, więc wcisnąłem.), and never takes an animate object (= never answers the question „Kogo?” -- Biernik: Kogo? Co?). I said "most of the time", because it can also assume the form of an indefinite pronoun (e.g. Coś tu pisze) or, naturally, of an interrogative pronoun (e.g. Co tu pisze?). I think that's all there's to be said about the allegéd inherent "oddness" of the construction.

    Chodzić [o coś/kogoś] (gdzieś) is also quite peculiar. It probably originated from the ditransitive Chodzić [o coś/kogoś (Miejscownik -- Locative)] [komuś (Celownik -- Dative)], but is now a bona fide monotransitive impersonal verbal construction. I don't think it was the other way round, but maybe? The process of semantic bleaching has made it impossible for me to decide. In fact, we no longer even know why the verb chodzić is used there (if you do, please, let me know :)). Just like pisać [coś] (gdzieś), it differs from the majority of Polish impersonal verb forms in that it does not refer to the weather (e.g. padać in Padało cały dzień) or sensual perceptions (e.g. boleć in Bolało mnie całą noc).

    The only true difference between the two seems to be that someday someone must have decided Pisać [coś] (gdzieś) is bad, and told others, while they failed to do so in the case of chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś). Otherwise, you'd see both constructions as equally natural (or equally incorrect, if you insist). What do you think?

    To me, saying that Było napisane is correct but Pisało is not is much like saying Padał deszcz is correct but Padało is not.
     
    Last edited:

    LilianaB

    Banned
    Lithuanian
    I absolutley agree with you Ryba, not that I want to correct the variation of Polish spoken in Poland now, or rather variations. Now, when you mentioned it, stoi is a Silesian construction, co tu stoi, from German stehen, probably. Osobiscie nie wydaje mi sie zeby dzwieczalo to zbyt dobrze w literackim jezyki polskim, jest to tym niemniej ta sama konstrukcja.
     

    dn88

    Senior Member
    Polish
    This discussion sort of reminds me about the one we had about 'czym..., tym...'.
    Anyway, there is another wording, which is hardly ever used in Modern Polish, but still you can find it once in a while: [gdzieś] stało, że... For instance: W gazecie stało, że X zabił Y. The meaning is the same as of 'w gazecie pisało, że...'.
    Wouldn't "stało" be shorthand for "stało napisane"?
     

    dreamlike

    Senior Member
    Polish
    LilianaB said:
    Osobiscie nie wydaje mi sie zeby dzwieczalo to zbyt dobrze w literackim jezyki polskim, jest to tym niemniej ta sama konstrukcja


    I hope you won't take offence at my pointing this out, but "dźwięczało" doesn't really work here. A native-speaker would go for "brzmiało". Also, it's "języku".

    Ryba, you're arguments sound pretty reasonable, now that I had given it some thought. You almost win me over. I'll keep using "Tu jest napisane", though, if only because it's looked upon favourably by most people, as opossed to "Tu pisze".

     

    dreamlike

    Senior Member
    Polish
    By the way, I just asked my Polish teacher and she finds 'tu pisze' very nice, and says that she accepts its usage in spoken language. Who would've thought..
     

    dreamlike

    Senior Member
    Polish
    I find it rather uncommon for Polish language teacher to hold such views. Most of the teacher would gave me a dirty look if I had even asked them this question..
     

    ryba

    Senior Member
    Chodzić [o coś/kogoś] (gdzieś) is also quite peculiar. It probably originated from the ditransitive chodzić [o coś/kogoś (miejscownik -- Locative)] [komuś (celownik -- dative)], but is now a bona fide monotransitive impersonal verbal construction. I don't think it was the other way round, but maybe? The process of semantic bleaching has made it impossible for me to decide. In fact, we no longer even know why the verb chodzić is used there (if you do, please, let me know :)). Just like pisać [coś] (gdzieś), it differs from the majority of Polish impersonal verb forms in that it does not refer to the weather (e.g. padać in Padało cały dzień) or sensual perceptions (e.g. boleć in bolało mnie całą noc).

    The only true difference between the two seems to be that someday someone must have decided Pisać [coś] (gdzieś) is bad, and told others, while they failed to do so in the case of chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś). Otherwise, you'd see both constructions as equally natural (or equally incorrect, if you insist). What do you think?

    To me, saying that Było napisane is correct but Pisało is not is much like saying Padał deszcz is correct but Padało is not.
    And yet Rada Języka Polskiego proscribes tu pisze on its site - opinion by prof. A. Markowski given in 2005 who calls it a blatant syntax error (and underlines the blatant error part to give it more force). Well, I take it's pure exacerbated prescriptivism. He doesn't even care to give the reason for his opinion despite the asker having expressedly requested a source. He just says that tu pisze always requires a subject. As if expletive subjects didn't count? Does every subject have to be a she or an uncle? :D

    I didn't realize that back in 2012 but chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) corresponds to German es geht um:

    chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) = es geht [um etwas] (irgendwo), as in worum geht es hier? 'o co tu chodzi?',​
    and may very well be a (very well established) German calque (loan translation).
     

    Ben Jamin

    Senior Member
    Polish
    And yet Rada Języka Polskiego proscribes tu pisze on its site - opinion by prof. A. Markowski given in 2005 who calls it a blatant syntax error (and underlines the blatant error part to give it more force). Well, I take it's pure exacerbated prescriptivism. He doesn't even care to give the reason for his opinion despite the asker having expressedly requested a source. He just says that tu pisze always requires a subject. As if expletive subjects didn't count? Does every subject have to be a she or an uncle? :D

    I didn't realize that back in 2012 but chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) corresponds to German es geht um:

    chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) = es geht [um etwas] (irgendwo), as in worum geht es hier? 'o co tu chodzi?',​
    and may very well be a (very well established) German calque (loan translation).
    The German calque explanation is the most plausible, and probably 100% correct. The discussion about its origin shows how blind language purists can be. By the way, other Germanic languages have similar constructions. Norwegian has "det dreier seg om" (it turns around).
    Twenty years from now there may occur discussions about the mysterious origins of the expression "to mnie kręci" (a mistranslation of English "it turns me on" (not around)).
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    < Previous | Next >
    Top