Last modified on 19 May 2007, at 16:44

Talk:Polish

Return to "Polish" page.

This article wasn't really intended for Wiktionary, but here it is.

This is rather a tutorial than a description, so it's not appropriate as-is for Wikipedia, but I hope someone will find time to take all information from it and turn it into nice articles about Polish language.

Please check both Polish and English part of it.

Happy new year. Taw 18:15 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)


This is a very interesting article! Since I don't know Polish I obviously can't comment about the contents, but I can say that it is a type of article that we should also have for other languages.

Where to put this kind of article is also a challenging question. In one way it is more appropriate to Wikipedia than Wiktionary. The broad structure of a language is certainly as important as the history of the Polish language and its relationship with neighboring languages. Just as much as it's appropriate in Wikipedia, it is also a necessity in Wiktionary. At the same time it's not a "dictionary" article.

My first impulse is to suggest a whole new class of articles in Wiktionary that I would provisionally call [[Linguistics: ]]. It could be used for articles like this one which outlines the grammar of a language, but it could also include lists and indexes that are useful in navigsating one's way through a language. This would leave the [[Wiktionary: ]] based articles free to deal with articles about the operation of the project. Eclecticology 19:33 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

That's not my point. Articles with detailed explanation of human languages already exist on Polish Wikipedia, and, especially in case of Japanese language, are much more detailed than this article.

The point is not scope but style of this article. It doesn't read like encyclopedia article - it's more like some kind of tutorial. (on the other hand language tutorials also exist on Polish Wikipedia ...). Taw 22:52 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)


I had an idea like this a while ago, for Wiktionary to have language lessons in Everyy langauge. the name space would look like this:

LLessons:Languge Lesson x

-fonzy

Obvious problems are:

  • so far the only language for which there is enough material to make some useful course is Japanese, and all this material is in Polish only.
  • people have vastly different views on what constitutes good language course, especially in case of self-learnng courses.
  • course is very different than encyclopedia. Encyclopedia doesn't suffer at all from too much information, but the course would suffer a lot.

Of course, if done right, it would be really great resource.

Fonzy (or anyone else): can you find a few free hours and try to learn some Polish from that article ? I'm very much interested in people's comments about this style.

Taw 23:12 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)


Very nice !

I have started to read it. One suggestion : can you put at the begining of the text that Polish is the only (I am not sure) slavic language using the latin alphabet.

I study languages and I know that are different teaching methods and vieuws. Mine are :

  1. stress on comparisons : things which are the same and things which are different
  2. know what languages your students already know (it helps for 1) and stress on specific problems

I thing it would be very appealing with some exercices at the end of each lesson.

More comments when I will have read it

Youssefsan, who should sleep

But that's not true at all - all West Slavic and most of South Slavic languages use Latin script. Taw 23:46 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of knowledge. Gassho. -- Youssefsan

When I start to read it the tutorial aspect does become evident. Perhaps I was trying to compare such a presentation with the grammar summary that you often find in translation dictionaries. I agree that if I wanted to spend the time the article could give me a better understanding of Polish. In practical terms I now know that I have a place to look when I see that the Polish word in the dictionary doesn't look exactly like the one in the text that I'm trying to understand. The tables of declensions will be very helpful for this.

For specific comments:

  1. The case name in English is usually "instrumental" instesd of "instrumentative".
  2. Not everybody will understand what difference you mean between hard and soft signs. A person who has some familiarity with Russian may think in terms of using the hard and soft signs in that language. Chines has what could be considered as two different "sh" sounds which may both sound the same to a non-chinese speaker. I suspect that you mean the difference in sounds between "chip" and "ship". Those two words together form a "minimal pair"; this term is used by linguists for words that are the same except for the characteristic that you are trying to illustrate. Examples, where available, can be much more useful.
  3. I know that slavic languages do not use the definite article "the"; when it's missing from the English text, it's a clue that the speaker is slavic. I'll try to clean some of that up wherever it doesn't seem to compromise what you are trying to say. Eclecticology 00:49 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
  1. Difference between hard and soft is probably specific to Polish and it's damn hard to describe. "chip" sounds more like Polish "cz", not "ś". If you know Japanese then "ś"/"ć" are like Japanese "sh"/"ch" and "sz"/"cz" are like English "sh"/"cz". I don't know any better example. No minimal pair exists for them in English as English doesn't know this difference. I'm not even sure if non-Polish would be able to notice the difference by listening to Japanese audio.
  2. Even worse "softening" doesn't always turn hard sound into its soft equivalent. "hard", "soft"' and "softening" are usual terms in Polish grammar. Terms "historically soft" and "historically hard" are also used to describe consonants thah behave different way in "softening" than what you'd expect from the way they sound.
  3. I tried to leave a/the from English translation of examples so they wouldn't imply it either way. Sometimes I left too much. But of course if I left them in article text it needs to be fixed.
  4. Full tables of declension would take small book. Even tables of declension modulo regular and semi-regular phonetic changes (softening, ó/o, e, a->e) would still be quite big.

Taw 02:00 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)


I am a native speaker of English, and have fixed up the English text to read better, by minor tweaks, mostly involving adding a or the as appropriate. According to comment 3 above, I have not added a or the in the English translation of examples.

I also changed "perfect" and "imperfect" to "perfective" and "imperfective" repectively, as this is the correct terminology.

This is a very useful Polish course so many thanks to the author.

Alan 13:20 May 25, 2003 (UTC)


There is what seems to me a mistake but I need a Polish speaker to confirm: near the end of the section "Masculine noun declension" is the example sentence "Facet daje kotu mleka". Should it be "mleko"?

Alan 13:10 June 1, 2003 (UTC)

Both are correct. Genitive is used as "partitive" too.

These sentences would mean basically the same, but have slightly different connotations. Closest English translations:

  • Facet daje kotu mleko (accusative) - guy gives cat a milk (may mean either "one milk" or "some unspecified amount" of milk, but first usage is suggested)
  • Facet daje kotu mleka (genitive) - guy gives cat some (general "some", may mean any amount of uncountable stuff) milk
  • Facet daje kotu trochę (accusative, specific amount = some) mleka (genitive) - guy gives cat some (specific "some" = "not much") milk

Anyway, it's "mleka" there on purpose. Taw 16:23 Jun 2, 2003 (UTC)


This should go directly over to Wikibooks. Kwekubo

Actually this course has been copied to Wikibooks.
--Kpjas 22:23, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why is it still in the dictionary? It is a textbook, and it has already been copied to the appropriate wiki. -- Emperorbma 13:47, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree that it was proper to move this to Wikibooks, but the article is linked with a number of others. I would caution against breaking a lot of links by deleting the article too quickly. There are a number of experiments, like articles titled Polish word - xxxx that should be fixed first. Let's be careful about this. Eclecticology 18:13, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

i'd like to know - and probably other people might like to know - whether we should edit the version on wiktionary or the one on wikibooks.

If there is consensus to work on the wikibooks version, how about if an admin freezes the page and puts a notice at the top of the page like

Warning: the copy of this page on wiktionary has been frozen. Please edit the version on wikibooks http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Polish_language_course rather than this version on wiktionary.

i could add the warning but i can't freeze the page.

Boud 13:43, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once the information on this page has been properly installed on Wikibooks there is no reason why this page can't be simply deleted. The material was written before Wikibooks was started. Unless there are important objections, I can go ahead and just delete it here. Eclecticology 20:19, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)



i guess noone has the courage to delete most of the contents of this page. i certainly don't... Anyway, does this link Wikibooks:Basic_Polish_language_course work? Yes, good :) Boud 13:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good Web PageEdit

I have spent a lot buying books teaching the Polish language and have not found one yet that uses an actual teaching method. Here lately I have found a few good learning sources on the internet. This is one of them. Thanks,

Clay Jackson

HELLO people, it's the only part I could edit so do it, because there's mistake in neuter declension - locativ of 'piwo' should be 'piwie', not 'piwu'. Simmilar words - słowo, loc. słowie- word, paliwo, loc paliwie and others. I'm Polish, so I know what I say. You should fix that part, rest is very good.