# dropping the verb być



## Encolpius

Hello, I think the most common is to drop *jest *and *są*. Unfortunately I could not find any rules when you can or have to drop the verb być in books. Can you help me? Are there any simple rules? thanks.
Like: everything is ready. Wszystko jest gotowe or wszystko gotowe.


----------



## Faycelina

It's so called *równoważnik zdania.* Sentence in Polish from a grammar point of view exists only if we have orzeczenie in it (a verb in a proper form). 
Often used in proverbs. And not only *być *can be dropped. 

Have a look here: 
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3wnowa%C5%BCnik_zdania
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Równoważnik
http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo.php?id=3969571
http://www.edupedia.pl/words/index/show/489367_slownik_terminow_gramatycznych-rwnowanik_zdania.html


----------



## jazyk

I think Encolpius is talking about things like Maria jest aktorką (with the instrumental) vs. Maria to aktórka (with the nominative), the latter being a Polish specialty, as far as I know.


----------



## Encolpius

Ok. Once again. Just read what I have written above. 

Everything is ready.

a/ Wszystko jest gotowe.
b/ Wszystko gotowe. 

I think, b/ is correct. Why and when?


----------



## majlo

Encolpius, I have absolutely no idea if there's a rule behind it. It seems to me that this "rule" can be applied in many contexts. I'm afraid you just have to "feel" it.


----------



## Faycelina

Encolpius said:


> b/ Wszystko gotowe.
> I think, b/ is correct. Why and when?


As I said, this is _równoważnik zdania._ One of many types out of that kind of sentences. It's not only about the verb _*być*_ but you might be right that it's very common when it comes to this verb.


----------



## sir_prize

Encolpius said:


> Everything is ready.
> 
> a/ Wszystko jest gotowe.
> b/ Wszystko gotowe.
> 
> I think, b/ is correct. Why and when?



both versions are correct. actually you can use one or the other in almost any case. if i'd have to point situation more typical for b/ i would say reportnig by subordinate to his supervisor, but still - not necessarily. there is certainly no particular rule for that, unfortunately 
just one important, i believe, information Encolpius. you really don't need to bother, since there's no rules, there is no circumstances that requires using one of these forms. good news  you are always free to pick!


----------



## BezierCurve

I agree, it is hard to find some specific rules; there are however many fixed expressions, some of them following the patterns already mentioned. Just to mention some of those most frequently used:

wszystko X,
X = [świetnie, dobrze, bez sensu, na nic, nie tak, na dziś etc.];

nic X,
X = [złego, ciekawego, prostszego, takiego etc.];

X to Y 
X and Y are nouns, where Y describes what X is.

I bet there are many more similar patterns.


----------



## jmng

Yea, I guess too that there are no specific rules and it depends on the feeling you want to give for your language. For instance, if you are want your interlocutor to feel that everything is already and was done in time you may say "wszystko gotowe" but if you are writing a text of some formality it would be more convenient to write wszystko jest gotowe.


----------



## kknd

You probably should check _ellipsis_ (cf. here) and _copula_ (cf. here); second one is a part of _nominal predicate_.

Copula is often ommited in situations described above and from grammar's point of view one shouldn't view it as so called _elliptical sentence_ (or _sentence_; it seems not to have a good translation, orig. _równoważnik zdania_):
* _Maria to [jest] aktorka._ – elliptical sentence.
* _Maria jest aktorką._ – nominal predicate.
* _Wszystko [jest] gotowe._ – elliptical sentence.
* _To (jest) rower, a to [jest] kanapa._ – elliptical sentence.

In most cases one can ommit copula in most of nominal predicates but cannot in adjectival ones.


----------



## jazyk

To widzę po raz pierwszy w moich lekturach:

Ja skromny biolog,  mam okazję przydać się ludzkości.

Nie wiedziałem, że pominięcie czasownika _być _jest możliwe we wszystkich osobach. Inny ciekawy aspekt dla mnie jest, że w takich sytuacjach orzeczenie też jest w mianowniku. Zdanie z czasownikiem _być _byłoby _(Ja) jestem skromnym biologiem._ Czy widziecie dużą różnicę między zdaniem z czasownikiem _być _a zdaniem bez niego?


----------



## BezierCurve

Wydaje mi się, że w tym przykładzie brakuje przecinka, który właściwie oddzielałby wtrącenie (skromny biolog) od reszty otaczającego zdania:

Ja*,* skromny biolog, mam okazję...

Zdaje się, że podobnie działa to również w innych językach, np. w przysiędze małżeńskiej:

Ja, Marian Nowak, biorę sobie ciebie...

i:

I, John Smith, take you...


----------



## jazyk

Myślę, że masz rację. Nie zdałem sobie sprawy z brakującego przecinka.


----------

