# afera/chryja difference



## westhartford

Hi,

I would like to know if there's any difference between afera and chryja, which I found translated as "affair". 
Could I say:
Ta afera/chryja wymaga wielkiego doświadczenia.

Thanks


----------



## majlo

Well, theoretically you could say that, but the context is too general to be very specific. As for the difference, a dictionary defines it as follows:

_afera - a sensational event
chryja - row_

However, I believe that _chryja_ could also be a brawl for example or the very affair.


----------



## westhartford

So, a wedding would be more of an "afera", while "chryja" would be more of a serious piece of news? for example, what's recently been going on in Libia? or you mean a row, more of a "draka"?


----------



## majlo

A wedding, as such, would neither be an _afera_ nor _chryja_. In an appropriate context it could be, I imagine, an _afera_. Could it be a _chryja_? I don't think so. If the guests suddenly started a brawl, then one could say _What a <<chryja>>!_.

As for the situation in Libya, I think both words can be used to describe it.


----------



## westhartford

I was thinking of a special wedding, for instance Holland's prince's wedding.
If two people argue, oni mają chryję?


----------



## majlo

Even if it were a special wedding, I would not call it a _chryja_ nor _ afera_.

If two people argue, they may have a _chryja_, but a lot - as usual - depends on the context. If a brother and sister have a minor argument over some trifle, it would definitely not be a _chryja_, but if an underage son came home at, say, 3 am for the 10th time in a row, and his dad lost his temper, shouting and kicking him out of the house, the sister would have every right to say to herself _What a <<chryja>>!!_.


----------



## Thomas1

I think we can use it in the context of a wedding too.
  Ten ślub/To wesele to była (jedna) wielka chryja.

  As to the difference between ‘afera’ and ‘chryja’ I think that ‘afera’ emphasises more a situation which is scandalous, because it was tainted with something while ‘chryja’ stresses more the contentious and quarrelsome character of a situation. Also, to my experience ‘chryja’ isn’t a frequent word in Polish.

  I think in Majlo’s example in post #6 both could be used:
  Ale zrobiła się z tego chryja/afera.

  Have a look at this example:


> Pech chciał, że jednak ktoś zajrzał - dziennikarze "Faktu", mianowicie. I w ten sposób cała Polska dowiedziała się, jakie są, zdaniem może nie pierwszej twarzy, ale na pewno pierwszych nóg rządzącej partii, przyczyny wielomiesięcznych kolejek w służbie zdrowia. Ano takie, że gabinety oblegane są przez staruszków, którzy częste wizyty u lekarza traktują jak rozrywkę, bo i zresztą leczyć takiego na przykład 85-latka w zasadzie nie ma większego sensu.
> 
> Zrobiła się z tego chryja, więc posłanka zaczęła się tłumaczyć, że jej słowa przeinaczono, bo autoryzowała je w pośpiechu i przez telefon. Dlaczego dziennikarka, jeśli nie jest to zbyt szumne określenie, partyjnego biuletynu PO miałaby przeinaczać słowa Joanny Muchy?
> http://fakty.interia.pl/felietony/ziemkiewicz/news/i-parytet-nie-pomoze,1592832


Here ‘chryja’ could easily be substituted for ‘afera,’ because they are used in the meaning very close to ‘skandal.’


----------



## westhartford

Thank you both. I actually asked a couple of Polish friends and they didn't know the word "chryja", so I'm guessing I'll just stick to afera. Thank you very much. Dziękuję panom.


----------



## Ben Jamin

westhartford said:


> So, a wedding would be more of an "afera", while "chryja" would be more of a serious piece of news? for example, what's recently been going on in Libia? or you mean a row, more of a "draka"?


 "Chryja" means "trouble" sometimes with elements of "brawl" or "farce" or "mess". This word is VERY informal, rather slangy. Not one you would use speaking to your grandmother. Typical usage "Ale chryja!" ("What a mess!")
"Afera" means "scandal", "scam", "trouble", it is slightly informal (not used in official language), loved by journalists.


----------



## majlo

I'm wondering what this official language must be if "afera" is not used in it...


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> I'm wondering what this official language must be if "afera" is not used in it...


Legal language, legislative language, state and municipal admnistration documents, etc. Not speeches in the Sejm, however ...


----------



## majlo

Ben Jamin said:


> Legal language, legislative language, state and municipal admnistration documents, etc.



Oh, agreed big time!  Sometimes, I have the impression that Polish legal language is as different from Polish as English from Welsh. I in fact wouldn't expect normal words such as "afera" in it.


----------



## Thomas1

Ben Jamin said:


> "Chryja" means "trouble" sometimes with  elements of "brawl" or "farce" or "mess". This word is VERY informal,  rather slangy. Not one you would use speaking to your grandmother.  Typical usage "Ale chryja!" ("What a mess!")[...]


 In this  meaning, it is informal, but not in the others (closer to the  etymological meaning of 'chryja').


Ben Jamin said:


> [...] Not speeches in the Sejm, however ...


These, at times, can be a paragon of 'chryja,' on the other hand...


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> Oh, agreed big time!  Sometimes, I have the impression that Polish legal language is as different from Polish as English from Welsh. I in fact wouldn't expect normal words such as "afera" in it.


Legal language is a separate register of langauge in every country. It is concocted on purpose to hold non lawyers outside. Anyway, 'afera' is always somehow informal and colloquial because of the emotional and subjective connotation of this word, the same as scandal, also in formal texts.


----------



## majlo

Ben Jamin said:


> Legal language is a separate register of langauge in every country. It is concocted on purpose to hold non lawyers outside.



Exactly! And that's disgusting. It's ripping other people, as you call them non-lawyers, off.


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> Exactly! And that's disgusting. It's ripping other people, as you call them non-lawyers, off.


 They just want to get their money. If the laws were written in a language an average educated person understand, and in a self explaining way, then one would not need more than 10% of lawyers that are active today.


----------



## majlo

I know. That's why it's disgusting.


----------

