# Za kim pan/i stoi?



## Baltic Sea

Witam ponownie!

Jak zapytać po angielsku _*"Za kim pan/i stoi?"*_. _*"Who are you queueing up behind/after?"*_ or _*"Who are you standing in the line behind/after?"

*_Źródło: Wyobraźnia. Dziękuję.


----------



## LilianaB

Who are you behind (in line)? (AE)


----------



## radosna

Another option that's not too far off from your original thoughts -- just simplified and more common: "Who are you after?"


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, I agree, but only if you are pointing to the line, or stand next to the line -- not out of context. In other contexts (without the line in view) it would also mean _who are you tying to catch_?


----------



## dreamlike

Z czystej ciekawości, Baltic Sea, czy widząc kolejkę u lekarza spytałbyś "Za kim pan stoi?" mając na myśli "Na wizytę u którego z lekarzy pan czeka?".
Ja bym najzwyczajniej spytał "Ta kolejka to do kogo?", i właśnie to najczęściej słyszę w takich sytuacjach.


----------



## LilianaB

What do you mean by _kolejka do lekarza _-- in front of the registration?


----------



## dreamlike

Either that or people waiting for their turn, that is to say waiting for the doctor to attend to them. Polish health care leave much to be desired...


----------



## LilianaB

Do they stand in an actual line, or is the line more metaphorical -- just the order in which they will be seen, but they can  sit? This may be important when making a decision which phrase you use. I would say: na wizytę u jakiego lekarza Pan czeka.


----------



## dreamlike

No, usually it's a queue by name only, people are sitting and waiting for their turn, not even necessarily in the order they're going to be attended to.


----------



## LilianaB

Then, I would, use the phrase I mentioned.


----------



## dreamlike

Yes, it's perfectly fine. To be honest, any phrase would do, it's just that "Za kim pan stoi?" sounds a bit odd to me.


----------



## LilianaB

_Za kim Pan stoi_ was supposed to mean here _who is in front of you_ -- not _which doctor you are waiting for_. _Za kim Pan jest_ w _kolejce_? Maybe? _Kto jest prze Panem w kolejce_?


----------



## dreamlike

Ooops, you're right -- I've confused the threads.


----------



## kknd

dreamlike said:


> Yes, it's perfectly fine. To be honest, any phrase would do, it's just that "Za kim pan stoi?" sounds a bit odd to me.


maybe because of its figurative, probably colloqiual, meaning ("who do you support?").


----------



## dreamlike

kknd said:


> maybe because of its figurative, probably colloqiual, meaning ("who do you support?").


To elicit this meaning one would have to say "Za kim pan jest?" rather than "Za kim pan stoi?", but it doesn't really matter - I've simply confused the threads. 
"Za kim pan stoi" meaning "Who are you in the line/queue behind" is just fine.


----------



## POLSKAdoBOJU

One small detail: In standard written English _Who*m *_would be the correct version in those sentences, since it is the indirect object of the sentence. _Who_ is only used as the subject of a sentence.

In spoken English both _whom_ and _who_ can be heard, although there is a tendency for _who_ to replace _whom_.


----------



## LilianaB

POLSKAdoBOJU said:


> One small detail: In standard written English _Who*m *_would be the correct version in those sentences, since it is the indirect object of the sentence. _Who_ is only used as the subject of a sentence.
> 
> In spoken English both _whom_ and _who_ can be heard, although there is a tendency for _who_ to replace _whom_.



I wouldn't be so sure about that -- only if you are a prescriptivist. _Whom_ can definitely be used the way you said, but that does not mean that _who_ is incorrect, even in writing. This is really a debate that has been going on for long. It is an  open question, and I am convinced thta both are correct.  
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/who-or-whom


----------



## dreamlike

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, Liliana -- it all boils down the attitude we adopt towards grammar, whether it's prescriptivism or descriptivism.

And POLSKAdoBOJU - if I was to be nitpicky, I'd say that detail is by definition small, so saying "small detail" is superfluous.


----------

