# Dać + accusative, -a and no -a



## 涼宮

Hello everyone! 


I was talking to a Polish person and the phrase dać klapsa came up. Then I wondered when the masculine noun is supposed to end in -a and when no ending. I asked her if you'd say sierpa and she says it doesn't sound well and it's rather sierp in the accusative, then we tried several other nouns and tried two websites that decline nouns. There was disagreement regarding some words, one website says that, for example, kompas takes no ending in the accusative while the other says it takes -a, the same happened with plecak, but other nouns didn't take -a. Now both of us are confused. 

Is there any rule of some kind to know when to put -a for masculine nouns in the accusative and when to use nothing, or is it possible to add -a as optional?


Thank you in advance!


----------



## BezierCurve

Hi!

This subject has been discussed recently in Slavic Languages forum; please see post #3 and then 2 other replies by Thomas: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2559222


----------



## 涼宮

Thank you!, I read the entire post, but I am not sure I understood well. I know that both the genitive and the accusative end in -a and it says there that it's possible to use the genitive ending -a for masculine nouns when you mean the accusative. If I understood well, you'd put no ending for inanimate nouns? if so, dać klaps is possible?

Thanks again!


----------



## BezierCurve

Yes, you understood it well (it's about inanimity). 



> if so, dać klaps is possible?



This is one of the few exceptions and "dać klapsa" is a fixed phrase.


----------



## LilianaB

I don't really know what the rule is, if there is one at all. It is not as simple as animate versus inanimate nouns. Sometimes it is connected with the partitive use -- then the Genitive is used instead of the Accusative. At other times it really varies in my opinion -- we have _daj mi śledzia_ but _daj mi  pióro_. (both masculine, inanimate). The Accusative for inanimous always has the same ending as the Nominative in the Masculine, I think. It is just that sometimes the Genitive is used with dać. Daj mi klapsa (Gen.). (in fact _daj mi śledzia _may be a partitive use, as with other foods_).    



_


----------



## 涼宮

Thank you, sir! 


Lily, what you say makes sense, I too had thought of that when I saw klapsa and other -a's. Although I'll stick to the rules and learn the exceptions over time.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, klapsa is definitely a Genitive, and it is treated as partitive use here, for some reason, or as something indefinite -- general, as opposed to a concrete object pointed to.


----------



## wolfbm1

I never realised that we use a Genitive in that way.
Other examples: Dać bobu. Dać ognia. Dać buzi.

But: Dać słowo. Dać sygnał. Dać plamę.
And in the negative : Nie dać słowa. Nie dać sygnału. Nie dać plamy.

Check "Użycie form fleksyjnych - dopełniacz."
Source of examples: the Free Dictionary.


----------



## BezierCurve

> Yes, klapsa is definitely a Genitive, and it is treated as partitive use here, for some reason, or as something indefinite -- general, as opposed to a concrete object pointed to.



I'd argue with that, as other nouns in colloquial use follow simply the -a pattern (with their Genitive being different). Example:

Chcesz jogurta? (vs. correct form: "jogurt" and Genitive "jogurtu").

But I think you are right about the partitive.


----------



## Ben Jamin

BezierCurve said:


> Yes, you understood it well (it's about inanimity).
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the few exceptions and "dać klapsa" is a fixed phrase.



The situation is that there is a good deal of both confusion and inconsistency regarding the accusative endings of inanimate masculine nouns in Polish. I some cases the animate (or genitive) case ending with inanimate nouns are accepted in written (even formal) language, in other they are accepted in colloquial language, or not generally accepted but used by certain social groups. The form “dać klapsa” has been accepted probably on reasons of euphony.


----------



## Thomas1

涼宮 said:


> [...]if so, dać klaps is possible?[...]


It is. The meaning of 'klaps' changes, however. In this particular case, 'klaps' means 'clapperboard' (Spanish: claqueta).

In the case of 'dać klapsa', where 'klaps' means 'spank', the accusative is the same as the genitive.

I think it's best to treat the two as separate words.


----------



## Thomas1

涼宮 said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> 
> I was talking to a Polish person and the phrase dać klapsa came up. Then I wondered when the masculine noun is supposed to end in -a and when no ending. I asked her if you'd say sierpa and she says it doesn't sound well and it's rather sierp in the accusative, then we tried several other nouns and tried two websites that decline nouns. There was disagreement regarding some words, one website says that, for example, kompas takes no ending in the accusative while the other says it takes -a, the same happened with plecak, but other nouns didn't take -a. Now both of us are confused.


Could you please provide the links? I can't really imagine using the ending '-a' in sentences like:
Widzję jej plecaka/kompasa.  That would be instantly received as a gross mistake.



> Is there any rule of some kind to know when to put -a for masculine nouns in the accusative and when to use nothing, or is it possible to add -a as optional?



Here's something that maybe useful for you:


> Formę fleksyjną biernika równego dopełniaczowi przyjmuje pewna część rzeczowników rodzaju męskiego zakończonych w M. lp na spółgłoskę, a mianowicie:
> 1. W liczbie pojedynczej:
> A) wszystkie rzeczowniki żywotne, np. widzę komara, kota, łososia, nosorożca, słonia, słowika, szczupaka, szpaka, węgorza, wołu, bawołu;
> B) rzeczowniki będące nazwami osób zmarłych, straszydeł, istot nadprzyrodzonych, fantastycznych itp., np. widzieliśmy nieboszczyka, topielca, trupa, umrzyka, upiora, wampira, wisielca; namalował anioła, diabła, ducha, krasnoludka, skrzata;
> C) rzeczowniki nieżywotne będące nazwami tańców, np. tańczono poloneza, walca, fokstrota, slow-foxa, nazwami większości gier, np. grać w badmintona, w brydża, w preferansa, w hokeja, wyrobów fabrycznych, np. oglądać mercedesa, zapalić papierosa, nazwami figur szachowych i kart, np. wziąć pionka, króla, waleta, skoczka; nazwami wielu potraw, owoców i grzybów, np. zjeść gołąbka, hamburgera, kotleta, rolmopsa, śledzia marynowanego, loda, chipsa, ananasa, banana, ogórka, pomidora; znaleźć koźlarza, muchomora, podgrzybka, rydza, smardza.
> UWAGA!
> W nazwach potraw, owoców, grzybów i niektórych sportów biernik może być także równy mianownikowi, np. zjadł kotleta|kotlet, ugotował kalafiora|kalafior, kupił ananasa|ananas, przy czym w polszczyźnie potocznej typowy jest B. = D., a w odmianie staranniejszej B. = M.
> D) rzeczowniki nieżywotne w składzie utartych związków frazeologicznych z nadrzędnym czasownikiem mającym rząd biernikowy, np. dać/dostać klapsa; mieć stracha, nosa; nabić guza; dać nura, drapaka; spiec raka; utrzeć, zadzierać nosa; wywinąć kozła, młynka; zabić ćwieka.
> 
> _Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny_ PWN © Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA


A few words on the partitive, or the supposedly partitive, genitive:
The sentence: 
Zjadłem kotleta.
can have two meanings in Polish.
1. I ate a steak.
2. I ate a bit of steak.
In #1 we have to do with the accusative. This is a little more colloquial way to say 'Zjadłem kotlet.'
In #2 'kotleta' is the genitive.


----------



## 涼宮

Hello, Thomas!

Sure, here you have both:

http://www.aztekium.pl/przypadki.py?site=

http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/polish/

And thank you for the information!


----------



## Thomas1

涼宮 said:


> Hello, Thomas!
> 
> Sure, here you have both:
> 
> http://www.aztekium.pl/przypadki.py?site=


Suzumiya, I'm sorry to tell you that and hope you'll excuse me my boldness, but the website above is not correct . Nobody says:
Lubię *plecaka
*Lubię *kompasa*
 The other one, i.e. http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/polish/ looks like a credible source .


----------



## 涼宮

Well, my source has always been the 2nd one and the other one was provided by her . In the end, I had to trust more that dictionary.


----------



## wolfbm1

There is an interesting and lengthy discussion on a similar topic in Gazeta Wyborcza: "Doda ma różowy laptop" or "... ma różowego laptopa" 
and then "ma nowy komputer" not "nowego komputera"

yet "Doda ma nowego cyfraka".


----------



## LilianaB

Thomas1 said:


> Suzumiya, I'm sorry to tell you that and hope you'll excuse me my boldness, but the website above is not correct . Nobody says:
> Lubię *plecaka
> *Lubię *kompasa*
> The other one, i.e. http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/polish/ looks like a credible source .



Yes, I absolutley agree with Thomas. It would be very low quality Polish -- some kind of idiolect, most likely. (not to comment on the rest of the site, especially the part about the whores --) Kompas and plecak have to be in the Accusative here -- the same ending as the Nominative.


----------



## Ben Jamin

wolfbm1 said:


> There is an interesting and lengthy discussion on a similar topic in Gazeta Wyborcza: "Doda ma różowy laptop" or "... ma różowego laptopa"
> and then "ma nowy komputer" not "nowego komputera"
> 
> yet "Doda ma nowego cyfraka".



This discussion is confused in a very high degree. The participants mix up terms and categories. Don't read it.


----------



## Ben Jamin

涼宮 said:


> Hello, Thomas!
> 
> Sure, here you have both:
> 
> http://www.aztekium.pl/przypadki.py?site=



This is a discussion that won't make you wiser.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> Could you please provide the links? I cańt really imagine using the ending '-ą in sentences like:
> Widzję jej plecaka/kompasa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be instantly received as a gross mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> Heręs something that maybe useful for you:
> 
> A few words on the partitive, or the supposedly partitive, genitive:
> The sentence:
> Zjadłem kotleta.
> can have two meanings in Polish.
> 1. I ate a steak.
> 2. I ate a bit of steak.
> In #1 we have to do with the accusative. This is a little more colloquial way to say 'Zjadłem kotlet.'
> In #2 'kotletą is the genitive.



Nr. 2 seems to me to be a pure conjecture. I can’t see any “partitiveness” in this use. A partitive construction would be  “Zjadłem kawałek (trochę) kotleta.

The phenomenon of using genitive or animate accusative endings has two reasons:
1. A general confusion of case endings  between accusative and genitive, partially caused by the partitive functions of genitive in Polish.
2. A gradual decline in the distinction between animate and inanimate masculine nouns.

It is symptomatic, that almost all newly imported words in Polish (especially those used by younger people) which should be classified as inanimate get almost automatically the animate declension. 
By the way, “klaps” is also an imported word.


----------



## wolfbm1

Ben Jamin said:


> This discussion is confused in a very high degree. The participants mix up terms and categories. Don't read it.


That is why I find that discussion interesting. Why should native speakers of Polish disagree or be confused about a grammatical issue. 
C.E. Eckersley in the introduction to his book A Concise English Grammar for Foreign Students said:
"The rules of grammar are like the laws of Nature. The laws were not made for Nature to obey, but are simply a few facts which wise men have observed as to the way Nature acts. So the grammarian merely examines the language of the best speakers and writers, and deduces rules from their use of it.

Custom is the basis of these rules, and custom is always changing."


I hope that *涼宮* (Suzumija?) will understand that the discussuon in Gazeta Wyborcza is only a discussion.


----------



## Thomas1

Ben Jamin said:


> Nr. 2 seems to me to be a pure conjecture. I can’t see any “partitiveness” in this use. A partitive construction would be  “Zjadłem kawałek (trochę) kotleta.


 
Not necessarily, athough I agree that in most cases the sentence 'Zjadłem kotleta.' means 'I ate a steak' (the whole steak).
Have a look at other examples:
[Context: the beginning of a wedding reception.]
--Piłeś szampana?
***
--Piłem/Napiłem się szampana na początku wesela.
I don't think that the person means the whole bottle, but just a glass, or even some amount from the glass. It's similar to: Zjadłem kiełbasy/chleba/zupy/kartofli/kaszy itd.



> By the way, “klaps” is also an imported word.


They both are. 
'Klaps' (a spank) is a German borrowing: der Klaps (with the same meaning).
'Klaps' (clapperboard) comes from English: clappers>clap (_Słownik wyrazów obcych_, PWN)


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> Not necessarily, athough I agree that in most cases the sentence 'Zjadłem kotleta.' means 'I ate a steak' (the whole steak).
> Have a look at other examples:
> [Context: the beginning of a wedding reception.]
> --Piłeś szampana?
> ***
> --Piłem/Napiłem się szampana na początku wesela.
> I don't think that the person means the whole bottle, but just a glass, or even some amount from the glass. It's similar to: Zjadłem kiełbasy/chleba/zupy/kartofli/kaszy itd.



“Kotlet” and “szampan” are nouns of two different categories. “Kotlet” is a well defined unit (a piece of meat), while “szampan” is principally an uncountable noun, like water. The use of partitive with “szampan” is much more natural (even if it also can mean a bottle of champagne) than with “kotlet”.


----------



## Ben Jamin

wolfbm1 said:


> That is why I find that discussion interesting. Why should native speakers of Polish disagree or be confused about a grammatical issue.
> C.E. Eckersley in the introduction to his book A Concise English Grammar for Foreign Students said:
> "The rules of grammar are like the laws of Nature. The laws were not made for Nature to obey, but are simply a few facts which wise men have observed as to the way Nature acts. So the grammarian merely examines the language of the best speakers and writers, and deduces rules from their use of it.
> 
> Custom is the basis of these rules, and custom is always changing."
> 
> 
> I hope that *涼宮* (Suzumija?) will understand that the discussuon in Gazeta Wyborcza is only a discussion.



The belief that native speakers use their native language in a consistent and conscious way has no firm foundations. If you ask 100 people what they consider correct Polish, you will seldom achieve more than 70% consistency. In many questions five or six opposite views will be almost evenly distributed. So, confusion is not an abnormal state for the native speakers. This is true of all the languages I have some knowledge of. I follow the word reference forum discussions in 6 languages, and they all show the same: people do not agree with each other. In many cases they even go so far as to quarrel and abuse each other. The discussion in Gazeta Wyborcza is a discussion where most of the participants have very little knowledge about grammatical terms and rules (with rules I mean here not imposed normative rules, but “natural rules” observed by neutral researchers). They don’t know or don’t understand basic grammatical concepts. That’s why I don’t find the discussion worth reading.


----------

