# żeby - żebys



## oetzi

Hi friends!
This time I need some explanation about the difference between *żeby *and *żebyś*.
In WR dictionary (and, by the way, nowhere else on line) I've found the meaning of the former to be "_in order to, in order that, so that_": in Italian, this expression would be a preposition (or the like) and, as such, it couldn't be declined in any way.
On the other hand, I could find the latter nowhere, and I really went out of my head trying to understand what it meant. It even got worse when a friend of mine told me that "it specifies the second person". This really drove me mad: how can a preposition specify "the second person"? Does it mean you conjugate a preposition?!?!? Please help me get out of this maze!


----------



## NotNow

The two words mean the same. _Żebyś _is used when the word is followed by a verb in the second person past tense. The ś is moved from the end of the verb to the end of _żeby_. For example, _żeby byłeś_ becomes _żebyś był._ The e in _byłeś_ disappears. 


If the verb is feminine, however, the a is retained, as in _żebyś była._


----------



## BezierCurve

Hi Oetzi,



> Does it mean you conjugate a preposition


You can conjugate "żeby" indeed. Also "aby", "oby", and there are a few other examples, where the suffixes can go around and be "glued" to _nearly each part_ of the sentence. There have been a few threads about it, you might try search the forum for "-byś" etc.

Just wanted to add, you can always safely go for endings applied to "be" in _present_ tense here, from which they originated (no difference in gender there):

singular:

1. jestem -> żebym
2. jesteś -> żebyś
3. jest -> żeby

plural:

1. jesteśmy -> żebyśmy
2. jesteście -> żebyście
3. są -> żeby _(same as 3rd singular - no suffix here)_


----------



## oetzi

Thank you both, your explanations are very clear, though the subject is a bit unusual for our standards .... 
Dobrego dnia
Ennio


----------



## PawelBierut

NotNow said:


> The two words mean the same. _Żebyś _is used when the word is followed by a verb in the second person past tense.



As I see it _żebyś_ can be used in any tense, but always in the second person. You can say for example sth like: _

Chcę żebyś to zrobił._ = I want you to do it.
_Chciałem żebyś to zrobił = _I wanted you to do it.
_Będę chciał żebyś to zrobił = _I will want you to do it. (however I'm not sure if it is correct in English)

*Edit*:
Now I'm sure that it isn't correct -- better --> I will need you to do it... (I think so)


----------



## oetzi

Thanks to you as well, Pawel. Indeed, I wondered if it could work with other tenses too. Now I know it can! 
Dobrego dnia


----------



## NotNow

PawelBierut said:


> As I see it _żebyś_ can be used in any tense, but always in the second person.


 
Thanks for the correction. In my haste to answer the posting, I failed to consider all possibilites.


----------



## Thomas1

NotNow, I think you didn't make any mistake. The tense is past, though the meaning not necessarily.


oetzi said:


> Hi friends!
> This time I need some explanation about the difference between *żeby *and *żebyś*.
> In WR dictionary (and, by the way, nowhere else on line) I've found the meaning of the former to be "_in order to, in order that, so that_": in Italian, this expression would be a preposition (or the like) and, as such, it couldn't be declined in any way.
> On the other hand, I could find the latter nowhere, and I really went out of my head trying to understand what it meant. It even got worse when a friend of mine told me that "it specifies the second person". This really drove me mad: how can a preposition specify "the second person"? Does it mean you conjugate a preposition?!?!? Please help me get out of this maze!


    I think you’ve stumbled across the Polish subjunctive, if there exists such a thing.

  Since want requires in English the infinitive it’s not good to make a comparison. Let’s take another verb than want, for instance: demand.

  He demands that he be always ready to leave.
  Wymaga, żeby zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.

  He demanded that he be always ready to leave.
  Wymagał, żeby zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.

  He will demand that he be always ready to leave.
  Będzie wymagał, żeby zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.

He demands that you be always ready to leave.
  Wymaga, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.

  He demanded that you be always ready to leave.
  Wymagał, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.

  He will demand that you be always ready to leave.
  Będzie wymagał, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.

  "Jest ważne, żeby to nastąpiło przed wyborami prezydenckimi, bo to oznacza, że mamy wzajemne zainteresowanie sobą" - powiedział Buzek.
http://www.rp.pl/artykul/13,378167.html
  It is important that it take place before the Presidential Elections…

  Jak dodał, ważne, żeby dokument wszedł w życie przed końcem roku, aby od przyszłego roku mogła rozpocząć prace nowa Komisja Europejska i żeby "mogły wejść nowe standardy, nowe reguły".
http://wyborcza.pl/1,91446,7131271,Zalewski__Traktat_powinien_wzmocnic_logike_integracyjna.html
  … it is important that the document come into effect before the end of the year in order that a new European Commission be able to begin working and that new standards, new rules be able to exist. 

  I think that the examples with important are mainly used in the third person


  In Polish, żeby combines the elements of two words into one: żeby; poszedł*eś*, I think for the reasons of simplicity we drop the e, so we have: żebyś. It’s kind of hard to compare it to English in which the conjugation of a verb is virtually nonexistent (as per comparing it to the Polish one). The sentence with want will contrast better with a language that shows more signs of conjugation. Here is a comparison to French:
_Chcę żebyś to zrobił._ = Je veux que tu le fasses. 
_Chciałem żebyś to zrobił = _Je voulais que tu le fasses (or in literary language: que tu le fisses, I think the literary version shows the parallels even better since it is formed on the basis of the passe simple, a past tense, just like the Polish does it: que tu le fisses żebyś to zrobił à passe simple: fissent à subjonctif imparfait: fiss + desincence (es); zrobił*eś*: żeby*ś* [to] zrobił). 
_Będę chciał żebyś to zrobił. = _Je voudrai que tu le fasses.

   Other *conjunctions* that are similar to żeby: ażeby, aby.

  I don’t know a squat about Italian, so this is a question out of sheer curiosity: would you (also) use a conjunction?


----------



## arturolczykowski

> He demands that he you always ready to leave.
> Wymaga, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.
> 
> He demanded that he you always ready to leave.
> Wymagał, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia.




..he you... ?


----------



## kknd

Are these correct?

He demands from you to be always ready to leave.
_Wymaga, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia._

He demanded from you to be always ready to leave.
_Wymagał, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia._


----------



## Ben Jamin

oetzi said:


> Thank you both, your explanations are very clear, though the subject is a bit unusual for our standards ....
> Dobrego dnia
> Ennio


 Standatds from one language do not work in another. This is a typical error done by people learning foreign languages - to try to use one's own language rules to other languages.


----------



## robin74

kknd said:


> Are these correct?
> 
> He demands from you to be always ready to leave.
> _Wymaga, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia._
> 
> He demanded from you to be always ready to leave.
> _Wymagał, żebyś zawsze był gotów do wyjścia._


Yes.


----------



## Ben Jamin

NotNow said:


> The two words mean the same. _Żebyś _is used when the word is followed by a verb in the second person past tense. The ś is moved from the end of the verb to the end of _żeby_. For example, _żeby byłeś_ becomes _żebyś był._ The e in _byłeś_ disappears.
> If the verb is feminine, however, the a is retained, as in _żebyś była._


 
This is, sorry, not correct. _Żebyś is used always with another verb, but the verb is not in the past tense, even if it looks like one. The two words (Żebym i 1.st person, Żebyś in 2.nd person, and Żeby in 3.rd person, and the verb in perfective form) form together a subjunctive mood, called in Polish "tryb _ łączny". 
The form "_żeby byłeś"_ has never existed: the forms _Żebym Żebyś  Żeby are_ contractions of  _Że by jeśm Że by jeś  Że by_ był. It is not the e_ in_ byłeś thar disappeared, but the two letters "je" that disappeared from the word _byjeś_ which is a contraction of _by _and_ jeś. _
Sounds complicated? The evolution of language is complicated if you seek for an explanation. For most practical purposes it is enough to know how to form the correct form learning the pattern.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> I think you’ve stumbled across the Polish subjunctive, if there exists such a thing.


 
Why do you doubt in existence of the subjunctive in Polish? All the examples you have listed are an evidence of that.


----------



## BezierCurve

> _(Żebym i 1.st person, Żebyś in 2.nd person, and Żeby in 3.rd person, and the verb in perfective form)_



Why do you think that perfective form is necessary there?


----------



## Thomas1

Ben Jamin said:


> Why do you doubt in existence of the subjunctive in Polish? All the examples you have listed are an evidence of that.


    I didn’t doubt, but was not clear as to the actual name for it.

  I, for one, know the name: tryb przypuszczający/warunkowy. I have also come across tryb życzący. I have never come across ‘tryb łączny’ in Polish grammar manuals. This is not to say that the name is not used, of course. I only ever saw the name 'tryb łączny' while reading manuals on grammar of foreign languages.


   ***
  As to the form, I still think this is past tense or to be more specific the active form of past participle or the inflectional stem of the czas przeszły. Let me explain:
  Tryb przypuszczający is formed by:
  Adding desinences and auxiliary 'by' appropriate to the person and number: bym, byś, by, byśmy, byście, by; to the active past participle, which in Modern Polish is formed on the basis of the past tense of a verb in the third persons.

  For example: chcieć
  Active past participle: chciał/chcieli (past tense of the third persons)
  chciałbym
  chciałbyś
    chciałby

chcielibyśmy
  chcielibyście
  chcieliby



Ben Jamin said:


> This is, sorry, not correct. _Żebyś is used always with another verb, but the verb is not in the past tense, even if it looks like one. The two words (Żebym i 1.st person, Żebyś in 2.nd person, and Żeby in 3.rd person, and the verb in perfective form) form together a subjunctive mood, called in Polish "tryb _ łączny".
> The form "_żeby byłeś"_ has never existed: the forms _Żebym Żebyś  Żeby are_ contractions of  _Że by jeśm Że by jeś  Że by_ był. It is not the e_ in_ byłeś thar disappeared, but the two letters "je" that disappeared from the word _byjeś_ which is a contraction of _by _and_ jeś. _
> Sounds complicated? The evolution of language is complicated if you seek for an explanation. For most practical purposes it is enough to know how to form the correct form learning the pattern.



Following what you say, Ben Jamin, we would have had something like:
_wymagał jeś, że by jeśmy chodzili do kościoła. _[cases and prepositions may well have been of course different to what I've used]


And if you form the past conditional we have:  byli by jeśmy chodzili
  Gdy by jeśmy byli chodzili na targ, byli by jeśmy wiedzieli ile za krowę dawali.
  Is it what it used to be like in the Old Polish?


----------



## Ben Jamin

BezierCurve said:


> Why do you think that perfective form is necessary there?


 You are right. Perfective is not necessary, of course, but iI have the impression that it is used more often.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> I didn’t doubt, but was not clear as to the actual name for it.
> 
> I, for one, know the name: tryb przypuszczający/warunkowy. I have also come across tryb życzący. I have never come across ‘tryb łączny’ in Polish grammar manuals. This is not to say that the name is not used, of course. I only ever saw the name 'tryb łączny' while reading manuals on grammar of foreign languages.
> 
> 
> ***
> As to the form, I still think this is past tense or to be more specific the active form of past participle or the inflectional stem of the czas przeszły. Let me explain:
> Tryb przypuszczający is formed by:
> Adding desinences and auxiliary 'by' appropriate to the person and number: bym, byś, by, byśmy, byście, by; to the active past participle, which in Modern Polish is formed on the basis of the past tense of a verb in the third persons.
> 
> For example: chcieć
> Active past participle: chciał/chcieli (past tense of the third persons)
> chciałbym
> chciałbyś
> chciałby
> 
> chcielibyśmy
> chcielibyście
> chcieliby
> 
> 
> 
> Following what you say, Ben Jamin, we would have had something like:
> _wymagał jeś, że by jeśmy chodzili do kościoła. _[cases and prepositions may well have been of course different to what I've used]
> 
> 
> And if you form the past conditional we have: byli by jeśmy chodzili
> Gdy by jeśmy byli chodzili na targ, byli by jeśmy wiedzieli ile za krowę dawali.
> Is it what it used to be like in the Old Polish?


 
Well, yes, according to what I have read about old Polish (800 years ago and earlier) it was how our forefathers spoke.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> I didn’t doubt, but was not clear as to the actual name for it.
> 
> I, for one, know the name: tryb przypuszczający/warunkowy. I have also come across tryb życzący. I have never come across ‘tryb łączny’ in Polish grammar manuals. This is not to say that the name is not used, of course. I only ever saw the name 'tryb łączny' while reading manuals on grammar of foreign languages.


 
The Polish grammarians form a rather conservative group, and most of them do not allow the thought of Polish subjunctive, but there are quite a few of those, that see the necessity of applying this kind of grammatical classification. I am not a professional philologist, but I speak several languages that make use of the subjunctive mood. Some of them define it precisely as a linguistic category (French, Spanish, Italian), others like English or Norwegian are more reluctant to do so (and their languages have not got such a consistent way of expressing the mood). Norwegian i just dropping the mood altogether, and it will disappear completely in 30 years time.


----------

