# Verb "Dotykać/Dotknąć



## Kos

Cześć wszystkim. 

I have a question regarding the verb "dotknąć".  I know that its meaning can be translated directly to English as "to touch", and after the verb the genitive case (dopełniacz) usually follows.  My question, exactly, is whether the dative case (celownik) is used with this verb when referring to the body.  I'm a bit confused about this because in some instances verbs that refer to contacting the body take the dative case such as:
"Kot usiadł jej na kolana" and other sentences of this nature.

For example, when trying to say: "_She touched his hand_" or "_The doctor touched his broken leg (In this sentence, "his" is referring to "the patient/person being examined)_", would we say "Dotknęła jego ręki" or "Dotknęła mu ręki"?  "Lekarz dotknął jego złamanej nogi" or "Lekarz dotknął mu złamanej nogi"?

I hope I'm not making this question more difficult than it really is.  I just got to thinking one day and had a feeling that the dative case might be applied to this verb in certain situations.  I've gotten some hits on google with both genitive and dative forms, but I need a native speaker's opinion to be certain.

Będę bardzo wdzięczny za odpowiedzi. 
-Kos


----------



## robin74

jego ręki / jego nogi. I never heard a version with dative.

Notice also that while dotykać normally takes genitive - when used literally, it may also take accusative when used figuratively in the meaning "to hurt emotionally".


----------



## robin74

Kos said:


> "Kot usiadł jej na kolana*ch*"


Usiąść on the other hand takes locative, not accusative. The form "usiadł na kolana" is incorrect.


----------



## Kos

Thank you very much Robin 
Whoops I didn't even notice that I forgot to add the "ch" to kolana.  Thanks for the correction


----------



## Ben Jamin

robin74 said:


> jego ręki / jego nogi. I never heard a version with dative.
> 
> Notice also that while dotykać normally takes genitive - when used literally, it may also take accusative when used figuratively in the meaning "to hurt emotionally".


 
The expression Dotknęła mu ręki is a normal, and correct, albeit colloquial expression in Polish. It is used (almost exclusively) about body parts.
However, using "Lekarz dotknął mu złamanej nogi" is less likely (but not impossible), as one would expect a more formal language in this case.
Notice, that only the short form of the pronoun is used (*mu*, not *jemu*)


----------



## Ben Jamin

robin74 said:


> Usiąść on the other hand takes locative, not accusative. The form "usiadł na kolana" is incorrect.


 You can say both "usiadł na kolana" and "usiadł na kolanach". The first form can only used when the verb in question describes a transition. 
The expression "siedział na kolana", however, is incorrect.
Other examples of correct use of this pattern are:
kamień spadł mu na głowę (here you can't say *na głowie*)
ptak usiadł mu na ramię/ramieniu
założył kapelusz na głowę (here you can't say *na głowie*)
zarzucił worek na plecy (not *na plecach*)


----------



## robin74

Ben Jamin said:


> You can say both "usiadł na kolana" and "usiadł na kolanach". The first form can only used when the verb in question describes a transition.


That's not what my PWN dictionary says. "Usiąść na kim, czym, (nie: na kogo, co). Usiąść na krześle, na ławce (nie: na krzesło, na ławkę)"


----------



## cpuzey1

I'm not a native, so by no means an authority on Polish but, since other contributors mentioned the use of dotykać/dotknąć with different cases, the following usage came to my mind:
also: dotknięty/a/ci czymś (instrumental) - upset by something. 
e.g. Moi rodzice byli dotknięci Twoim zachowaniem.


----------



## Ben Jamin

robin74 said:


> That's not what my PWN dictionary says. "Usiąść na kim, czym, (nie: na kogo, co). Usiąść na krześle, na ławce (nie: na krzesło, na ławkę)"


Is "założył kapelusz na głowę " also incorrect according to PWN?


----------



## robin74

Ben Jamin said:


> Is "założył kapelusz na głowę " also incorrect according to PWN?


If you're asking about the grammatical case, I don't see how it's relevant, it's a different verb and wkładać / nakładać / zakładać take accusative (zakładać co na co; my dictionary gives an example of "zakładać słuchawki na uszy; zakładać okulary na nos"). Siadać doesn't.
If you're asking about the verb choice, I personally feel uneasy about it.


----------



## Ben Jamin

robin74 said:


> If you're asking about the grammatical case, I don't see how it's relevant, it's a different verb and wkładać / nakładać / zakładać take accusative (zakładać co na co; my dictionary gives an example of "zakładać słuchawki na uszy; zakładać okulary na nos"). Siadać doesn't.
> If you're asking about the verb choice, I personally feel uneasy about it.


I have heard educated people say "siadać komuś na kolana" in many decades, and I rather doubt in the judgement of the authors of the said dictionary which has many dubious entries.
What about "zarzucił worek na plecy", "upadł na trawę", "położył się na łóżko", "oparł się o parapet", and many others. All these are verbs of physical movement when something is placed on something. Siadać fits this category perfectly.


----------



## robin74

Ben Jamin said:


> I have heard educated people say "siadać komuś na kolana" in many decades, and I rather doubt in the judgement of the authors of the said dictionary which has many dubious entries.


Which entries are dubious and how can you know if you don't know which particular dictionary I'm talking about?


> What about "zarzucił worek na plecy", "upadł na trawę", "położył się na łóżko", "oparł się o parapet", and many others. All these are verbs of physical movement when something is placed on something. Siadać fits this category perfectly.


Again, I fail to see relevance of these examples. Siadać takes a different grammatical case, for some historical reasons I suppose. And to me personally "siadać na kolana" sounds awkward.


----------



## Ben Jamin

robin74 said:


> Which entries are dubious and how can you know if you don't know which particular dictionary I'm talking about?
> 
> Again, I fail to see relevance of these examples. Siadać takes a different grammatical case, for some historical reasons I suppose. And to me personally "siadać na kolana" sounds awkward.


 This is your problem. Siadać na kolana is a normal expression in Polish. What historical reasons  separate siadać from all the other verbs I mentioned?


----------



## Kos

Thank you all for your responses to this question.  
As a side note, I've always been told that "usiąść komuś na kolana" is correct.  Im not a native Polish speaker, but I was always under the impression that the accusative can be used after certain prepositions if motion or transition is implied.
Cheers


----------



## arturolczykowski

> The expression Dotknęła mu ręki is a normal, and correct, albeit colloquial expression in Polish.




Never had I heard anyone talking this way......


----------



## Ben Jamin

arturolczykowski said:


> Never had I heard anyone talking this way......


It is not a proof of something not existing.


----------



## arturolczykowski

It wasn't meant as a proof ;-)

Anyway, existing and correct are two different things.....


----------



## marco_2

Kos said:


> Thank you all for your responses to this question.
> As a side note, I've always been told that "usiąść komuś na kolana" is correct. Im not a native Polish speaker, but I was always under the impression that the accusative can be used after certain prepositions if motion or transition is implied.
> Cheers


 
Constructions *usiąść na kolana, położyć na stół  *come from Russian - in that language accusative is very often used e.g. after the preposition "na", because they answer for a question куда?, whereas in Polish we don't say "usiąść / położyć dokąd?" tylko "gdzie?" They are quite common in some regions of Poland but are they correct? - hm...


----------



## majlo

What about those dubious entries... ?


----------



## jazyk

> Constructions *usiąść na kolana, położyć na stół  *come from  Russian - in that language accusative is very often used e.g. after the  preposition "na", because they answer for a question куда?, whereas in  Polish we don't say "usiąść / położyć dokąd?" tylko "gdzie?" They are  quite common in some regions of Poland but are they correct? - hm...


Not only in Russian. The accusative is also required in Czech and Slovak. Sednout si na kolena, položit na stůl (Czech), sadnúť si na kolena, položiť na stôl (Slovak). Polish looks like the deviant here.


----------



## Thomas1

"Dotknęła jego ręki" or "Dotknęła mu ręki"
  I would use the first one although the second may technically be correct.
  The sencond sentence makes me want to ask a question: what for?





robin74 said:


> If you're asking about the grammatical case, I don't see how it's relevant, it's a different verb and wkładać / nakładać / zakładać take accusative (zakładać co na co; my dictionary gives an example of "zakładać słuchawki na uszy; zakładać okulary na nos"). Siadać doesn't.[...]


 

Siedziała mu na kolana also sounds bizzare to my ears.
  Siedzieliśmy na krzesłach, na trawie, na ławce, na ziemi.
Siedzieliśmy na krzesła, na trawę, na ławkę, na ziemię. 

    However, I can imagine ‘siadać + accusative’:
  Siadł na rower.
  Siadł na rowerze. would be incorrect in this context.

  I think that:
  1. siedzieć na + locative is used when the sitting takes place on the surface of the object. Siedział na ławce/ziemi/rowerze. [He was sitting on a bench/the ground/a bike.]
  Here sitting is more of a state than an action.

  2. siedzieć na + acusative is used when the action of sitting is about to start and it is ‘directed’ towards the upper surface/point of an object.
  Hm... I guess it may be even more complicated. It seems to me it works only with mechanical objects:
  siadaj na rower/motor/ wsiadaj na statek/łódkę/ciężarówkę/przyczepę
  but
  siadaj na krześle/stole/parkanie/ziemi
  Here ‘siedzieć’ is really an action verb.


----------



## Thomas1

Thomas1 said:


> [...]
> 2. siedzieć na + acusative is used when the action of sitting is about to start and it is ‘directed’ towards the upper surface/point of an object.
> Hm... I guess it may be even more complicated. It seems to me it works only with mechanical objects[...]


An uptadte from PWN:


> siadać
> [...]
> ktoś siada na coś ' na górną część odkrytego pojazdu, zwykle dwuśladowego': Siadaj na motor, podwiozę cię.
> Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN c Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA


----------



## marco_2

So in the past tense we say:
*On (w)siadł na rower / motor / konia i pojechał. (Accusative)*
but:
*Ona usiadła na ławce /na krześle / mi na kolanach. (Locative)*


----------



## Thomas1

marco_2 said:


> So in the past tense we say:
> *On (w)siadł na rower / motor / konia i pojechał. (Accusative)*
> but:
> *Ona usiadła na ławce /na krześle / mi na kolanach. (Locative)*


The difference depends on what follows 'siadać na'.
You say:
siadać na + accusative [usually a two-wheeled vehicle] 
siadać na + locative [anything else]

I think you can also say 'siadł na konia', but it sounds obsolete; today, the usual wording is 'wsiadł na konia'.

I'm also wondering if adding a prefix to 'siadać' doesn't change the cases too...
Wsiadł na konia, na rower, na statek, na prom.
I can't think of an example with locative. Unless:
Wsiadł na rower na statku.
Which means that he was on a ship and this is where got on his bike. From a grammatical point of view, 'na statku' is a different thing altogether here.


----------



## Ben Jamin

arturolczykowski said:


> It wasn't meant as a proof ;-)
> 
> Anyway, existing and correct are two different things.....


 Can you prove that it is not correct?


----------

