# nazywam się Filip



## LeTasmanien

What do the individual words in this phrase actually mean please?


----------



## elroy

Literally, _I call myself Filip_.

_nazywam_ - I call, I name (the infinitive is _nazywać_)
_się - _myself (also: yourself, himself, herself, etc.)


----------



## slowik

elroy said:


> _nazywam_ - I call, I name (the infinitive is _nazywać_)
> _się - _myself (also: yourself, himself, herself, etc.)



Naaaah 

Nazywam się Filip - My name is Filip.

_Nazywam się_ - 1st person, singular of a reflexive verb _Nazywać się_
_Filip _- a Polish name

Do not confuse_ Nazywać się_ with _nazywać _(without _się_) or _nazwać_.


----------



## elroy

I know what the sentence means.  The original poster asked for a literal translation: "What do *the individual words* in this phrase actually mean please?"


----------



## LeTasmanien

elroy said:


> I know what the sentence means. The original poster asked for a literal translation: "What do *the individual words* in this phrase actually mean please?"


 
Thanks Elroy,
I like your explanation - it seems similar to the French expression je m'appelle which also uses a reflexive form.
Phil.


----------



## elroy

LeTasmanien said:


> Thanks Elroy,
> I like your explanation - it seems similar to the French expression je m'appelle which also uses a reflexive form.
> Phil.


 You're welcome, Phil.

Indeed, the Polish construction is identical to the French one.  In fact, when I first posted I considered making a comparison with French, Spanish, or Italian (all of which use a reflexive pronoun), but I hadn't checked your profile so I didn't know which foreign language(s) you spoke (although I guess your user name should have given me a clue ).


----------



## arturolczykowski

Hi elroy, 
It is not always possible to give a literal translation without changing the meaning. No Polish native will ever use the phrase "nazywam sie XXX" to mean "I call/name myself XXX". It could be used in this way in some context for example: "They call me an Atheist but I call myself a Deist"... but the meaning is slightly different.

nazywam sie Filip = My name is Filip


----------



## elroy

I know that, Artur!  But the question in the first post was clear. I assumed that LeTasmanien already knew what the sentence meant, but was interested in breaking it down so as to understand the Polish structure better.


----------



## arturolczykowski

I see your point


----------



## Athaulf

elroy said:


> I know that, Artur!   But the question in the first post was clear.  I assumed that LeTasmanien already knew what the sentence meant, but was interested in breaking down the sentence so as to understand the Polish structure better.



Still, your analysis might be incorrect, in the sense that this seems to be an anticausative, rather than a literal reflexive verb. What this means is that the verb has a purely passive meaning, rather than one in which the subject is simultaneously the patient of the action expressed by the verb. The difference is significant because it determines whether the verb can be used with an inanimate subject -- an anticausative one can, but a literal one cannot, because an inanimate object can't be the _agent_ of an action. If the true meaning of _"nazywam się X"_ really were "I call myself X", then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, _"ta ulica nazywa się X"_ -- obviously, the street doesn't _call itself _anyhow. 

I don't know any Polish, save for the basic inter-Slavic similarities , but still, from the examples of usage I see on the web, _nazywać się _appears to be an anticausative verb. Therefore, in my opinion, the reflexive pronoun is best understood as a passive marker, so the most precise translation of the original sentence would use the English passive voice: "I am called Filip".

This might seem like philosophical nitpicking, but for speakers of English and other languages without anticausative reflexive verbs, it can be difficult to understand this distinction among different types of reflexive verbs, and it has actual practical implications on usage.


----------



## elroy

You are right, of course.  I just didn't want to over-complicate things, and stuck to a very literal rendering of the individual words.


----------



## Thomas1

Athaulf said:


> Still, your analysis might be incorrect, in the sense that this seems to be an anticausative, rather than a literal reflexive verb. What this means is that the verb has a purely passive meaning, rather than one in which the subject is simultaneously the patient of the action expressed by the verb. The difference is significant because it determines whether the verb can be used with an inanimate subject -- an anticausative one can, but a literal one cannot, because an inanimate object can't be the _agent_ of an action. If the true meaning of _"nazywam się X"_ really were "I call myself X", then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, _"ta ulica nazywa się X"_ -- obviously, the street doesn't _call itself _anyhow.
> 
> I don't know any Polish, save for the basic inter-Slavic similarities , but still, from the examples of usage I see on the web, _nazywać się _appears to be an anticausative verb. Therefore, in my opinion, the reflexive pronoun is best understood as a passive marker, so the most precise translation of the original sentence would use the English passive voice: "I am called Filip".
> 
> This might seem like philosophical nitpicking, but for speakers of English and other languages without anticausative reflexive verbs, it can be difficult to understand this distinction among different types of reflexive verbs, and it has actual practical implications on usage.


Hi Athaulf,

Are the French _je m'appele Filip_ and/or Spanish _me llamo Filip _the same constructions as the Polish _nazywam się Filip_?

Tom


----------



## elroy

Yes, they are, Thomas.


----------



## Athaulf

Thomas1 said:


> Hi Athaulf,
> 
> Are the French _je m'appele Filip_ and/or Spanish _me llamo Filip _the same constructions as the Polish _nazywam się Filip_?



I'm not sure about the French verb, but the Spanish one definitely is. Both _llamarse_ and _nazywać się _can be used with non-human subjects, in which case  they can't be translated into English as anything but passive forms of the verbs _llamar_ and _nazywać_. 

Of course, in different contexts, the same reflexive verbs can be used with a literal meaning, i.e. to say literally that the subject calls himself/herself somehow, as in the example from post #7 above. But in the vast majority of cases, I'd say that they are anticausative.


----------



## elroy

The French verb works just like the Spanish verb.


----------

