# Janusz przeczytał książkę



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

I read in this thread  that in Serbo-Croatian the passive voice is avoided and when one wants to put some emphasis on some word, for example the direct object, he/she simply puts that word at the beginning of the sentence.
Does this happen also in Polish?

Are these sentences correct?

Janusz przeczytał książkę. John read the book.
Książkę przeczytał Janusz. The book John read. It's the book that John read.
Książka była/została przeczytana przez Janusza. The book was read by John.

Thank you


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Janusz przeczytał książkę. John read the book.


I'd say John is more of a "Jan", but Janusz is ok  
This sentence is 100% correct and probably no one would use it in natural conversation, it makes for a good example sentence. You can derrive a more complex sentence from this and it will probably sound natural.


Nino83 said:


> Książkę przeczytał Janusz.


Well, if you aren't a poet or master Yoda then this sentence is incorrect.


Nino83 said:


> Książka była/została przeczytana przez Janusza.


It is correct (btw, była references the past that's long gone, została - a more recent one, they aren't the same here), but no one would say it. There's no need to create this structure here. We use passive voice mostly to point at something that we don't know/don't want to show the author (or perpetrator) of.
For example:
Nasz samochód został zniszczony! - Our car has been destroyed!


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Karton Realista.


Karton Realista said:


> no one would use it in natural conversation


Which is the most natural way to say it?


Karton Realista said:


> if you aren't a poet or master Yoda then this sentence is incorrect.


So the well known "free" word order of the Slavic languages is a myth.
How would you translate the English sentences "This book John read" (topicalization with object fronting) "it's this book that John read" (clef sentence)?


Karton Realista said:


> We use passive voice mostly to point at something that we don't know/don't want to show the author (or perpetrator) of.


Thanks. Is it less used than in English?


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Which is the most natural way to say it?


Well, what I wanted to say is that nobody uses such standalone sentences, just like you wouldn't say "John read a book" - this sentence lacks detail and looks awkward without a pair sentence. That's a kind of digression. Polish people usually don't use a lot of short sentences, they merge them into few longer ones.


Nino83 said:


> So the well known "free" word order of the Slavic languages is a myth.


Not really, it is completely understandable, but poetic, if you can call John reading a book poetic  It's definitely not something I would say to my friend/relative.


Nino83 said:


> How would you translate the English sentences "This book John read" (topicalization with object fronting) "it's this book that John read" (clef sentence)?


Książka, którą Jan/Janusz przeczytał... (the book John read...)
I left the dots because to make sense it has to be followed up by something, like: ...była ciekawa(...was interesting).
If you want to point strongly at the object: To jest właśnie ta książka, którą Janusz przeczytał. (This is just the book that John read, it's that one, I'm sure, it is THAT BOOK!!!). Less confident and less excited version: To jest książka, którą Janusz przeczytał... (again, it needs a follow-up).


Nino83 said:


> Thanks. Is it less used than in English?


I don't know.


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> nobody uses such standalone sentences,


Ah, yes, true, neither do I (unless somebody asks me "what has John done today?) .


Karton Realista said:


> If you want to point strongly at the object:


Cleft sentences or relative clauses. Polish syntax is more similar to the English one than people say.  

Thank you very much.


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Ah, yes, true, neither do I (unless somebody asks me "what has John done today?) .


Then I would just say "Przeczytał (jakąś) książkę". Some Slavic languages hate subjects and drop them all the time, esp. in quick responses.


Nino83 said:


> Cleft sentences or relative clauses. Polish syntax is more similar to the English one than people say.


I'd say that the first Polish phrase points at it more than the English one, Polish people love buttery butter and double, triple or even quadruple confirmation.


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> Some Slavic languages hate subjects and drop them all the time, esp. in quick responses.


Same in Italian (probably also in English one would say "*he* read the book").


Karton Realista said:


> Polish people love buttery butter and double, triple or even quadruple confirmation.


Ahah, well, good to know!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Karton Realista said:


> I'd say John is more of a "Jan", but Janusz is ok
> This sentence is 100% correct and probably no one would use it in natural conversation, it makes for a good example sentence. You can derrive a more complex sentence from this and it will probably sound natural.
> 
> Well, if you aren't a poet or master Yoda then this sentence is incorrect.


I definitely disagree. The sentence i perfectly grammatically correct. You mislead yourself because the sentence itself is unidiomatic, as it is not very likely that somebody would say so (but not impossible), but only because of the topic, not because of breaking any grammar rules.

Look at the following examples:
Kto rozbił twój samochód? Samochód rozbił mój syn.
Co zgubiło dyktatora? Dyktatora zgubiła jego pycha.
Kto ukradł książkę? Książkę ukradł Brajan.
Will you say that these sentences are grammatically incorrect?


----------



## Karton Realista

Ben Jamin said:


> Will you say that these sentences are grammatically incorrect?


No, but almost no one speaks like that, which is exactly my point. The only sentence that sounds "right" out of those you gave is 


Ben Jamin said:


> Dyktatora zgubiła jego pycha


which is connected with it's subject, which welcomes a more highly style.
I never said it's breaking grammar rules (look up the post #4), but that the order is unusual (that's why I compered it to master Yoda or poetry - are you saying poets don't follow grammar? Some don't, but the majority do).


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> the order is unusual



Is it more "normal" if there is *no post-verbal subject*?
From the book 'Polish: an essential grammar', Routledge, page 272, 16.1.3 Emphasis



> For emphasis, a word/phase can _start_ or, less commonly, _end_ a sentence. A subject that _does not begin_ the sentence follows the verb. Epmhasised elements are often said more loudly too.
> _Rowera_ ci nie kupię. I won't buy you _a bicycle_.
> _Chleba_ już nie mamy. We've no _bread_ left.
> _Od piątej_ czekam. I've been waiting _since five_.
> _Z Danką_ chodzi. He's going out _with Danka_.



I'm asking you this, because I don't trust very much those grammar books written for English speakers, when speaking about syntax, seeing that almost every language has a freer word order than English, so when there is a *very little* variation they start speaking of "free" word order.

There are other examples, with prepositional phrases and *post-verbal subjects*.


> _Mama_ pracowała w szpitalu dwadzieścia lat. Mom worked in the hospital for 20 years.
> _W szpitalu_ pracowała mama dwadzieścia lat. [emphasis on place]
> _Dwadzieścia lat_ pracowała mama w szpitalu. [emphasis on time]
> 
> Wordsworth poświęcił siostrze wiele wierszy. Wordsworth dedicated many poems to his sister.
> _Siostrze_ poświęcił Wordsworth wiele wierszy. [emphasis on 'sister']
> Wordsworth poświęcił wiele wierszy _siostrze_. [emphasis on 'sister']



Are these sentences "normal" to you?

If they are, does it mean that *post-verbal subjects* are normal and idiomatic with left-dislocated *prepositional* phrases or *dative* nouns but they are very odd and unnatural with left-dislocated *accusative* nouns, i.e direct objects?


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> Is it more "normal" if there is *no post-verbal subject*?
> From the book 'Polish: an essential grammar', Routledge, page 272, 16.1.3 Emphasis


I don't know, I never analysed Polish grammar, so I don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
But I can tell you that this book seems to be BS, they can't even properly declinate "rower" (it should be "roweru" here).
Those phrases sound really colloquial, something you'd say to your relatives or friends, surely not your Polish teacher  They are used, yes, colloquially.


> _W szpitalu_ pracowała mama dwadzieścia lat. [emphasis on place]


This sentence standalone sound awkward, but if add something to it, like "Widzisz, synu, w tym właśnie szpitalu twoja mama pracowała (przez) dwadzieścia lat." it sounds a-OK.


> _Dwadzieścia lat_ pracowała mama w szpitalu. [emphasis on time]


Also awkward, and you could also modify it to sound like a natural sentence.


> _Siostrze_ poświęcił Wordsworth wiele wierszy.


Same thing as before. But here we have two things that can be fixed for the sentence to look better without adding context:
Swojej siostrze Wordsworth poświęcił wiele wierszy. It's good to point out at first it's his sister.


> Wordsworth poświęcił wiele wierszy _siostrze_. [emphasis on 'sister']


I'd add "swojej" here, too, but besides that it's 100% natural.

The order of words in Polish implements a style - different one is used in religious texts, scientific books, newspapers and human conversations.


----------



## jasio

Karton Realista said:


> Some Slavic languages hate subjects and drop them all the time, esp. in quick responses.


I'd rather say that they are often redundant and omitted if they are obvious, just like in Italian or other romance languages - and unlike English.



Nino83 said:


> I read in this thread  that in Serbo-Croatian the passive voice is avoided


I can't say it's 'avoided' in Polish, I would rather say it's overused in English.  But indeed, in comparison with English, in Polish passive voice is used only occasionally - perhaps because thanks to inflection there are many more ways to express what you really have in mind.



Nino83 said:


> when one wants to put some emphasis on some word, for example the direct object, he/she simply puts that word at the beginning of the sentence. Does this happen also in Polish?


Not necessarily. It's one of the tools which are used. Another tool is using demonstrating pronouns, which are sometimes used in place of definite articles, which do not exist in Polish.



Nino83 said:


> Are these sentences correct?
> 
> 1. Janusz przeczytał książkę. John read the book.
> 2. Książkę przeczytał Janusz. The book John read. It's the book that John read.
> 3. Książka była/została przeczytana przez Janusza. The book was read by John.



Well... technically correct and fully understandable, but:

There are also other combinations, which are perfectly correct from the grammatical standpoint



> Przeczytał książkę Janusz.
> Przeczytał Janusz książkę.
> Janusz książkę przeczytał.
> Książkę Janusz przeczytał.



Most of these phrases would not be used in a natural speech on their own, only in more complex phrases.

Your "translation" of the second phrase is more a guess, I'm afraid. "It's the book that John read" would be better expressed as "to jest książka, którą przeczytał Jan". English structure is dissimilar enough from Polish to avoid mimicking order of words. 

The phrase 3 sounds bookish. I would not normally use it, but I can imagine using it without "przez Janusza", when we fully focus on the object and the action. For example, "Książka została przeczytana, można odpocząć" ('the book has been read, one can rest') or 'Robota skończona, można iść do domu' ('Il lavoro e finito, si puo andare a casa') is quite ok.
Polish is basically an SVO language, and this word order is the most natural. Other orders are possible indeed, but you have a reason to use them or they will sound awkward. For example, "Książkę przeczytał Janusz" almost automatically invites "a nie Piotr" ('It was John who read the book, not Peter'). "Janusz książkę przeczytał" invites something like "but he did not remember anything" ('John has read the book but he did not remember anything'). "Książkę Janusz przeczytał" could be used in "Książkę Janusz już przeczytał, teraz czyta recenzje" ('John has already read the book, and now he's reading the reviews').

BTW - although the form 1 is the most natural in general, it is not the best in all situations. For example of "Dom już sprzedałem, jeszcze tylko sprzedam samochód i mogę jechać" ('I have already sold my house, as soon as I sell the car, I can leave') and "Już sprzedałem dom, jeszcze tylko sprzedam samochód i mogę jechać" I would probably use the former rather than the latter, although both are fully legitimate and understandable.

As someone has already pointed it out, alternative orders could also be used in poetry to maintain rhythm and rhyme.


----------



## Nino83

Karton Realista said:


> They are used, yes, colloquially.


Ok. In all these sentences there is no subject after the verb.


Karton Realista said:


> but if add something to it, like "Widzisz, synu, w tym właśnie szpitalu twoja *mama pracowała* (przez) dwadzieścia lat.


But here you reversed the order. So the sentence of the book is always akward?


Karton Realista said:


> Swojej siostrze Wordsworth poświęcił wiele wierszy.


Here too, you reversed the order.

In other words this book, written by a Polish teacher (who teaches in England), is totally misleading.
Where can one learn something about Polish syntax?
Bah!


----------



## jasio

Nino83 said:


> _Mama_ pracowała w szpitalu dwadzieścia lat. Mom worked in the hospital for 20 years.


OK.
_


Nino83 said:



			W szpitalu
		
Click to expand...

_


Nino83 said:


> pracowała mama dwadzieścia lat. [emphasis on place]


I would rather say: "_W szpitalu_ mama pracowała dwadzieścia lat". The other is correct, but would be more natural in a specific context.

_


Nino83 said:



			Dwadzieścia lat
		
Click to expand...

_


Nino83 said:


> pracowała mama w szpitalu. [emphasis on time]


"...and they still did not provide her with the proper medical care when she got ill". Otherwise I would probably say "_Dwadzieścia lat_ mama pracowała w szpitalu" ("... and then ten years in an orphanage".

So it very much depends on context.


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> But here you reversed the order. So the sentence of the book is always akward?


No. "Pracowała mama" is a more emotional and colloquial. You can go with this order, but the meaning of the phrase will be different. Jasio gave a good example of a follow up to this order.


Nino83 said:


> In other words this book, written by a Polish teacher (who teaches in England), is totally misleading.


I wouldn't say so (I haven't read it) but I'd take it with a grain of salt, especially when this person is teaching more "rural" version of Polish (rowera, etc.).


----------



## Nino83

I've found this example in 'A Grammar of Contemporary Polish', page 376, you can find here



> Question answered:
> Pan rzucił psu *piłkę*. WHAT did the man throw to the dog?
> piłkę rzucił pan *psu*. TO WHOM did the man throw the ball?
> Psu rzucił piłkę *pan*. WHO threw the ball to the dog?
> 
> In Polish, word order is determined by the principle: the closer the item is to the end of the sentence, the more informative the item is, and the more logical emphasis it carries.
> Peripheral adverbial phrases, referring to the general circumstances of an action, often occur in sentence-initial position, before the topic:
> *Dzisiaj* wolę zostać w domu. I prefer to stay at home today.
> 
> When all items in a sentence are equally new, *a non-direct-object complement* often precedes the verb, with the *subject following the verb*:
> *Na jednej ścianie* wisiał *portret* prezydenta. On one wall hung a portrait of the president.
> *W dole po szynach* toczył się powoli *pociąg*. Below along the tracks a train slowly rolled.
> 
> In cases of formal ambiguity between subject and object, the choice is made on the basis of logic:
> *Wejście*-entrance *stanowiło*-comprised *kilka*-several *desek*-boards. Several boards comprised the entrance.
> 
> If logic does not avail, then the left-hand noun phrase will be interpreted as the most likely subject. Thus, the following sentence will most naturally be interpreted as ‘children-N subj. like elves-A obj.’, rather than the semantically and grammatically possible inverse proposition.
> *Dzieci*-children *lubią*-like *krasnoludki*-elves.



From what it is said, it seems that a left-dislocated object and a post-verbal subject is more likely to happen when there is *no direct object*.

How do you find these sentences? Are they natural?


----------



## jasio

Nino83 said:


> In other words this book, written by a Polish teacher (who teaches in England), is totally misleading.
> Where can one learn something about Polish syntax?





Karton Realista said:


> I wouldn't say so (I haven't read it) but I'd take it with a grain of salt, especially when this person is teaching more "rural" version of Polish (rowera, etc.).


I would put it in other words. 

The author is "Dana Bielec". I couldn't find any information about her except that she wrote a number of books about Polish language. However Dana is not a Polish name, so either she lived there long enough to anglicise her name (Danuta, perhaps), or she might have been even born abroad. In either case, if she does not live in a Polish-speaking community, she might have easily lost some of her language sensitivity. And we're discussing nuances here, really. It would be difficult to explain them theoretically, except that some constructions just do not 'sound' right. And this is something you cannot learn from the books, just by experiencing the vivid language. 

The same is with this "rower". If you compare some other words with similar suffix:



> laser - laser*a*
> taser - taser*a*
> teaser - teaser*a*
> pionier - pionier*a*
> pager - pager*a*
> baner - baner*a *



but: 



> rower - rower*u*


Why? I do not know. I just know that I say "nie mam roweru" rather than "*nie mam rowera".


----------



## jasio

Nino83 said:


> Question answered:
> Pan rzucił psu *piłkę*. WHAT did the man throw to the dog?
> piłkę rzucił pan *psu*. TO WHOM did the man throw the ball?
> Psu rzucił piłkę *pan*. WHO threw the ball to the dog?


For me the most natural order is "Pan rzucił piłkę psu". "Pan rzucił psu *piłkę*" is also OK. "Piłkę rzucił pan *psu*" sounds awkward. "Psu rzucił piłkę *pan*" looks like taken from a poem.



Nino83 said:


> Dzisiaj wolę zostać w domu. I prefer to stay at home today.


This one is ok.



Nino83 said:


> Na jednej ścianie wisiał *portret* prezydenta. On one wall hung a portrait of the president.


I would rather say "na ścianie" ('on a wall'), but the order is ok. If you say "na jednej ścianie" you're expected to continue what was on the other walls.



Nino83 said:


> *W dole po szynach* toczył się powoli *pociąg*. Below along the tracks a train slowly rolled.


Looks like taken from a book or a story telling, when you gradually build tension - and you're expected to continue the following phrase about the train. The neutral phrase would be "*W dole pociąg* powoli toczył się *po szynach*".



Nino83 said:


> In cases of formal ambiguity between subject and object, the choice is made on the basis of logic:


This is clearly an information for foreigners and may be misleading. The choice between subject and object is made on the basis of the *grammatical case*: the subject is the noun in the Nominative case (it can be Genitive, probably only if the phrase is negated) or it can be default. Full stop. Object is in one of dependant cases: typically Accusative, in negations in Genitive, but other cases are also possible.

But I understand that it may be difficult for foreigners to distinguish cases, especially that in case of some nouns (for example masculine inanimate and neuter in singular number, and non-masculine-personal in plural number) the Accusative is identical to the Nominative - and only then there is room for order rules or even logic.



Nino83 said:


> Wejście-entrance *stanowiło*-comprised *kilka*-several *desek*-boards. Several boards comprised the entrance.
> *Dzieci*-children *lubią*-like *krasnoludki*-elves.


They sound OK.
Wejście (Nominative) - kilka desek (Accusative, although it's identical to Nominative)
Dzieci (Nominative) - krasnoludki (Accusative, although it's identical to Nominative).


----------



## Karton Realista

Nino83 said:


> *krasnoludki*-elves.


Elves - elfy, krasnoludki, gnomy - dwarfs.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, jasio.
I've read that in Russian, SVO word order is used 9 times out of ten.
It seems that SVO is, by far, the dominant word order in Slavic languages.

Thank you all


----------



## Nino83

In this book (page 121) it is said that in Polish, in transitive clauses, word order is:
SVO = 69,1%
VSO = 7,1%, used when there is an initial adverbial prepositional phrase, adverbial phrase - verb - subject - object
VOS = 10,7% (with initial adverbial phrases) and SOV = 2,2% are used when the direct object is a clitic or an unstressed object pronoun, i.e in Polish one doesn't start or end a sentence with unstressed object pronouns
OSV = 1,6%
OVS = 9%

In other words, when the subject and the object are full nominal phrases (nouns, not unstressed pronouns), word order is SVO (89% of the cases, 69,1% of 78,1%) or OVS (11% of the cases, 9% of 78,1%).
If there is a left-dislocated adverbial or prepositional phrase, also Adv/PP + VSO or VOS (if the object is an unstressed pronoun) are likely to be used. If the object is an unstressed pronoun (and there are no left-dislocated adverbial or prepositional phrases) SOV is used. OSV is the least used.

In other words, SVO is the dominant word order when the subject and the object are nouns.


----------



## jasio

Nino83 said:


> In this book (page 121) it is said that in Polish, in transitive clauses, word order is:
> SVO = 69,1%
> VSO = 7,1%, used when there is an initial adverbial prepositional phrase, adverbial phrase - verb - subject - object
> VOS = 10,7% (with initial adverbial phrases) and SOV = 2,2% are used when the direct object is a clitic or an unstressed object pronoun, i.e in Polish one doesn't start or end a sentence with unstressed object pronouns
> OSV = 1,6%
> OVS = 9%


I wonder how phrases with a default subject were treated: as SVO or they were simply excluded *). It would also be interesting to know what kind of texts they considered in their research.



Nino83 said:


> In other words, SVO is the dominant word order when the subject and the object are nouns.


... which supports my opinion, which was not based on statistics, but merely on a feeling of the language:



jasio said:


> Polish is basically an SVO language, and this word order is the most natural. Other orders are possible indeed, but you have a reason to use them or they will sound awkward.



BTW, recalling our discussion about passive voice:


> *) I wonder how phrases with a default subject were treated: as SVO or they were simply excluded.


This phrase probably sounds natural in English. However in Polish active voice with impersonal mode would be used rather than a passive voice like in English:
"_Ciekaw jestem, jak *potraktowano* zdania z podmiotem domyślnym: jako SVO, czy je po prostu *odrzucono*_".​


----------



## Ben Jamin

Karton Realista said:


> No, but almost no one speaks like that, which is exactly my point. The only sentence that sounds "right" out of those you gave is (...)


Remember what you wrote yourself   "... the sentence (Książkę przeczytał Janusz) is incorrect". Now you have changed your mind and say "*almost *no one speaks like that", that is you withdraw from your position (pretending you don't).

There is a big difference between "incorrect" which implies breaking at least one rule, and "not a usual way of sayig". I think that answering questions at the forum we should be careful not to give confusing answers, especially to non Polish native speakers.
We should also remember that Polish language is not only the colloquial language of the younger generation. The language comprises all speech registers and writing styles, and the speech of both young and old people, and gives allowance for regional and social variations. 

Moreover, there are examples of sentences or expressions that occur seldom, either because of the topic, or because they can function well only in a special context, but nevertheless all are correct Polish

I will also sustain my claim that all three of my examples are natural Polish. Your sorting out of two of them is just an arbitrary action.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Karton Realista

Ben Jamin said:


> We should also remember that Polish language is not only the colloquial language of the younger generation. The language comprises all speech registers and writing styles, and the speech of both young and old people, and gives allowance for regional and social variations.


And "Książkę przeczytał Janusz" belongs to none of those. It standalone wouldn't be said by any of those people. Maybe a poet, whom I mentioned.


Ben Jamin said:


> There is a big difference between "incorrect" which implies breaking at least one rule, and "not a usual way of sayig". I think that answering questions at the forum we should be careful not to give confusing answers, especially to non Polish native speakers.


If you insist I'll start saying "unidiomatic". Or "it isn't grammatically incorrect, but it's not correct to say it in 99,99% of situations". I think that it's just a nitpick from you.


Ben Jamin said:


> Moreover, there are examples of sentences or expressions that occur seldom, either because of the topic, or because they can function well only in a special context, but nevertheless all are correct Polish


Did you read what we've written besides my direct response to your post? This point has been hammered in one way or another thoughout the whole discussion.


----------



## Nino83

I read that there are two ways in order to emphasize a word in Slavic languages (like in Italian): word order and emphatic stress. 

The Slavic languages, Cambridge, page 419


> (235a) B/C/S neutral: otac peva ‘father is singing’
> (235b) B/C/S marked: peva otac ‘it is father who is singing’
> These stylistically expressive versions have contrastive stress focusing specific
> constituents:
> (235c) B/C/S *peva* otac ‘father is singing’
> (235d) B/C/S *otac* peva ‘it is father who is singing’



In the book there are other examples in Russian, Polish and Slovenian.
From the example of Jasio, it seems that also in Polish it works in the same manner.



jasio said:


> For example, "Książkę przeczytał *Janusz*" almost automatically invites "a nie Piotr" ('*It was John* who read the book, *not Peter*').



I'd like to ask you what is the word order after these questions: "what about John?" (general question), "*what* (focus) did John read (topic)?", "*who* (focus) read the book (topic)?". 
Here the possibilities in Italian (the first sentence is short, the second one is long, i.e I repeat all the elements of the sentence, it is the normal word order with the normal, unmarked stress, while the third is marked, the word in *green* has an higher pitch and it is stressed).  

"what about Giovanni?" (general question)
Giovanni ha letto (read) il libro (the book). (SVO, normal intonation)

"*what* (focus) did Giovanni read (topic)?"
*Il libro* (ha letto).
Giovanni ha letto *il libro*. (SVO, normal intonation) 
*Il libro* ha letto Giovanni. (OSV, emphatic intonation, "*il libro*" has an higher pitch) 

"*who* (focus) read the book (topic)?" 
*Giovanni* (lo ha letto).
Il libro lo ha letto *Giovanni*. (OSV, normal intonation, "lo" = it, "the book it-Accusative has read Giovanni")
*Giovanni* ha letto il libro. (SVO, emphatic intonation, *"Giovanni"* has an higher pitch) 

As you can see, in Italian the "focus" (i.e the new information, the comment) comes last and the "topic" (i.e the old, known, information) first.
If we change the intonation, we can put the "focus" first, like it happens in the Serbo-Croatian example. 

How does it works in Polish? Can you write the 1) short answer (without repeating every constituent) 2) long answer with normal intonation 3) long answer with an emphatic intonation?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Karton Realista said:


> And "Książkę przeczytał Janusz" belongs to none of those. It standalone wouldn't be said by any of those people. Maybe a poet, whom I mentioned.
> 
> If you insist I'll start saying "unidiomatic". Or "it isn't grammatically incorrect, but it's not correct to say it in 99,99% of situations". I think that it's just a nitpick from you.
> 
> Did you read what we've written besides my direct response to your post? This point has been hammered in one way or another thoughout the whole discussion.


Let us agree that we don't agree. I will still oppose calling a sentence or expression "incorrect" if it is not statistically the first choice in a conversation, but something that can be used in a specific context. Using your definition of "incorrect" you should as well label "_Litwo, ojczyzno moja ... _" as incorrect, because "nobody speaks like this".


----------



## Karton Realista

Ben Jamin said:


> . Using your definition of "incorrect" you should as well label "_Litwo, ojczyzno moja ... _" as incorrect, because "nobody speaks like this".


It is stylistically correct in poetic language, but not in communicative language, news language, etc. There are certain decorums that each apply to different media and means of communication. 
If this isn't a sentiment you can agree on then we'll have to "agree to disagree".


----------



## tewlwolow

I guess what you're missing, Kartonie Realisto, is the proper definition of "correctness". The sentences may not be _applicable/appropriate/well-fitting _etc_._ for the given context, but they are not, by no means,_ incorrect_. I think both of you are generally on the same page, but you are not uniform in terms of semantics 

@Nino83 

I think it's more or less the same as Italian! So, to answer your questions:

1) What about John?

Przeczytał *książkę*. (neutral/focus on_ reading_).
*Książkę (either simply stressed or a bit higher pitch than usual when denoting repetition) *przeczytał (slightly less neutral, can denote that Jan _usually_ does that).
Jan przeczytał* książkę (normal, falling)*.
2) *What* did he read?

Książkę.
Jan przeczytał *książkę (regular falling intonation)*.
*Książkę (also regular, falling intonation, the rest of the sentence would be generally unstressed)* przeczytał Jan.

3) *Who* read the book?

Jan.
(_To)_* *Jan (either regular falling as neutral-like, or more emphasised by using higher pitch)* przeczytał książkę.
Książkę przeczytał *Jan (as above)*.

_*indicative, more emphasit, would be unstressed/secondarily stressed.
_
It is worth noting, though, that my knowledge is purely "native", so I can hear something nonexistent! Also, I come from Western Poland, so we usually have higher pitch that most of the Poles (the wonderful _zaśpiew poznański_), and we tend to overuse it, so we sometimes seem overemphatic or even aggressive to our fellow compatriotes. Beware!


----------



## Nino83

@tewlwolow
Thank you very much for answering my question.
I had read it on various books about Slavic languages that intonation was similar to that of Italian but it is always good when a native speaker (who speaks the language everyday) gives his/her opinion, confirming or rejecting what books say.
Thank you again!


----------



## tewlwolow

Well, I don't speak Italian, but from what you've written here, they're fairly similar. Probably you would want to be less "sentimental" in your speech. At least that is how Poles generally perceive Italian, as a very expressive speech


----------



## Ben Jamin

Karton Realista said:


> It is stylistically correct in poetic language, but not in communicative language, news language, etc. There are certain decorums that each apply to different media and means of communication.
> If this isn't a sentiment you can agree on then we'll have to "agree to disagree".


You ar trying to pack all linguistics phenomena into two boxes labelled "correct" and "incorrect". This is both principally wrong and confusing.
If we want to classify usage of a certain linguistic form we have a whole range to use:

1. INCORRECT: disagreement with fundemental grammar or lexical rules.
2. UNIDIOMATIC: grammatically and lexically correct, but sounds strange, native speakers just don't use it.
3. RARE: used only in special linguistic circumstances, that appear very seldom.
4. STYLISTICALLY WRONG: grammatically and lexically correct, but waking wrong connotations, clumsy, belonging to another speech register, etc.
5. LOCAl/SOCIOLECTAL: restricted to certain geographic areas or social/professional groups.
6. OBSOLETE: normally not used by living speakers, except for special effects, like humoristic, giving a historical connotation, grandiosity, licentia poetica, etc.
Just putting all categories from 2 to 6 into one box, and labelling it "incorrect" is INCORRECT in itself.


----------

