# Polish Equivalent of "Read"/ "Say"



## Kos

Cześć wszystkim

For a long time now, I've been a little unsure of how to translate the verbs "to read" and "to say" in an intransitive aspect(not sure if this is what its gramatically referred to, but its worth a shot haha ) 

For example, if I was explaining to someone that I read some information on a website or in a book, I would say: _"The site says/reads that...."_ or _"The book reads/says that....." _

My question is, are there any specific phrases or verbs we use in Polish to convey the meaning of something (usually written) "saying" or "reading" something. The only word that comes to mind is "wskazać", which is what I've been using to express such situations ex. "Termometr wskazuje że....." "Artykuł wskazuje że..."

If I didn't explain this well enough or didn't provide enough context, please let me know. 

Będę bardzo wdzięczny za odpowiedzi 
-Kos


----------



## Ben Jamin

Kos said:


> Cześć wszystkim
> 
> For a long time now, I've been a little unsure of how to translate the verbs "to read" and "to say" in an intransitive aspect(not sure if this is what its gramatically referred to, but its worth a shot haha )
> 
> For example, if I was explaining to someone that I read some information on a website or in a book, I would say: _"The site says/reads that...."_ or _"The book reads/says that....." _
> 
> My question is, are there any specific phrases or verbs we use in Polish to convey the meaning of something (usually written) "saying" or "reading" something. The only word that comes to mind is "wskazać", which is what I've been using to express such situations ex. "Termometr wskazuje że....." "Artykuł wskazuje że..."
> 
> If I didn't explain this well enough or didn't provide enough context, please let me know.
> 
> Będę bardzo wdzięczny za odpowiedzi
> -Kos


A colloquial way to say it is: "W artykule pisze/piszą, że ..."
In a more formal way: "W artykule jest napisane, że ...".
Even more formal: "Autor artykułu pisze/twierdzi/podaje, że ..."
twierdzi: states, claims
podaje: states, gives information about


----------



## majlo

It's worth pinpointing that the first option is cosidered incorrect by some people.


----------



## linguos

By _some_ people?


----------



## Ben Jamin

majlo said:


> It's worth pinpointing that the first option is cosidered incorrect by some people.


I classified it as colloquial. From the "literary language" viewpoint it is incorrect. In fact, most people use it in normal conversation.


----------



## linguos

I would say that it is still considered incorrect by *most *people who are careful about the language they use. 

However, there are some (not so many) educated folks who follow the logic that if a lie is repeated a thousand times it becomes the truth.

To me "jest napisane" isn't formal, it's just the only correct way and I always use it, even if I talk to people who prefer to use "tu pisze" themselves.


----------



## BezierCurve

When it comes to books, articles etc. you can sometimes encounter "mówić" or "opowiadać", "wspominać" used in the meaning of "read" ("Ta książka opowiada o losach żołnierzy w niewoli", "Co Biblia mówi o tym starożytnym imperium?").


----------



## Kos

Thank you very much for your responses everyone 
From what I've read, it appears its a safe bet to stick with the phrases "opowiada" and "w...jest napisane że".


----------



## linguos

Yes, "w tym artykule jest napisane/podano/można wyczytać, że wzrosną ceny paliw" and "książka opowiada o losach/przedstawia losy średniowiecznego bohatera" are some of the best options possible here.


----------



## eleannor

You can say that _ksiązka _(though I think '_autor_' fits better) _opowiada o/porusza temat/koncentruje się na/ przedstawia/sugeruje/wskazuje na/podaje_/ etc. There are so many options, actually, varying on what your subject is; you can't really say that _termometr opowiada_ [a thermometer says]. I think that the safest phrases would be _opowiada, podaje, wskazuje (na), przedstawia_, and the passive forms, _jest podane, napisano_, so on.


----------



## majlo

linguos said:


> By _some_ people?


Yes, by SOME people.


----------



## linguos

majlo said:


> Yes, by SOME people.


"Some" suggests as if there were only very few people who think so. Meanwhile, as I said before, it is still simply incorrect to most of the people who know anything about linguistics...

The opinions of the people who were lazy at school don't matter.  

I didn't know anyone at my high school who wouldn't correct me if I accidentally said something like "tu pisze" (it unfortunately used to happen as I was brought up by funny parents who considered it to be the only possible option...) and I still don't know anyone at my age who would use this form in a conversation between us.

Btw, there's an interesting anecdote about this popular (mis)use:

"Idziesz po ulicy, patrzysz, a tam leży g*wno. To sra, czy jest nasrane?"


----------



## majlo

"it is still simply incorrect to most of the people who know anything about linguistics..."

Let me disappoint you, people who know anything about linguistics are thin on the ground.  And yes, their opinions do matter although they're incorrect. In fact, their opinions matter more than those who actually speak correctly. Democracy, you know, is a nasty thing.


----------



## linguos

Anyway, I don't want to argue. You were yourself the first one to remind us all about this form not being acceptable to everyone. 

Btw, what I basically mean by "incorrect" is that you shall find this form in no dictionary, piece of literature or other respectable source. 

And yes, democracy is extremely wicked.


----------



## majlo

So what are you doing on an Internet forum if you don't want to argue? 

Well, yes, I was the first one because I'm aware that this form is incorrect. That, however, doesn't change the reality and the fact that people actually do use the incorrect form. I think more people say 'pisze' rather than 'jest napisane' and therefore I said 'some'. 

You won't find 'poszłem' in any dictionary either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't used. 

"And yes, democracy is extremely wicked. "
Mildly put.


----------



## ryba

Hi, Kos.

There also exists the option of saying _w tekście stoi:_ „...” / _w tekście stoi, że_ „...”. I would say it sounds quite formal, possibly humorous, and I think it might be a Germanism (which would by no means mean it's incorrect; it is).

When it comes to _Tu pisze, że_, _W instrukcji pisze, że, _I also think people consider it incorrect because they've been told it is, but in natural speech everyone tends to say _pisze, że_. Some overcome that tendency, most people don't.

In Spanish, they say _Aquí pone_ (literally, 'tu stawia') and nobody considers it incorrect. The process of semantic bleaching led to a situation in which no one thinks about who's the performer of the action of _poner_, anymore. You can always say _Aquí está escrito_ ('tu jest napisane'), but it sounds more formal.

In Polish, the same process occurred, yet many people keep on reminding those who say _tu pisze _that it does not make sense. Most of them used the expression themselves when they were little, just like Linguos did.

My opinion on the matter is that Poles tend to overuse the term _incorrect_. Many people will try to make you believe the pronoun _se_ is incorrect in familiar colloquial speech, just because it does not form part of the literary language.


----------



## Kos

I see. Thank you for the help, Ryba, as well as everyone else who's contributed 
This thread has turned out to be pretty interesting. I'll probably stay with the passive forms, but I'll always keep "tu pisze" in the back of my mind.

As for the Spanish example, Ryba, I've actually seen it before in Spanish class. The book we learned from told us to use "esta escrito", but I've seen the example with aqui pone before. (sorry for not including the Spanish diacritical marks)

I completely understand the general argument about the use of the phrase "tu pisze". When it comes to English, theres plenty of such examples, where phrases are incorrect, but we use them anyway, thus making them accepted by the majority of speakers. A prime example of this is the word "ain't". Some people who care a lot about proper speech and grammar will correct you if you use it, but the majority of people just accept it, though they know its incorrect. I'm guilty of using the word almost daily haha


----------



## eleannor

By and far, I'm usually corrected when I say "tu pisze, że...". I can agree with that because it is logically incorrect - an article or a book can't really write, right?
However, I've noticed that plural forms like "Piszą, że..." are deemed, more or less, correct. I've never heard someone being corrected while saying, for example: "Czytałeś ten artykuł? Piszą, że najlepszy dla gwoździa jest młotek.". I think it might have to do with the plural indicating the author or the people who might talk through the article. Either way, while "tu pisze" is frowned upon, "piszą, że" doesn't seem to fit the case. What do you think?


----------



## ryba

eleannor said:


> By and far, I'm usually corrected when I say "tu pisze, że...". I can agree with that because it is logically incorrect - an article or a book can't really write, right?
> However, I've noticed that plural forms like "Piszą, że..." are deemed, more or less, correct. I've never heard someone being corrected while saying, for example: "Czytałeś ten artykuł? Piszą, że najlepszy dla gwoździa jest młotek.". I think it might have to do with the plural indicating the author or the people who might talk through the article. Either way, while "tu pisze" is frowned upon, "piszą, że" doesn't seem to fit the case. What do you think?




I agree. That's exactly the case, I think _piszą_ is simply colloquial, just as Ben Jamin said. The use of the third-person plural seems to be neutral, as in _Mówią, że nie można żyć bez miłości _('They say/People say/It is said...').


----------



## ryba

ryba said:


> Hi, Kos.
> 
> There also exists the option of saying _w tekście stoi:_ „...” / _w tekście stoi, że_ „...”. I would say it sounds quite formal, possibly humorous (...).



Oh, there's also this common informal expression _stoi jak byk_. It's used for stressing that a text clearly indicates something.


----------



## ryba

linguos said:


> Btw, there's an interesting anecdote about this popular (mis)use:
> 
> "Idziesz po ulicy, patrzysz, a tam leży g*wno. To sra, czy jest nasrane?"



Well, but it's not the same. Sh*tting is not a communicative act (intrinsically ).

Another argument in defense of _tu pisze_ is the fact that in Serbian it is considered a bona fide 100% correct (and not even colloquial) construction. _Tu piše da možeš (...) _= 'tu pisze, że możesz (...)'. _Bus na kom piše "(...)"_ ('autobus, na którym pisze (...)').


----------



## BezierCurve

I guess it's all about a missing "proper" verb in Polish that would cover the active aspect of literary communication, so the linguists could accept it... If only we agreed upon "czytać" (or "pisać"), we could avoid the awkward passive voice ("jest napisane") in a way that works for other communication "channels":

- tutaj słychać śpiew ptaków
- tutaj widać dachy miasta
- tutaj _czytać_ ostatnie wiadomości.

The reason it's missing in Polish is either the not-that-long literary tradition or simply reading/writing being a less natural way of communication than the rest.


----------



## dreamlike

Interesting point, Bezier, but I don't consider "jest napisane" awkward, despite it obviously being a passive voice. Usually, a passive voice is best avoided in a regular conversation (unless there's no other way to convey the idea) but that's not the case with "jest napisane" - that's the only correct way to say it, and one should stick to it. 

Using "tutaj pisze" is, to me, a sign of sloppiness, and I'll always wage a war against this usage, because I don't think it takes such a great effort to utter a few more syllables (treat it as my general view on this whole "pisze" versus "jest napisane" thing).

If we agreed upon "czytać" or "pisać" used the way you suggest, that's something that would sound really awkward. I think language's not something its users can agree to use one way or another - we should let it take its course and adapt to it.


----------



## LilianaB

I think, Dreamlike, unfortunately according to Polish usage rules, at least the ones I know, tutaj pisze is correct, whereas the other construction has long been unacceptable in formal Polish. Things could have changed; you could check some grammar books. In fact I might be wrong. I think both expressions are OK. The first one - pisze, represents the German influence on Polish language, whereas the other one is more of a Russian construction, or just Slavic, perhaps. It may be something regional, the preference.


----------



## dreamlike

That's true, "tutaj pisze" -- once considered incorrect -- is now recognized by linguists and dictionaries, probably due to its widespread use. I might have got carried away saying "that's the only correct way to say it" - regrettably, it's not. However, if one wants to be regarded as the person speaking decent Polish, "tutaj pisze" is off-limits. 

It's the other way round, Liliana, it's "tutaj pisze" that has long been unacceptable in Polish, and I think it still is in the formal variety of our language.


----------



## BezierCurve

As for the awkwardness of the passive voice - it takes 3 syllables more to utter, and that in terms of everyday speech is perceived as awkward (people will tend to use the shorter "tu pisze"; they actually do).

As for  "I think language's not something its users can agree to use one way or another - we should let it take its course and adapt to it." I completely agree with you, which makes your previous point ("I'll always wage a war against this usage") sort of contradictory to it.


----------



## LilianaB

I think it may be a little bit regional as well. People from places like Poznan, I think, or Gdansk or Silesia, even if they speak Polish without any accent have a tendency to use pisze, in informal speech, at least.


----------



## dreamlike

BezierCurve said:
			
		

> I completely agree with you, which makes your previous point ("I'll always wage a war against this usage") sort of contradictory to it.



On the face of it, it seems contradictory, but if you give it some thought, it isn't. The form "jest napisane" has always been correct, whereas the form "pisze" has become permissible just recently - because of the staggering amount of people who used it. So, it's not that the language evolved this way - people were simply too lazy to adapt to it, and use the correct form. That's why I wage a war against the form "pisze". When I say "let the language take its course" I don't mean changing grammar rules, and allowing incorrect to become correct, just because some people would be comfortable with it.


----------



## BezierCurve

I'm not sure how a language can take its course on its own though, without its users changing the rules (by doing _this_ or by not doing _that,_ doesn't matter how). Hardly any language evolution would be possible without breaking the existing rules.


----------



## dreamlike

You're right - I used this expression in answer to your idea to make some, let's call it, "linguistic agreements", for lack of a better term. My point was that we shouldn't intrude on the language, but adapt to the existing rules -- and come to terms with the fact that in our language we express things this way, not another, rather than "agreeing upon a missing verb". 

It's true that it's the users of a language who affect the way it evolves - but in case of "pisze/jest napisane" no changes were necessary - although they've been made and now the form "tu pisze" is correct. Changes in any language should be justified - and they shouldn't be motivated by pure convenience. If we keep making our language simpler and simpler, what do we end up with?


----------



## BezierCurve

Well, hopefully with something simple and having less unjustified exceptions than we have today.

My "linguistic agreements" were purely theoretical, hence the second conditional ("If only we agreed...").


----------



## dreamlike

I know they were, but I couldn't help myself but to refer to them anyway


----------



## majlo

Even if the specialists recognized "poszłem" as correct, I would still never use it. The same goes for "tu pisze". To me it's as incorrect as it can possibly be.


----------



## BezierCurve

Oh, c'mon, majlo. I thought you'd be the first person to join me in burning prescriptivists' flag in the street.


----------



## Thomas26

Termometr wskazują czterdzieści dwa stopnie w cieniu.  The thermometer reads forty two degrees in the shade. Correct?


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, it is correct, but correctness of a form in another language does not really prove anything. What is correct in English may not be correct in Polish. As to _poszlem_, you are right it sounds terrible. It does not sound in accord with the Polish language, somehow. _Pisze_, it bothers me less: perhaps I am just used to it. I even like it more than _jest napisane_.


----------



## majlo

LilianaB said:


> Yes, it is correct


No, it's not correct! There isn't concord in that sentence.

Bezier, it's not about prescriptive vs descriptive. It's merely about what I feel sounds correct or incorrect or natural or odd. To me 'tu pisze' does really grate on my ears.

As for flag burning, let me know when you get down to this one.  I'll be the first one to help then.


----------



## LilianaB

The English construction is not correct?The thermometer reads 25 degrees below zero? This is what I was referring to, the post immediately preceding mine.  Sorry, it was 42 in the shade, but still.


----------



## dreamlike

Thomas26 said:
			
		

> Termometr wskazuj*ą* czterdzieści dwa stopnie w cieniu.




Termometr wskazuj*e*
No need for diacritic - it's considered a mistake there. Also, note that this sentence would be unremarkable coming from the mouth of a TV weather girl, or boy, for that matter (is that how you call these people?) but in a regular conversation I'd be more likely to say: _Na termometrze *jest* czterdzieści dwa stopnie w cieniu.

_Brezier - it's a language forum, in case you didn't notice  Don't expect people to be tolerant towards mistakes like "poszłem" or "tu pisze" - these two are just off-limits, and it has little to do with descriptivism vs. prescriptivism, as majlo said.


----------



## LilianaB

I would not be so sure about _tu pisze_. It might be regional. I know quite a few educated people with perfect accent and command of Polish language who would say _tu pisze_, but not _poszłem_.


----------



## dreamlike

Then their grasp of Polish is not as good as you think it is. I can't conceive of any educated person, with "perfect accent and command of Polish language" saying "tu pisze" instead of "tu jest napisane". You might find this link useful, Liliana - http://poradnia.pwn.pl/lista.php?id=7268



> W Internecie można znaleźć orzeczenia Rady Języka Polskiego, ale nie przypuszczam, aby Rada uznała zdania typu „Na tablicy pisze, że...” za równorzędne zdaniom typu „Na tablicy jest napisane, że...”. Te pierwsze można uważać co najwyżej za potoczne. Wiele osób jednak nawet w języku potocznym nie widzi dla nich miejsca.— Mirosław Bańko, PWN


----------



## BezierCurve

Thanks for the tip, dreamlike. The line between what's tolerable and what's not is often blurred here, hence my silly expectations to accept the course our language takes by some of us.


----------



## dreamlike

You're right, sometimes there's a fine between between tolerable and intolerable, but as far as these two are concerned, I think we all have no doubts whatsoever that they fall into the category of "intolerable". They are one of the most egregious errors I can think of.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, they do, Dreamlike. I told you, it might be regional. If a person is used to it, there is nothing strange about it. It is just a construction from Germanic languages.


----------



## dreamlike

Let me get this straight. When I was Primary School, I was used to saying "tu pisze", too - but I've been fortunate enough to have kind people around me who helped me stamp out this bad habit. "Perfect command of Polish language" and saying "tu pisze" are mutally exclusive. It's like a driver who caused three accidents in three days would claim to be a perfect driver.


----------



## LilianaB

No, the two things are  not mutually exclusive; the people may just like this construction.It is true that I am referring to people from parts of Poland which were under the German influence for years. I do not know if this would be said in other parts of Poland.


----------



## Thomas1

LilianaB said:


> I would not be so sure about _tu pisze_. It might be regional. I know quite a few educated people with perfect accent and command of Polish language who would say _tu pisze_, but not _poszłem_.


This is certainly conceivable. Only I'd say that 'tu pisze' is colloquial spoken Polish. I subscribe to the comment that professor Bańko gave in the following answer:


> Co tam *pisze* w gazecie?  		Powszechnie wiadomą jest prawidłowość zwrotu: _jest *napisane*_. Coraz częściej jednak słyszy się zwrot _*pisze*_. Czy jest to zwrot poprawny?
> 
> 
> „W gazecie pisało, że...” to konstrukacja typowa dla polszczyzny  potocznej. W swobodnej rozmowie nie powinna razić, a piętnowanie jej tu  byłoby nadmierną pedanterią. Co innego w języku pisanym i w starannych  wypowiedziach mówionych – tu zdecydowanie powinniśmy powiedzieć: „W  gazecie było *napisane*, że...”  			— Mirosław Bańko


Some will, of course, always perceive it as mistake.


----------



## dreamlike

The German influence notwithstanding, it's still an egregious error to me, although it's recognized by some linguists -it's in common use (although there is a declining number of people who use it, fortunately). I was corrected every time I said "tu pisze", and it worked. It took me a week or so get rid of this bad habit.


----------



## LilianaB

Why do you like _jest napisane_ more?


----------



## dreamlike

For the sole reason that it's more logical. Let me quote some funny, perhaps a bit vulgar anecdote from the first page of this thread.




			
				linguous said:
			
		

> "Idziesz po ulicy, patrzysz, a tam leży g*wno. To sra, czy jest nasrane?"


----------



## LilianaB

It is not the same. This sentence is not really my favorite register. Anyhow, let's take _na ulcy leży rozbita butelka_ i _cieknie woda_. _Leję się_ czy _jest rozlane_, _woda leje_ _się_ czy _jest rozlana_. No difference to me. By the way, is there a particular liking for graphic language in Poland these days? I do not mean the aspect here. I am not sure if this is the best example. let's take: O czym się mówi i co jest mówione? Which one is more correct?


----------



## dreamlike

Nice try, Liliana, but what you've just written is not the same, either. Woda leje się *z* butelki, as opposed to "pisze" - you won't say that something "pisze" *from* newspaper - it's written in the newspaper, or, as they say in English, the newspaper reads. The last might be logical in English, but it's not logical in Polish. As to the question whether "leje się czy jest rozlane" - if the water still spills from the bottle, it's "leje się", if there is no water in the bottle, and it's all over the road - then it's "woda jest rozlana".  

As regards your last question, do you mean descriptive approach towards language rathen than prescriptive one?


----------



## LilianaB

You are right, maybe this was not the best example because of the aspect. I mean graphic language. I also posted another example of the construction I meant in my edited post which might be better to illustrate the problem.


----------



## dreamlike

I couldn't decide whether you meant "language description/descriptivism" or "graphic language" (editing your post after someone's reply is not a nice thing to do ). I don't know if there's a particular liking for it these days, but it's certainly helpful in explaining some things -- it makes it easier for people to grasp them, and it illustrates them nicely.


----------



## LilianaB

I did not edit my post after your reply: I edited it much earlier, almost right away. You must have worked on your post quite a long time: this is why this has happened.


----------



## dreamlike

When I posted my reply, your post still read "descriptive language" not "graphic language". Let's not split hairs, though, it's not that important.


----------



## LilianaB

No. I have no reason to lie. I corrected it almost two seconds after I wrote it. Then I edited the post the second time after I thought about the example with the leaking water, which might not have been the best one due to the aspect. 

Maybe posts appear delayed.


----------



## majlo

If you were to say "poszłem", you'd need to say "(on) poszł*". Therefore 'poszłem' is illogical. If you say 'tu pisze', it sounds like somebody (something?) is writing at the moment of speaking which is not true.


----------



## dreamlike

All right, Liliana, maybe my internet connection is at fault for that, or the forum was not working properly for the moment.



			
				LilianaB said:
			
		

> O czym się mówi i co jest mówione? Which one is more correct.



More context wouldn't go amiss. It's hard to decide withouth any context. By the way, it has little to do with "pisze/jest napisane" problem, the only things those two have in common is passive and active voice. 

It should be: *co się mówi* vs *co jest mówione*, by the way.


----------



## LilianaB

Why do you think these examples are different? Ludzie mówią - mowi się. Dziennikarze piszą - pisze.


----------



## dreamlike

That's true, but what does that have to do with "pisze vs jest napisane"? 

*Mówi się,* że zamordował swoją żonę.
Ciekawe co tam *pisze się *na ten temat w Rzeczpospolitej - it would be very colloquial thing to say, and I don't hear it that often. In fact, I don't know if this even exist, or I just made it up. Anyway, it would mean something along the lines of - I wonder what's Rzeczpospolita's journalists take on this matter. 

But: Powiedz mi co jest napisane w tym artykule, bo nie mam okularów ze sobą.


----------



## LilianaB

I like your examples. They sound perfectly natural. (Even if you just made them up without any grammatical rules.)


----------



## BezierCurve

For those who can't accept "tu pisze" in colloquial speech there's a way... Just think of that expression as of one of those sentences where you leave out the obvious subject (assuming it's "autor"  here).

By the way, there are more exceptions than logical reasons in Polish grammar and before anyone will start arguing about that just think of double negation, the future tense construction (using past tense forms) or a single rule without an exception.


----------



## dreamlike

Having given it some thought, I think "pisze się na temat" exits. "Zobaczmy co pisze się na ten temat w dzisiejszej prasie" - in a television press review, after some important even the night before.


----------



## majlo

Of course it exists. Although it ain't the same as 'tu pisze'.


----------



## dreamlike

Yes, I already drew Liliana's attention to that.


----------



## ryba

I'd like to say that it seems possible to me that many things we take for granted may not be so.

First, you guys agree there seems to be a lexical gap, that we could use a short and handy expression for 'it reads'. Then you talk about _tu pisze_ as if it were a neologism that "those lazy folks" started to use at some point to fill that gap, not caring it's actually incorrect (e.g. #28). You assume it just somehow wasn't there or has always been considered incorrect, and it's only lately that some linguists generoulsly admitted it to the bosom of colloquial language.

Now, who's going to tell me that _(tu) pisze, (że) _wasn't present in the Polish language as early as many centuries ago? (I'm waiting.) And, if it was, who's going to prove to me it was considered incorrect, say, in the 18th century, and by whom? (I'm waiting.) Maybe it is a germanism, maybe a very early one. Maybe not. Is Serbian _(tu) piše (da)_ a germanism, too? That would explain its presence in both Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and in Polish. Or maybe it's just a parallel evolution? Maybe in most Slavic languages they do say _tu pisze_, and only in Poland there was once some influential structuralist who, in early 20th century, arbitrarily decided it was incorrect, because it "lacked logic"? All that definitely calls for a thorough investigation. Who said all things have to be logical in a language? Have you heard about grammaticalization and lexicalization? Should we stop saying _O co chodzi?_ just because, on the structural level, the construction is not transparent and seems not to make sense when given a literal reading?

If my memory serves me (and I'm pretty sure it does), my grandparents did say things like _Co tu pisze?_, and they were both from highly educated families (they were from Kałusz; grandpa studied in Lwów, grandma's father in Vienna and Heidelberg) and were literate in several languages and eloquent as hell. As I already said several pages ago, I believe that were it not for an educational campaign against _pisze_, no one would ever question its correctness. People would be too familiar with it to consider its internal logic problematic (most of us still ARE, let's face it).



dreamlike said:


> Let me get this straight. When I was Primary School, I was used to saying "tu pisze", too - but I've been fortunate enough to have kind people around me who helped me stamp out this bad habit. "Perfect command of Polish language" and saying "tu pisze" are mutally exclusive. It's like a driver who caused three accidents in three days would claim to be a perfect driver.



Naturally, my teachers also tried to repress this "devious" usage. It worked. Whenever anyone said _Co tam pisze?_ there was someone else in the classroom rushing with the ardor of a neophyte and the pride of an apt learner to correct their classmate's mistake. I did it once or twice myself. Maybe thrice. It's only when I started to study languages at an academic level that I liberalized my views on the matter.


----------



## dreamlike

and only in Poland there was once some influential structuralist who, in early 20th century, arbitrarily decided it was incorrect, because it "lacked logic"? If that's true, it was a wise thing to do, and thank god for that sage structuralist! 

Should we stop saying O co chodzi? just because, on the structural level, the construction is not transparent and seems not to make sense when given a literal reading? I don't want to sound rude, but you took it too far in your zeal to prove your point. That's not a valid argument. "O co chodzi?" makes no literal sense, that's true, but it's an idiom - and it has to be that way, whereas "Tu jest napisane" is a mere statement of fact, and logic is something that wouldn't go amiss, really. 

I believe that were it not for an educational campaign against pisze, no one would ever question its correctness. People would be too familiar with it to consider its internal logic problematic (most of us still ARE, let's face it). People are idle by nature, and they are certainly idle when it comes to thinking about the language they use (most of them, at least). I wouldn't expect them to make the effort to give it some thought. Had they thought about it, though, I'm certain they would dissmis it as illogical. Because of the inbred laziness of some specimen, it was a good thing that an educational campaign, as you call it, took place. You know, sometimes you have to make people aware of their mistakes. Back in the time, there was only a handful of people who would correct a person saying "tu pisze". Now I hear people correcting each other all the time. I think there is a growing realisation of the imporatance of language correctness in our society - which is a good thing. I will always deem "tu pisze' incorrect, for the sole reason that it's illogical. And I couldn't care less about other languages. You can call that ignorant, and you'd probably be right, but that's my take on this thing.


----------



## LilianaB

I personally like_ tu pisze_, and I absolutely agree with you Ryba. Probably somebody introduced the Russicism _jest_ _napisane_ and included it Polish grammar books. Even Mickiewicz had a lot of Russian constructions in his writing.


----------



## ryba

dreamlike said:


> Should we stop saying O co chodzi? just because, on the structural level, the construction is not transparent and seems not to make sense when given a literal reading? I don't want to sound rude, but you took it too far in your zeal to prove your point. That's not a valid argument. "O co chodzi?" makes no literal sense, that's true, but it's an idiom - and it has to be that way, whereas "Tu jest napisane" is a mere statement of fact, and logic is something that wouldn't go amiss, really.



_Tu pisze_ is idiomatic as well. You may consider it incorrect or accept it in lower registers of speech only, if you like, but it does exist, and, as a way of expressing the idea, it is quite idiomatic. Certainly less idiomatic than _chodzić o coś_, but more idiomatic than _być napisane_, which is just a regular collocation and has no metaphor to it. Exactly my point. Only (very) common or useful lexical items possessing a high degree of idiomaticity survive in a language. Otherwise, they just die out or become marginal, replaced by more transparent constructions. The most important reason why _(tu) pisze, (że)_ survived up until now is its high usefulness. If there existed a more literal way of expressing the idea of 'chodzić o coś', would you prefer it over _chodzić o coś_?


LilianaB said:


> I personally like_ tu pisze_, and I absolutely agree with you Ryba. Probably somebody introduced the Russicism _jest_ _napisane_ and included it Polish grammar books.


Thank you. From what you wrote here and in your previous posts, I take it that Russian doesn't have an expression equivalent to _(tu) pisze, (że)_. It would be interesting to learn how other Slavic languages deal with it.


----------



## LilianaB

Silesian has _tu pisze_. After all it is an old Slavic dialect. Russian does not have _tu pisze_: it has an equivalent of _jest_ _napisane_. I suspect that Czech and Slovak have tu pisze too, because they have many constructions similar to Silesian.


----------



## dreamlike

I don't know why you persistently equate "tu pisze" z "chodzić o coś", what kind of similarity those two bear, to your mind? Also, I can't understand the appeal "tu pisze" has to you guys, it's so sloppy and repulsive, my ears hurt when I hear it.


----------



## LilianaB

It is beautiful. So simple, too.


----------



## Thomas1

ryba said:


> _Tu pisze_ is idiomatic as well. You may consider it incorrect or accept it in lower registers of speech only, if you like, but it does exist, and, as a way of expressing the idea, it is quite idiomatic.
> [...]


Do you find it acceptable in any kind of text?


----------



## ryba

LilianaB said:


> Silesian has _tu pisze_. After all it is an old Slavic dialect. Russian does not have _tu pisze_: it has an equivalent of _jest_ _napisane_. I suspect that Czech and Slovak have tu pisze too, because they have many constructions similar to Silesian.



Thank you, it's good to know that!





dreamlike said:


> I don't know why you persistently equate "tu pisze" z "chodzić o coś", what kind of similarity those two bear, to your mind?



When I wrote it, I only had in mind their superficial "lack of logic" and the fact that both have a certain degree of idiomaticity, and yet the former is deemed incorrect by many, while the latter is accepted as perfectly normal. If you come back to the post in which I mentioned it, you'll notice I did so to undermine the argument about the supposéd lack of logic in saying _tu pisze_:





ryba said:


> Who said all things have to be logical in a  language? Have you heard about grammaticalization and lexicalization?  Should we stop saying _O co chodzi?_ just because, at the  structural level, the construction is not transparent and seems not to  make sense when given a literal reading?



But now that you're asking...  In fact, both the monotransitive _chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś)_ and _pisać [coś] (gdzieś)_ share certain striking similarities:

_Tutaj pisze, że nie można odkrywać kart.
Tutaj chodzi o to, że nie można odkrywać kart.

W instrukcji pisze, że nie można odkrywać kart.
W tym zdaniu chodzi o to, że nie można odkrywać kart.

W instrukcji pisze, żeby nie odkrywać kart.
W tym zdaniu chodzi o to, żeby nie odkrywać kart._

_W instrukcji pisze (coś) o odkrywaniu kart.
Tu chodzi o nieodkrywanie kart._

_Tu pisze coś innego.
Tu chodzi o coś innego._

_Tu coś pisze.
Tu o coś chodzi._



Thomas1 said:


> Do you find it acceptable in any kind of text?



Yes, in any kind of text (if it fits well).  Except very formal ones, perhaps, but it's just because I'd probably want something more recherché there, instead. In fact, the only thing that might stop me from using it might be the fear that someone might think I do not know it's incorrect (hahaha), although I also know that my intellectual status might elevate the notoriously mistreated locution to new levels of prestige if I used it.


----------



## BezierCurve

> In fact, the only thing that might stop me from using it might be the fear that someone might think I do not know it's incorrect



My feeling too, but I hardly care anymore.


----------



## LilianaB

You can either use both constructions in writing or none of them. I would personally not use either one too often in writing. W ksiazce pisze sounds informal but w ksiazce jest napisane sounds informal as well. Autor pisze, or autor przedstawia.


----------



## dreamlike

Liliana, are you woman at the helm of Polish language to say which construction one "can" use in writing and which not? I would never, ever use "tu pisze" in writing, regardles of the register of the text, and it is inadvisable to do so. "W książce jest napisane" is far from being informal - I'd say it's semi-formal. _"Autor pisze" or "autor przedstawia" _are strikingly different phrases, used in different contexts, when one wants to convey a completely different thing. 



			
				ryba said:
			
		

> _Tu pisze is idiomatic as well. You may consider it incorrect or accept it in lower registers of speech only, if you like, but it does exist, and, as a way of expressing the idea, it is quite idiomatic_


Ryba, there is a fine line between "idiom" and "idiomatic", but it exists. We have to draw a distinction between "idiom" and "idiomatic", because it's not one and the same. "O co chodzi" is a fully-fledged idiom, whereas "Tu pisze" is barely idiomatic, and it owes it's minute idiomatic nature to people who misuse it. We don't need the faintest degree of idiomaticness to convey the idea that something reads something.

A way to go, guys, I eagerly anticipate your next defensive campaign, I can hear "poszłem" crying for your help, and there are plenty of more!


----------



## LilianaB

Dreamlike I am not telling you which construction to use: it has nothing to do with my being a woman. As far as you _helm_ goes, I am not sure what you are really trying to say. _W ksiazce jest napisane_ is not publishable Polish, according to my standards.


----------



## dreamlike

Any native speaker would have no difficulty whatsoever to understand what I meant by using the phrase "at the helm of". Dictionary is an ingenious invention. 


> 2. A position of leadership or control:
> _at the helm of_ the government




Can you make the effort to underpin your opinion with some arguments? One or two wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## LilianaB

I know what _at the helm means_, since I love ships: I just have no idea what your entire sentence was supposed to mean, not that there is anything wrong with it grammatically. You do not have to worry about _poszlem_: I hate it myself. 
I do not think anybody could be on the helm of language: language has life on its own. Someone can be at the helm of linguistic organization trying to prescribe rules of language usage, but language is a kind of a Captain Nemo's ship with a course of its own, at least to a certain extent.


----------



## dreamlike

Try posting it in English section, they will be more than glad to help you. The usage of "at the helm of" (I can give you a hint, I meant figurative usage) is my context is perfectly clear and correct.


----------



## LilianaB

It is sometimes hard to tell, Dreamlike, what you mean because of your overuse of idioms. It is a good exercise though: it keeps one afloat with all the idioms that have ever existed in the English language.


----------



## dreamlike

This is probably a waste of my time, but I'll write it anyway to make a few things clear. 

You didn't refer to the points I made on "pisze/jest napisane", but focused on the expression I used instead. As far as you helm goes, I am not sure what you are really trying to say. That's a very disparaging remark, and you wrote it only to create a false impression that using language poses some difficulty for me, and therefore I can't discuss with you on equal terms. All it takes to dispel your doubts is a modicum of imagination and the lecture of dictionary entry. When I provided you with definitions and you realised that "at the helm of" has figurative meaning, and I used it properly, you kept splitting hairs saying Someone can be at the helm of linguistic organization. Treat "At the helm of Polish language" as a mental shortcut - if this matters to you this much.

You didn't bother to provide me with some arguments for your theory that "W ksiazce jest napisane is not publishable Polish, according to my standards", but kept harping on the expression instead. The same thing happened in the thread "Nowy/Nowego", when Thomas1 asked you to provide some sources. With all due respect, but discussing with you is not an easy thing to do, and I think I'm not alone in my impression.

And my parting remark - You do not have to worry about poszlem: I hate it myself. if you hate it yourself, you will find it useful to know that to most of Poles (those who care about their language), "tu pisze" sounds equally atrocious as "poszłem".


----------



## LilianaB

I don't have any sources: it is based on my knowledge, years of studying, years of professional use of certain languages: do you imagine I keep all the books from my Universities at home: I would need ten rooms at least. All I know is all you get. I hardly ever check any dictionaries at all. Sometimes for fun.


----------



## majlo

LilianaB said:


> I hardly ever check any dictionaries at all. Sometimes for fun.


I _did _think so! Know-it-all people have this tendency.


----------



## LilianaB

It is better to know all than to know too little: no one knows all, perhaps the Almighty. And it is still better to know what one wants to know and is interested in than to be arrogant just for the arrogance's sake.


----------



## ryba

Dreamlike, please, you must be kidding.


dreamlike said:


> Liliana, are you woman at the helm of Polish language to say which construction one "can" use in writing and which not? I would never, ever use "tu pisze" in writing, regardles of the register of the text, and it is inadvisable to do so. "W książce jest napisane" is far from being informal - I'd say it's semi-formal. _"Autor pisze" or "autor przedstawia" _are strikingly different phrases, used in different contexts, when one wants to convey a completely different thing.


What Liliana meant was just that, in formal texts and in written texts, other constructions sound better. For instance, "Św. Paweł Apostoł pisze w liście do Koryntian (…)" and "Ewangelia głosi (…)" sound better (more precise, and thus, more serious) than either "W liście do Koryntian jest napisane (…)" or "W liście do Koryntian pisze (…)". Don't pretend you don't see it.



dreamlike said:


> Ryba, there is a fine line between "idiom" and "idiomatic", but it exists. We have to draw a distinction between "idiom" and "idiomatic", because it's not one and the same. "O co chodzi" is a fully-fledged idiom, whereas "Tu pisze" is barely idiomatic, and it owes it's minute idiomatic nature to people who misuse it. We don't need the faintest degree of idiomaticness to convey the idea that something reads something.


First, you condemn _pisać [coś] (gdzieś_) because it's more idiomatic than _być napisane_ (remember the line in which you said you like _być napisane_ more "[f]or the sole reason that it's more logical"?). It is idiomatic because people who employ it make it so.

Then, I give you the example of _chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś)_, whose degree of idiomaticity is higher (so, according to your sole criterium, you should condemn it even more). Again, it is idiomatic because people who employ it make it so.

And you end up insisting _chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś)_ is OK, because people who *use* the language made it idiomatic, while _pisać [coś] (gdzieś_) is not OK, because people who *misuse* the language made it idiomatic. Oh, come on, you must see how biassed and subjective your view is.


dreamlike said:


> A way to go, guys, I eagerly anticipate your next defensive campaign, I can hear "poszłem" crying for your help, and there are plenty of more!


Now I can see you were kidding. You just can't be serious.


----------



## LilianaB

Unfortunately, this is very serious, from what I have known so far about Dreamlike, nothing bad is being meant. Just an observation.


----------



## majlo

I hope you mean your arrogance, because it takes all the arrogance there is out there to pretend you know everything.


----------



## LilianaB

I do not pretend I know everything;I am not extremely arrogant either. Sometimes a little bit of dexterity is essential to survival.


----------



## dreamlike

No, I'm totally in earnest, ryba. And please don't resort to eristic tricks to prove your point, and undermine mine, saying that "I must be kidding", "You can't be serious". 

That being said, I might've missed the point of your posts or you just didn't make things clear. I agree that "Św. Apostoł pisze w liście.... (...)" sound a way better than the alternatives, and the text achieves more serious overtones because of that. But, prey, what does that have to do with "pisze vs być napisane"?  

Can you grasp the difference between the two? 
*(1.) "W liście do Koryntian pisze, że....."
"W liście do Koryntian jest napisane, że..."
**(2.) "Św. Apostoł pisze w liście do Koryntian..."
"Ewangelia głosi..."*

In the first instance one makes no mention of the author, and lays emphasis on the content of the letter rather than the author. In the second instance we're dealing with the name of activity - writing - which had been conducted by the Apostle. As I pointed it out in my previous post: "_Autor pisze" or "autor przedstawia" are strikingly different phrases, used in different contexts, when one wants to convey a completely different thing. " _And _I_ don't condemn such usage. I loathe "tu pisze" used to say that some piece of text is written somewhere. 



			
				LilianaB said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is very serious, from what I have known so far about Dreamlike, nothing bad is being meant. Just an observation.




I will refrain from commenting this one, I don't want to bicker with you - it would be a complete waste of my time!


----------



## LilianaB

I was right; you were serious about it, not kidding. This is what I meant.


----------



## BezierCurve

Looks like "tu pisze" will need yet another generation of speakers to pass before it gets legalized... It all really depends on how many people persecuted for its usage as children will become parents or teachers and how badly their memories affected their idiolects. 

I suppose "poszłem" will take a little longer.

I wonder what we're actually fighting about. Language evolution never stops, so I guess we're only arguing about what point in time it takes now. It's like... arguing where the sea ends while watching its tidal move. 

I think it would make more sense to apply some sort of research (or maybe just a simple poll) to see how far this process has gone so far. So, say, as for today 85% of speakers use "tu pisze" on daily basis of which 20% think that their parents wouldn't be happy to hear them speak.


----------



## dreamlike

Wow, you have the audacity to share your hopes that one day "poszłem" will become acceptable on a language forum. That's the spirit! Any other common, glaring mistakes that you would wish to become permissible? Now that you are out in the open with your attitude towards language mistakes you don't have to control yourself anymore. 



			
				BezierCurve said:
			
		

> So, say, as for today 85% of speakers use "tu pisze" on daily basis of which 20% think that their parents wouldn't be happy to hear them speak.




Most of people I know use the form "jest napisane", be they educated or uneducated people.

Liliana, if you can tell the difference between* "someone" pisze "something"* and *"something" pisze "somewhere",* I feel sorry for you. It's not the same.


----------



## LilianaB

Dreamlike, censors from PRL do not stand a chance against you. I think they were more liberal.


----------



## dreamlike

Are you capable of any normal discussion, answering someone's else arguments, providing yours, instead of labelling your interlocutors as God knows who? What a faulty comparison. PRL censors used to impose censorship on the *content,* not the *form*.


----------



## LilianaB

You are trying to impose censorship on both, the content and the form.


----------



## dreamlike

And you're unable to justify your opinions, have normal discussion with people. The way you discuss with people just repels me. And it's not only my opinion. (_"nothing bad is being meant. Just an observation.")_ Handy to know about, Liliana, I wonder where did I try to impose censorship on the content


----------



## LilianaB

Be repelled then, what can I do. Yes, you were trying to tell Bezier Curve, how he dared to say something or claim something. People can say whatever they want: whatever they feel they have to express.


----------



## BezierCurve

I merely have the audacity to note that more and more people nationwide use the shortcuts you find despicable. 

As for the people you know - they might either have survived similar linguistic trauma in their childhood or simply got corrected by you too many times to allow themselves to use "tu pisze".


----------



## majlo

Most of the people I know - be it educated or uneducated - say "(tu) jest napisane". Actually, it's a vast majority of them. As for generational changes, if my daughter should ever catch on the horrible sounding and looking "tu pisze", yes, I will definitely correct her.


----------



## dreamlike

Is "shortcut" a euphemism for "mistake" in your dictionary, Bezier? As far as "tu pisze" goes, one can label it as "shortcut", although I'd be more inclined to use the words "error" or "linguistic sloppiness" - but "poszłem" certainly doesn't qualify as such, no matter how badly you want it. 

As for the number of people who take such linguistic "shortcuts", my impression is that people are becoming increasingly aware of the language they use, and most of them try to speak decent Polish. But maybe it's more of a wishful thinking than the real state of affairs..


----------



## LilianaB

Tu pisze is an older Slavic form: most Slavic languages have it except Polish and Russian. I just found out on the All Slavic Forum.


----------



## BezierCurve

We could talk about mistakes in maths or physics, where you have strict rules that do not change over time. In language it's more of an agreement between its users, who in fact own it. 

Depending on what's the priority for you - is it the leading linguists' opinion or the average user, you may assume something is accepted or not. As the average user usually makes it accepted over time, I'd go for the latter. But I agree that sticking to the "rules" helps to make this change gradually, which is easier for all.

As for authoritative opinions - Mirosław Bańko sees "tu pisze" as acceptable in everyday speech, not acceptable (yet) in writing.


----------



## majlo

BezierCurve said:


> Depending on what's the priority for you - is it the leading linguists' opinion or the average user, you may assume something is accepted or not.
> 
> As for authoritative opinions - Mirosław Bańko sees "tu pisze" as acceptable in everyday speech, not acceptable (yet) in writing.



What if both of these differ in the "correct" usage? 
As far as I remember Mr Bańko's entry from the _PWN Poradnia_, he labelled this construction incorrect in careful speech, but I might be mistaken.


----------



## BezierCurve

I think he did (I was referring to the colloquial speech here). But that's a question of the register we're using though, which makes the whole concept of "correctness" even more blurred.


----------



## Thomas1

This discussion sort of reminds me about the one we had about 'czym..., tym...'.
Anyway, there is another wording, which is hardly ever used in Modern Polish, but still you can find it once in a while: [gdzieś] stało, że... For instance: W gazecie stało, że X zabił Y. The meaning is the same as of 'w gazecie pisało, że...'.


Here is something interesting:


> [...] _pisało w gazecie_; _stało w gazecie_. Jest to bardzo  często używana forma powołania się na jakiś komunikat drukowany w  prasie, która mimo swojej bezosobowości nie ma podtekstu lekceważenia.  Ten sam obiektywny charakter ma również zwrot: mówili przez radio, który jest bezosobowy w treści, chociaż osobowy w formie.
> Source: _Rocznik warszawski_, Tom 12, Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy., 1974


I am very curious as to what the history of these two wordings is.

I am wondering why it is so that if many other Slavic languages treat the '[gdzieś] pisze, że...' construction as correct, we in Polish deem it blatantly incorrect, although there are many people who have been using it for a very long time, which is not even a moot point. Can't it be treated for example as colloquial as 'czym..., tym...' has recently been found? Bądź tu mądry i pisz wiersze.


----------



## POLSKAdoBOJU

Thomas1 said:


> I am wondering why it is so that if many other Slavic languages treat the '[gdzieś] pisze, że...' construction as correct, we in Polish deem it blatantly incorrect,


Respectfully, I fail to see how what other Slavic languages deem to be correct or not should have any bearing on proper contemporary Polish grammar.
_Godzina_ (or it's derivatives) means year in most other Slavic languages ex: Croatian/Serbian/Bulgarian/Macedonian _godina_, Russian _god_, Belorussian _hod.
_This does mean the Polish meaning should be changed.


----------



## ryba

Thomas1 said:


> Anyway, there is another wording, which is  hardly ever used in Modern Polish, but still you can find it once in a  while: [gdzieś] stało, że... For instance: W gazecie stało, że X zabił  Y. The meaning is the same as of 'w gazecie pisało, że...'.



Yes, it's a nice one. I mentioned it in posts #16 and #20. It may be a calque of German _stehen_, used in the same manner. As you can see here,  its equivalents are to be found in other Slavic languages, too (e.g. in  Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian and in Slovak), but, again, it may still be a  loan translation from German, as German culture (and print culture!)  has always been influential in Central Europe and the Balkans.




Thomas1 said:


> Here is something interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] _pisało w gazecie_; _stało w gazecie_. Jest  to bardzo   często używana forma powołania się na jakiś komunikat  drukowany w   prasie, która mimo swojej bezosobowości nie ma podtekstu  lekceważenia.   Ten sam obiektywny charakter ma również zwrot: mówili  przez radio, który  jest bezosobowy w treści, chociaż osobowy w  formie.
> Source:_Rocznik warszawski_, Tom 12, Państwowy Instytut  Wydawniczy., 1974
> 
> 
> 
> I am very curious as to what the history of these two wordings is.
Click to expand...


So am I. I wish there was a Polish linguist capable of giving a  competent answer. It's a really interesting research topic. Do all  filologowie polscy write about literature?!



POLSKAdoBOJU said:


> Respectfully, I fail to see how what other  Slavic languages deem to be correct or not should have any bearing on  proper contemporary Polish grammar.



Because it gives us hints about its history. First of all, it helps us dismiss the urban legend that impersonal _pisać_ is some kind of novelty in our language. The presence of _Pisać [coś] (gdzieś)_ in languages related, yet distant (Slovenian! BCS! Bulgarian!) suggests it has been around for a while (it or _*SOMETHING_ we're no longer aware of, something that contributed to its appearance in all of them, whatever it might have been). It suggests it's been around for a  while just like the very similar impersonal construction _chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś)_ I mentioned in posts #67, #70, and, above all, #75.

 If you take a closer look at both of them, you'll see they look and work alike.

_3 os. l. poj. czasownika „Chodzić” + Miejscownik + (Określenie miejsca).
__3 os. l. poj. czasownika „__Pisać” + Biernik__ + (Określenie miejsca)._

For purely semantic reasons, as this impersonal _pisać _is inherently communicative in nature (in an even more direct manner than the personal _pisać_, which affords the possibility of using synechdoche/metonymy, cf. _pisać listy_), most of the time this Accusative (_Biernik_) assumes the form of a subordinate clause („że...”, e.g. _Pisało, że zdałeś_) or of a direct quote („...”, e.g. _Pisało „Press OK to validate the request”, więc wcisnąłem._), and never takes an animate object (= never answers the question _„Kogo?”_ -- _Biernik: Kogo? Co?_). I said "most of the time", because it can also assume the form of an indefinite pronoun (e.g. _Coś tu pisze_) or, naturally, of an interrogative pronoun (e.g. _Co tu pisze?_). I think that's all there's to be said about the allegéd inherent "oddness" of the construction.

_Chodzić [o coś/kogoś] (gdzieś)_ is also quite peculiar. It probably originated from the ditransitive _Chodzić [o coś/kogoś (Miejscownik -- Locative)] [komuś (Celownik -- Dative)]_, but is now a bona fide monotransitive impersonal verbal construction. I don't think it was the other way round, but maybe? The process of semantic bleaching has made it impossible for me to decide. In fact, we no longer even know why the verb _chodzić_ is used there (if you do, please, let me know ). Just like _pisać [coś] (gdzieś)_, it differs from the majority of Polish impersonal verb forms in that it does not refer to the weather (e.g. _padać_ in _Padało cały dzień_) or sensual perceptions (e.g. _boleć_ in _Bolało mnie całą noc_).

 The only true difference between the two seems to be that someday someone must have decided _Pisać [coś] (gdzieś) _is bad, and told others, while they failed to do so in the case of _chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś)_. Otherwise, you'd see both constructions as equally natural (or equally incorrect, if you insist). What do you think?

To me, saying that _Było napisane_ is correct but _Pisało_ is not is much like saying _Padał deszcz is correct_ but _Padało_ is not.


----------



## LilianaB

I absolutley agree with you Ryba, not that I want to correct the variation of Polish spoken in Poland now, or rather variations. Now, when you mentioned it, stoi is a Silesian construction, _co tu stoi_, from German stehen, probably. Osobiscie nie wydaje mi sie zeby dzwieczalo to zbyt dobrze w literackim jezyki polskim, jest to tym niemniej ta sama konstrukcja.


----------



## dn88

Thomas1 said:


> This discussion sort of reminds me about the one we had about 'czym..., tym...'.
> Anyway, there is another wording, which is hardly ever used in Modern Polish, but still you can find it once in a while: [gdzieś] stało, że... For instance: W gazecie stało, że X zabił Y. The meaning is the same as of 'w gazecie pisało, że...'.



Wouldn't "stało" be shorthand for "stało napisane"?


----------



## dreamlike

LilianaB said:
			
		

> Osobiscie nie wydaje mi sie zeby dzwieczalo to zbyt dobrze w literackim jezyki polskim, jest to tym niemniej ta sama konstrukcja




I hope you won't take offence at my pointing this out, but "dźwięczało" doesn't really work here. A native-speaker would go for "brzmiało". Also, it's "języku". 

Ryba, you're arguments sound pretty reasonable, now that I had given it some thought. You almost win me over. I'll keep using "Tu jest napisane", though, if only because it's looked upon favourably by most people, as opossed to "Tu pisze".


----------



## dreamlike

By the way, I just asked my Polish teacher and she finds 'tu pisze' very nice, and says that she accepts its usage in spoken language. Who would've thought..


----------



## LilianaB

Ask her, Dreamlike, the rest of the things I 've been saying, and she will say the same. Nice.


----------



## dreamlike

I find it rather uncommon for Polish language teacher to hold such views. Most of the teacher would gave me a dirty look if I had even asked them this question..


----------



## LilianaB

She is really a knowledgeable woman and open-minded.


----------



## ryba

ryba said:


> _Chodzić [o coś/kogoś] (gdzieś)_ is also quite peculiar. It probably originated from the ditransitive _chodzić [o coś/kogoś (miejscownik -- Locative)] [komuś (celownik -- dative)]_, but is now a bona fide monotransitive impersonal verbal construction. I don't think it was the other way round, but maybe? The process of semantic bleaching has made it impossible for me to decide. In fact, we no longer even know why the verb _chodzić_ is used there (if you do, please, let me know ). Just like _pisać [coś] (gdzieś)_, it differs from the majority of Polish impersonal verb forms in that it does not refer to the weather (e.g. _padać_ in _Padało cały dzień_) or sensual perceptions (e.g. _boleć_ in _bolało mnie całą noc_).
> 
> The only true difference between the two seems to be that someday someone must have decided _Pisać [coś] (gdzieś) _is bad, and told others, while they failed to do so in the case of _chodzić [o coś] (gdzieś)_. Otherwise, you'd see both constructions as equally natural (or equally incorrect, if you insist). What do you think?
> 
> To me, saying that _Było napisane_ is correct but _Pisało_ is not is much like saying _Padał deszcz is correct_ but _Padało_ is not.



And yet Rada Języka Polskiego proscribes _tu pisze _on its site - opinion by prof. A. Markowski given in 2005 who calls it a blatant syntax error (and underlines the blatant error part to give it more force). Well, I take it's pure exacerbated prescriptivism. He doesn't even care to give the reason for his opinion despite the asker having expressedly requested a source. He just says that _tu pisze _always requires a subject. As if expletive subjects didn't count? Does every subject have to be a she or an uncle? 

I didn't realize that back in 2012 but _chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) _corresponds to German _es geht um_:

_chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) = es geht [um etwas] (irgendwo)_, as in _worum geht es hier?_ 'o co tu chodzi?',​​and may very well be a (very well established) German calque (loan translation).


----------



## Ben Jamin

ryba said:


> And yet Rada Języka Polskiego proscribes _tu pisze _on its site - opinion by prof. A. Markowski given in 2005 who calls it a blatant syntax error (and underlines the blatant error part to give it more force). Well, I take it's pure exacerbated prescriptivism. He doesn't even care to give the reason for his opinion despite the asker having expressedly requested a source. He just says that _tu pisze _always requires a subject. As if expletive subjects didn't count? Does every subject have to be a she or an uncle?
> 
> I didn't realize that back in 2012 but _chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) _corresponds to German _es geht um_:
> 
> _chodzi [o coś] (gdzieś) = es geht [um etwas] (irgendwo)_, as in _worum geht es hier?_ 'o co tu chodzi?',​​and may very well be a (very well established) German calque (loan translation).


The German calque explanation is the most plausible, and probably 100% correct. The discussion about its origin shows how blind language purists can be. By the way, other Germanic languages have similar constructions. Norwegian has "det dreier seg om" (it turns around).
Twenty years from now there may occur discussions about the mysterious origins of the expression "to mnie kręci" (a mistranslation of English "it turns me *on*" (not *around)*).


----------

