# Russian chodit´ vs Polish chodzić



## Lorenc

The Russian verb chodit´ (ходить) almost always corresponds to Polish chodzić, but it seems to me that there are differences in some cases. Specifically, in Russian chodit´ can be used with the meaning 'going to a place and coming back'; for example (I'll write Russian in Polish translitteration):

wczera ja chodił w magazin => dosł.: 'wczoraj ja chodziłem do sklepu' 
wczera ja chodiła k swojej podrugie Anie => dosł.: 'wczoraj ja chodziłam do swojej koleżanki Ani' 

It seems to me that in such cases Polish uses być, but never (?) chodzić: wczoraj byłem w sklepie, wczoraj byłam u swojej koleżanki Ani. Any thoughts?


----------



## zaffy

Wczoraj byłem w sklepie.
Wczoraj poszedłem do sklepu.

'Chodziłem' can't refer to a single action.


----------



## Lorenc

zaffy said:


> 'Chodziłem' can't refer to a single action.



Well, yes, but the point is that  "going to the shop" in Polish is a single, unidirectional process but in Russian is evidently perceived to be a multidirectional process (going there and coming back). If you ask me, it is Russian that uses its verbs of motion 'weirdly'. Here's another unrelated example: 'ja poszoł/poszła!' to mean 'ja (już) idę'.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Lorenc said:


> Well, yes, but the point is that  "going to the shop" in Polish is a single, unidirectional process but in Russian is evidently perceived to be a multidirectional process (going there and coming back). If you ask me, it is Russian that uses its verbs of motion 'weirdly'. Here's another unrelated example: 'ja poszoł/poszła!' to mean 'ja (już) idę'.


In Polish you use two verbs to express the concept of "going". If you describe a single trip (forth and back) you always use "iść" (imperfective) and "pójść" (perfective): Wczoraj poszedłem do sklepu (a single trip, perfective).
Wczoraj chodziłem po sklepach (imperfective, because the action was repeated). I was in many shops yesterday, I went from shop to shop.
We wouldn't use "ja" in these sentences in Polish because the verb in the past indicates the person (which Russian doesn't).


----------



## Lorenc

Thanks. Your considerations therefore confirm that this use of chodzić/chodit´ differs in Polish and Russian.



Ben Jamin said:


> It also indicates the gender of the subject (which Russian doesn't either).



What do you mean? Russian verbs in the past do indicate the gender (in the singular, though admittedly not in the plural), just like in Polish (chodił/chodiła/chodiło => chodził, chodziła, chodziło)


----------



## Ben Jamin

Lorenc said:


> Thanks. Your considerations therefore confirm that this use of chodzić/chodit´ differs in Polish and Russian.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean? Russian does verbs in the past do indicate the gender (in the singular, though admittedly not in the plural), just like in Polish (chodił/chodziła/chodziło => chodził, chodziła, chodziło)


You are right, I made an error here. Sorry, a moment of confusion.


----------



## ahvalj

I think the verb used in Russian is not itself relevant here: it is just a particular case of the Russian use of imperfectives (in the past and future) to denote actions that began, lasted and then were cancelled, like in _kto otkrywał okno?_ “who had opened and then has closed the window?”. This construction is not very widespread since due to the extreme poverty of the tense system it too often creates ambiguity, but when contextually clear it is quite possible with a number of verbs.

P. S. An example of the future tense: _kto budiet otkrywať okno, sleditie, cztoby pticy nie zaletali_ — here _budiet otkrywať okno_ implies the same action but projected into the future: “who will open the window for a while (e. g. for ventilation) to close it afterwards”, that is not a continuous, or repeated, or incomplete action, as typical for imperfectives, but a "cancelled perfective". Ideally, of course, a special set of tenses should have developed to express all this, but alas…


----------



## Lorenc

ahvalj said:


> I think the verb used in Russian is not itself relevant here:



I'm not sure I follow what you're saying... I'm specifically comparing Russian chodit´ and Polish chodzić, and it turns out that in at least one situation (namely: having been to a place) their usage differ. It doesn't seem to me that this fact is indicative of a general difference in Polish/Russian imperfective verbs.


----------



## ahvalj

Then I hope to get an explanation from Polish speakers…

In Russian you can imagine a number of imperfective verbs with the meaning of a single canceled action:

_w proszłom godu ona letała w Italiju_ (she went there by plane and returned)
_no ty że ubirała so stoła_ (you cleaned the table but it is full/dirty again)
_ja wieď diełał uroki_ (I insist I prepared my homework, despite no sign of this I can present).
P. S. And concerning verbs of motion, you can use any semantically appropriate imperfective verb there to denote a single reversed action:

_wczera ja chodiła k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja zachodiła k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja jezdiła k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja zajezżała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja biegała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja zabiegała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja nawiedywałaś k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja letała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja zapołzała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja zabriedała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja zaskakiwała k swojej podrugie Anie_
_wczera ja goniała k swojej podrugie Anie._
P. P. S. And, by the way, this "reversed perfective" in its turn seems to be a particular case of the aorist use of the Russian imperfectives. When in a context both a perfective and an imperfective can occur, the perfective may mean an actual past (= perfect, = _I have something done, = lo tengo hecho_) versus a past that is just mentioned, expressed by an imperfective (= aorist, _= I did, = lo hice_): _ja pojeł_ “I have eaten (= I am not hungry); he comido” vs. _ja jeł_ “I ate (= just mentioning the event); comí (not comía: not a Romance imperfect with its repetitive or processual meaning in this case and neither estaba comiendo)”.

The difference between _wczera ja poszła k swojej podrugie Anie_ and _wczera ja chodiła k swojej podrugie Anie _primarily seems to be in the absence of the actual meaning in the latter: _wczera ja poszła_ also may mean that I am not there today, but it is not quite explicitly stated, whereas _wczera ja chodiła _implies that I am certainly not there at the moment.

What I am trying to argue is that the verb _chodiť _itself is not a bearer of any special semantic valence comparing to its Polish counterpart. It is the Russian imperfective that is less specialized for denoting non-punctual actions than in Polish. The language has several oppositions, and the perfective (which is marked) is always used in Russian to convey a punctual action or the one that retains its significance for the present, whereas the imperfective (which is unmarked) conveys the rest, that is everything that is not expressed in that context by the perfective. That means: when in a context the perfective is used for a resultative ("lo tengo hecho"), the imperfective is used for an aorist, even if a single punctual action is implied ("lo hice"), and when the perfective is used for an aorist ("lo hice"), the imperfective is used for an imperfect ("lo hacía") or continuous ("lo estaba haciendo"). So many troubles due to the ruined tense system ,(


----------



## Lorenc

ahvalj said:


> Then I hope to get an explanation from Polish speakers…



Me too. In the meanwhile, I'll share some thoughts. I understood what you wrote only partially, but I think you've raised an important point. Regarding your sentences, I think *all *the corresponding Polish sentences using an imperfective verb are wrong (either with multidirectional or unidirectional verbs). 

Specifically (imperfective/multidirectional verbs):
1. wczoraj chodziłam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
2. wczoraj jeździłam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
3. wczoraj biegałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
4. wczoraj latałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.

In my perception these sound very wrong in Polish when referring to a single-trip event.
Versions with imperfective/unidirectional verbs:
5. wczoraj wpadałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
6. wczoraj zajeżdżałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.

These, too, sound wrong to me. I thought the the key-point which made the Russian sentences in the first group possible was the multi-directional character, but the examples you gave indicate that it is not so. 



ahvalj said:


> What I am trying to argue is that the verb _chodiť _itself is not a bearer of any special semantic valence comparing to its Polish counterpart. It is the Russian imperfective that is less specialized for denoting non-punctual actions than in Polish. [...]



If what you say is correct, which I'm sure it is, you are highlighting a relevant difference in the use of aspect between Polish and Russian. I've consulted several grammars of Russian for Poles, and of Polish for Russian, but I haven't found any description of this fact. For example, the only thing that ref. [I. Maryniakowa, Gramatyka konfrontatywna rosyjsko-polska : morfologia ze słowotwórstwem (1993)] has to say on the subject is p. 194  "W języku polskim nie ma istotnych różnic w zakresie znaczenia i tworzenia kategorii aspektu w stosunku do opisanego systemu języka rosyjskiego." (In Polish, there are no significant differences in the meaning and creation of the category of aspect in relation to the described system for Russian.)


----------



## Lorenc

Changing the subject slightly, a Polish person on a different internet forum said that all sentences of this type should use "mojej" and not "swojej", e.g. 'Wczoraj wpadłam do mojej kolezanki Ani.' and that "do swojej" is absolutely impossible. 
The same person also gave as an example this sentence: 
Wczoraj bylem u MOJEJ kolezanki Ani i sie dowiedzialem, ze u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg.

To me this sentence sounds doubly dubious, not only for the "mojej/swojej koleżanki" part, but also because to me "u swojej babci" can only mean "at my own granma's", not "at my friend's granma's" which in the given context seems the most logical option.
Any thoughts?


----------



## Awwal12

The key factor in Russian is returning back, which is always presumed in these phrases and which exactly allows using the multidirectional verb (with the general meaning of making a trip - which seems specific to Russian and other East Slavic languages; after all, it's not something intuitive and immediately obvious from the general structure). On the other hand, "я вчера ходил к другу и сейчас всё ещё у него" DOES sound wrong too (since you have arrived but there was no returning back). As for using imperfectives per se for a single action, I agree with ahvalj.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

In Polish, the imperfective can be used for a single action like in the examples in Russian when there's appropriate context.

For example:

Kto otwierał okno?
Who opened the window (and then shut it) (, although it was forbidden to open it)?

Kto jechał samochodem?
Who took the car (, drove somewhere and returned, but the engine is still warm and I explicitly told everyone that I don't want anyone to drive it)?


----------



## Lorenc

Piotr_WRF said:


> In Polish, the imperfective can be used for a single action like in the examples in Russian when there's appropriate context.



Thanks! How about


Lorenc said:


> 5. wczoraj wpadałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
> 6. wczoraj zajeżdżałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.



Do these work too???


----------



## Lorenc

ahvalj said:


> I think the verb used in Russian is not itself relevant here: it is just a particular case of the Russian use of imperfectives (in the past and future) to denote actions that began, lasted and then were cancelled, like in _kto otkrywał okno?_ “who had opened and then has closed the window?”.



I've finally found a rather detailed description of this use in 'Wade, A Comprehensive Russian Grammar', section 259 'Use of the imperfective past to denote an action and its reverse'. The whole matter in Russian is much clearer now. As to Polish, I haven't found any specific reference to this use (although general notes of the type 'imperfective aspect is used for single-actions which did not result in a change in the state of affairs' should apply in these cases). I've asked a few Polish people, but I received rather contradictory replies. I'll report here below the examples sentences given by Wade (in Polish transcription) as well as a literal Polish translation. I'd like to know if they work in all cases in Polish too.

1. She had a book out of the library (and has now returned it)
_Ru_ Ona *brała *knigu w bibliotiekie.
_Pl_ [Ona] *brała *książkę w bibliotece. 

2. It is so cold in my room today. Someone has probably had the window open in here [the window has been opened but is now shut again.]
_Ru _U mienie w komnatie tak chołodno siegodnia. Nawiernoje, kto-to *otkrywał *zdieś okno.
_Pl _W moim pokoju jest tak zimno dzisiaj. Na pewno ktoś *otwierał *tutaj okno.

3. He got up in the night (and went back to bed again)
_Ru _On *wstawał *noc'ju
_Pl_ [On] *wstawał *nocą

4. The child woke up, but now he is asleep again
_Ru_ Riebionok *prosypałsia*, no siejczas on opiat' spit
_Pl_ Dziecko *budził się*, ale teraz znowu śpi

5. One of them raised his arm. I liked the look of them and stopped. The one who had raised his arm [and then lowered it back down] thrust a dark-skinned face through the car window
_Ru_ Odin iz nich podniał ruku. Ich lica ponrawiliś mnie, i ja ostanowiłsia. Tot, kto *podnimał *ruku, prosunuł w maszynu smugłoje lico.
_Pl_ Jeden z nich podniósł rękę. Ich twarze mi się spodobały, i zatrzymałem się. Ten, kto *podnosił* rękę, wsunął do samochodu smagłą twarz.


----------



## Awwal12

Lorenc said:


> Changing the subject slightly, a Polish person on a different internet forum said that all sentences of this type should use "mojej" and not "swojej", e.g. 'Wczoraj wpadłam do mojej kolezanki Ani.' and that "do swojej" is absolutely impossible.
> The same person also gave as an example this sentence:
> Wczoraj bylem u MOJEJ kolezanki Ani i sie dowiedzialem, ze u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg.
> 
> To me this sentence sounds doubly dubious, not only for the "mojej/swojej koleżanki" part, but also because to me "u swojej babci" can only mean "at my own granma's", not "at my friend's granma's" which in the given context seems the most logical option.
> Any thoughts?


Russian can use both "моей" and "своей" here, the latter being slightly preferred. But Poles may have the ideas of their own about reflexive possessives.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Lorenc said:


> Wczoraj bylem u MOJEJ kolezanki Ani i sie dowiedzialem, ze u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg.
> 
> To me this sentence sounds doubly dubious, ...


To me this sentence is completely wrong, not only dubious. Until now I was convinced that such an error could only be made by a speaker of a Romance language. A relative of mine, for example, living in France from early childhood, and speaking only rudimentary Polish, used the expression "Swój ojciec powiedział (son pére a dit)". I tried to explain to him the principles of using the pronoun 'swój', but it was over his comprehension. It seems that these rules began to be beyond comprehension of native Polish speakers. In my opinion it is caused by the imfluence of English.


----------



## rotan

Lorenc said:


> 1. She had a book out of the library (and has now returned it)
> _Ru_ Ona *brała *knigu w bibliotiekie.
> _Pl_ [Ona] *brała *książkę w bibliotece.
> 
> 2. It is so cold in my room today. Someone has probably had the window open in here [the window has been opened but is now shut again.]
> _Ru _U mienie w komnatie tak chołodno siegodnia. Nawiernoje, kto-to *otkrywał *zdieś okno.
> _Pl _W moim pokoju jest tak zimno dzisiaj. Na pewno ktoś *otwierał *tutaj okno.
> 
> 3. He got up in the night (and went back to bed again)
> _Ru _On *wstawał *noc'ju
> _Pl_ [On] *wstawał *nocą
> 
> 4. The child woke up, but now he is asleep again
> _Ru_ Riebionok *prosypałsia*, no siejczas on opiat' spit
> _Pl_ Dziecko *budził się*, ale teraz znowu śpi
> 
> 5. One of them raised his arm. I liked the look of them and stopped. The one who had raised his arm [and then lowered it back down] thrust a dark-skinned face through the car window
> _Ru_ Odin iz nich podniał ruku. Ich lica ponrawiliś mnie, i ja ostanowiłsia. Tot, kto *podnimał *ruku, prosunuł w maszynu smugłoje lico.
> _Pl_ Jeden z nich podniósł rękę. Ich twarze mi się spodobały, i zatrzymałem się. Ten, kto *podnosił* rękę, wsunął do samochodu smagłą twarz.



Piotr is right, this only works with appropriate context
Examples 3 and 4 don't work if you ask me
The 5th one would probably work if we replaced "kto" with "ktory" (or "co", but this would be colloquial)
It would then tell the listener that you still mean the same person 
"Ten ktory podnosil reke"
"Ten co podnosil reke"

As natives, we will obviously get what you mean, but to me, "ten kto podnosil reke" refers to "anyone who raised their hand" more than "the one who raised their hand"


----------



## Lorenc

rotan said:


> Piotr is right, this only works with appropriate context



Yes, that much is clear, but then the question is 'what constitutes appropriate context?' This whole discussion shows that the appropriate context triggering past-imperfective for single actions is different in Polish and Russian...



rotan said:


> As natives, we will obviously get what you mean, but to me, "ten kto podnosil reke" refers to "anyone who raised their hand" more than "the one who raised their hand"



Ok, but what about verbal aspect? _Ten, który *podnosił *rękę, wsunął do samochodu smagłą twarz._ or _Ten, który *podniósł *rękę, wsunął do samochodu smagłą twarz._ ?


----------



## Lorenc

Ben Jamin said:


> To me this sentence is completely wrong, not only dubious. Until now I was convinced that such an error could only be made by a speaker of a Romance language



To me this shows that asking grammatically-illiterate people about non-trivial grammar issues is a very risky business (bordering with being a total waste of time).


----------



## Awwal12

Ben Jamin said:


> "Swój ojciec powiedział (son pére a dit)".


Well, that's obviously wrong, since the possessor is normally the subject, and here it would be recursive ("the one who's the father of his own"? ). However, Lorenc initially provided an entirely different grammatical  context ("byl*em* u mojej/swojej kolezanki"); I wonder what precisely would be wrong with "swojej" here (the *zero* 1p.sg. subject, probably?).


----------



## rotan

Lorenc said:


> Yes, that much is clear, but then the question is 'what constitutes appropriate context?' This whole discussion shows that the appropriate context triggering past-imperfective for single actions is different in Polish and Russian...


"appropriate context" would mean that it's correct to use both perfective and imperfective forms as long as it doesn't evidently change the meaning

For example, in 5, I personally don't care whether that person kept their hand raised for some time or put it down immediately, even though you mention it, because there's more action happening which also seems to be much more important
What matters is the fact of raising the hand itself, so both verbs work for me, but if this information is somehow important, use "podniosl" with your context

This is an example of not evidently changing the meaning:
Context: You and your friend witness a boy bringing a letter to someone in your neighborhood:
- Widziales tego chlopaka?
- Ktorego?
Possible answers:
1. No tego co teraz list zanosil do sasiada
2. No tego co teraz list zaniosl do sasiada
3. No tego co teraz list niosl do sasiada
Despite using different forms, all of them mean the same to me, because I don't care if the letter was delivered, I care about seeing him with the letter, so I will be easily understood even when using 2.

... and this is an example of doing it:
- Przez caly ten czas okno bylo otwierane
(the window was repeatedly opened and closed the entire time)
- Przez caly ten czas okno bylo otwarte
(the window was open the entire time)
Here, the meaning changes drastically

However, examples 3 and 4 would actually make sense, but only on their own, they are incorrect with your English context


----------



## Lorenc

Awwal12 said:


> I wonder what precisely would be wrong with "swojej" here (the *zero* 1p.sg. subject, probably?).



As far as I can tell from, e.g., reading up here, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and in fact the article laments that fact that more and more Poles use 'mój' when in fact 'swój' would be more correct. Quote from the article:
Zdaniem prof. Mariana Bugajskiego z Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego przytoczona zasada „we współczesnej (mniej starannej) polszczyźnie jest nagminnie łamana. Wobec tego zdanie Naprawiłem mój (zamiast swój) samochód. w języku potocznym (mniej starannym) jest dopuszczalne”.
Translation: According to Prof. Marian Bugajski from the University of Zielona Góra the above-mentioned rule "in contemporary (less careful) Polish is chronically violated. Therefore, the sentence 'Naprawiłem *mój* (intead of *swój*) samochód' in colloquial (less careful) language it is acceptable”.


----------



## rotan

This also depends
For example, you can't say "To jest swoj dom" instead of "To jest moj dom"

Unless by "swoj" you mean e.g "nice", "friendly", "amicable" etc... but still, it sounds odd in that context and I don't think anyone would use it to describe the atmosphere in this house or something
With this meaning, this word is mostly used with the expression "swoj chlop", which even has its English translation - good sort


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Lorenc said:


> Thanks! How about
> 
> 
> Lorenc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. wczoraj wpadałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
> 6. wczoraj zajeżdżałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do these work too???
Click to expand...

They don't work for me for semantic reasons, I'd use other verbs.

For example:
_Wczoraj jechałem do swojej koleżanki Ani, jak nagle zerwała się burza.
Yesterday I was driving to my friend Ania when a thunderstorm broke out._


----------



## rotan

They don't work on their own for me either, but if it was e.g "Jak wczoraj wpadalem/zajezdzalem do swojej kolezanki Ani, to widzialem jak jej sasiad wychodzil z domu", it would be acceptable in everyday speech


----------



## numerator

> u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg


As a Slavic speaker, I think this part of the sentence sounds so utterly and unbelievably wrong (except in a bizarre fairy tale about the snow's grandmother???) that I suspect your source was enagaging in good old-fashioned trolling (saying completely outrageous things just to confuse people or get them to fight).


----------



## Ben Jamin

Lorenc said:


> To me this shows that asking grammatically-illiterate people about non-trivial grammar issues is a very risky business (bordering with being a total waste of time).


Whom do you call illiterate?


----------



## Lorenc

Ben Jamin said:


> Whom do you call illiterate?



I said 'grammatically-illiterate' and I was referring to the person who taught me that the sentence 'Wczoraj bylem u MOJEJ kolezanki Ani i sie dowiedzialem, ze u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg.' is correct


----------



## rotan

It's not
You can't use moj --> swoj replacement in every situation


----------



## Ben Jamin

rotan said:


> "appropriate context" would mean that it's correct to use both perfective and imperfective forms as long as it doesn't evidently change the meaning
> 
> For example, in 5, I personally don't care whether that person kept their hand raised for some time or put it down immediately, even though you mention it, because there's more action happening which also seems to be much more important
> What matters is the fact of raising the hand itself, so both verbs work for me, but if this information is somehow important, use "podniosl" with your context
> 
> This is an example of not evidently changing the meaning:
> Context: You and your friend witness a boy bringing a letter to someone in your neighborhood:
> - Widziales tego chlopaka?
> - Ktorego?
> Possible answers:
> 1. No tego co teraz list zanosil do sasiada
> 2. No tego co teraz list zaniosl do sasiada
> 3. No tego co teraz list niosl do sasiada
> Despite using different forms, all of them mean the same to me, because I don't care if the letter was delivered, I care about seeing him with the letter, so I will be easily understood even when using 2.
> 
> ... and this is an example of doing it:
> - Przez caly ten czas okno bylo otwierane
> (the window was repeatedly opened and closed the entire time)
> - Przez caly ten czas okno bylo otwarte
> (the window was open the entire time)
> Here, the meaning changes drastically
> 
> However, examples 3 and 4 would actually make sense, but only on their own, they are incorrect with your English context





Lorenc said:


> I said 'grammatically-illiterate' and I was referring to the person who taught me that the sentence 'Wczoraj bylem u MOJEJ kolezanki Ani i sie dowiedzialem, ze u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg.' is correct


Thank you!


----------



## rotan

Ben Jamin said:


> Thank you!


Why is my post quoted?


----------



## marco_2

Lorenc said:


> As far as I can tell from, e.g., reading up here, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and in fact the article laments that fact that more and more Poles use 'mój' when in fact 'swój' would be more correct. Quote from the article:
> Zdaniem prof. Mariana Bugajskiego z Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego przytoczona zasada „we współczesnej (mniej starannej) polszczyźnie jest nagminnie łamana. Wobec tego zdanie Naprawiłem mój (zamiast swój) samochód. w języku potocznym (mniej starannym) jest dopuszczalne”.
> Translation: According to Prof. Marian Bugajski from the University of Zielona Góra the above-mentioned rule "in contemporary (less careful) Polish is chronically violated. Therefore, the sentence 'Naprawiłem *mój* (intead of *swój*) samochód' in colloquial (less careful) language it is acceptable”.


Well, in the second person using 'twój' instead of 'swój' sounds weird to me, though it seems to me I heard such an option:
- Powiedz *swojej *siostrze, żeby do mnie przyszła. (Powiedz *twojej *siostrze... ?)

However, it is impossible in the third person because it would lead to ambiguity:
- Ania dostała jedynkę ze sprawdzianu, ale nie powiedziała o tym *swojej *matce. (never: **jej* matce*)
- Ania poszła wczoraj na wagary, ale wychowawczyni natychmiast powiadomiła o tym *jej *matkę. (Ann's mother, not her own mother /teacher's mother)


----------



## rotan

marco_2 said:


> Well, in the second person using 'twój' instead of 'swój' sounds weird to me, though it seems to me I heard such an option:
> - Powiedz *swojej *siostrze, żeby do mnie przyszła. (Powiedz *twojej *siostrze... ?)



This is quite common actually
You could even say "Powiedz siostrze" and the other speaker would still understand you mean their sister


----------



## Awwal12

In Russian "tvojéj" will normally appear only in "tell it to that sister of yours that..." ("skažý étoj tvojéj sestrié, što..").


----------



## marco_2

rotan said:


> This is quite common actually
> You could even say "Powiedz siostrze" and the other speaker would still understand you mean their sister


Sure, on condition that 'siostra' doesn't mean 'nurse' or 'nun'.


----------



## rotan

I was about to mention that in my previous post


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ben Jamin said:


> Thank you!





rotan said:


> Why is my post quoted?


I don't know. It was not my intention. It must have been an accident.


----------



## jasio

Please note that in Polish - and in Russian probably as well - specific usage of aspects, especially in the case of the most common verbs, does not necessarily follow theoretical patterns very strictly. Including at least the basic verbs of movement. So it happens that the aspect differs from what you might expect. 

Anyway, I would understand the following phrases as: 


Lorenc said:


> Specifically (imperfective/multidirectional verbs):
> 1. wczoraj chodziłam do swojej koleżanki Ani.


The subject visited her friend a couple of times. 



Lorenc said:


> 2. wczoraj jeździłam do swojej koleżanki Ani.


Likewise - except that she rode or drove there. 



Lorenc said:


> 3. wczoraj biegałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.


Likewise - except that she ran or rushed there. 



Lorenc said:


> 4. wczoraj latałam do swojej koleżanki Ani.


Likewise - except that it's more colloquial than the last one. 



Lorenc said:


> Changing the subject slightly, a Polish person on a different internet forum


Don't believe everything, you find in the net. ;-)



Lorenc said:


> said that all sentences of this type should use "mojej" and not "swojej", e.g. 'Wczoraj wpadłam do mojej kolezanki Ani.' and that "do swojej" is absolutely impossible.


Actually, I would skip the reflexive pronoun entirely. "Wczoraj wpadłam do koleżanki, Ani". If I used the reflexive pronoun - to avoid confusion whether I visited my friend named Anna or Anna's friend if the coma is not clear enough - I would prefer to use "swojej" rather than "mojej" - but in fact both are ok. 



Lorenc said:


> The same person also gave as an example this sentence:
> Wczoraj bylem u MOJEJ kolezanki Ani i sie dowiedzialem, ze u SWOJEJ babci na wsi spadl snieg.


WHOSE granny? 
"JEJ babci"!

"Swój" can be used in similar phrases indeed, but not in this one. 
"Wczoraj byłem u MOJEJ koleżanki, Ani, i dowiedziałem sie, że odwiedziła SWOJĄ babcię" is ok. (meaning - she visited her own granny). 

but

"Wczoraj byłem u MOJEJ koleżanki, Ani, i dowiedziałem sie, że u *SWO*JEJ babci na wsi spadł śnieg".

Too late to find the sources, but at the first glance the difference is in the subject of the subordinate clause: Ania vs. snow. In case of the latter it would have to mean that the snow had a granny, which really makes little sense to me. 



Lorenc said:


> To me this sentence sounds doubly dubious, not only for the "mojej/swojej koleżanki" part, but also because to me "u swojej babci" can only mean "at my own granma's", not "at my friend's granma's" which in the given context seems the most logical option.
> Any thoughts?


If it were to be my granny, the phrase should say: 
"Wczoraj byłem u MOJEJ koleżanki, Ani, i dowiedziałem sie, że u MOJEJ babci na wsi spadł śnieg" - which may be ok, if for example Ania knows my granny and stays in contact with her for a reason. Could be a typical conversation of expats. ;-)


----------



## Włoskipolak 72

Witam Wszystkich

The No-Nonsense Guide to Polish Possessive Pronouns..


*swój* _(masculine)_, *swoja* _(feminine)_, *swoje* _(neuter)_, *swoi* _(plural masculine personal)_, *swoje* _(plural, all others)_
Now, take a look at these two examples:


*Dała to jej rodzicom*. – She gave it to her parents.
*Dała to swoim rodzicom.* – She gave it to her *own* parents.

Do you notice the difference? From the first example, we can deduce this thing:
that a female gave something to parents of another female.

Compare it with the second sentence. Here, it’s clear that a female gave something to her own parents..


*Mam swoje powody*. – I have my (own) reasons.
*Przyniosłaś swoja książkę?* –Did you bring your (own) book?

See what I mean? Why can’t we say “mam moje powody” and “przyniosłaś twoją książkę”? Technically, the grammar is correct, and technically it shouldn’t be wrong, yet, for a native speaker “*swój*” is the only proper choice in those sentences. And that is regardless of what Polish textbooks written by foreigners tell you.

I would say that in the beginning it’s probably best to remember that “*swój” refers to one’s own something-something*.
And the easiest way to remember it for a long time is through this:


*On kocha swoją żonę.* – He loves his (own) wife.
*On kocha jego żonę.* – He loves his wife. (which in this instance would be not his own but some other guy’s wife..)









Swój or mój? - possessive pronouns continued


----------



## zaffy

Włoskipolak 72 said:


> *Dała to jej rodzicom*. – She gave it to her parents.
> *Dała to swoim rodzicom.* – She gave it to her *own* parents.
> 
> Do you notice the difference? From the first example, we can deduce this thing:
> that a female gave something to parents of another female.


True.


I guess both of these work, but I believe I'd choose the first version.
Powiedziałem moim rodzicom, że.....
Powiedziałem swoim rodzicom, że....

And here 'swoim' works better for me:
Powiedz swoim rodzicom, że....
Powiedz twoim rodzicom, że...

Well, in fact, they work best without the pronouns if context is clear.
Powiedziałem rodzicom, że.....
Powiedz rodzicom, że...


----------



## Ben Jamin

Włoskipolak 72 said:


> Witam Wszystkich
> 
> The No-Nonsense Guide to Polish Possessive Pronouns..
> 
> 
> *swój* _(masculine)_, *swoja* _(feminine)_, *swoje* _(neuter)_, *swoi* _(plural masculine personal)_, *swoje* _(plural, all others)_
> Now, take a look at these two examples:
> 
> 
> *Dała to jej rodzicom*. – She gave it to her parents.
> *Dała to swoim rodzicom.* – She gave it to her *own* parents.
> 
> Do you notice the difference? From the first example, we can deduce this thing:
> that a female gave something to parents of another female.
> 
> Compare it with the second sentence. Here, it’s clear that a female gave something to her own parents..
> 
> 
> *Mam swoje powody*. – I have my (own) reasons.
> *Przyniosłaś swoja książkę?* –Did you bring your (own) book?
> 
> See what I mean? Why can’t we say “mam moje powody” and “przyniosłaś twoją książkę”? Technically, the grammar is correct, and technically it shouldn’t be wrong, yet, for a native speaker “*swój*” is the only proper choice in those sentences. And that is regardless of what Polish textbooks written by foreigners tell you.
> 
> I would say that in the beginning it’s probably best to remember that “*swój” refers to one’s own something-something*.
> And the easiest way to remember it for a long time is through this:
> 
> 
> *On kocha swoją żonę.* – He loves his (own) wife.
> *On kocha jego żonę.* – He loves his wife. (which in this instance would be not his own but some other guy’s wife..)
> 
> View attachment 68923
> View attachment 68924
> 
> Swój or mój? - possessive pronouns continued


For me "swój" can always be replaced by mój, twój, nasz, wasz, without any problem, and vice versa. It is only a matter of individual taste.

The only case where it can't be replaced is the third person (both singular and plural), because it causes an ambiguity, or even make the phrase useless. "Ona dała prezent jej córce" is simply wrong, if the mother in question gave something to her own daughter.

Unfortunately, the poisonous influence of English on other languages makes many people use the incorrect "jej, jego, ich" instead of "swój, swoje" when it relates to one own's objects.


----------



## rotan

zaffy said:


> Powiedziałem moim rodzicom, że.....
> Powiedziałem swoim rodzicom, że....


I would only say it if the situation demanded informing the other speaker that they were my own parents
Any other time, I would just say "Powiedzialem rodzicom"


----------



## Henares

1. Rodzicom - “powiedziałem rodzicom” - no emphasis; we can only know whose parents I mean from context.
2. Swoim rodzicom  - “my parents”; as in „powiedziałem to swoim rodzicom” - neutral form; used when much emphasis is not needed
3. Moim rodzicom - “my parents” - used to emphasize that I mean some particular parents, not any other parents. As in:
    Person A: „Powiedziałem to rodzicom.”
    Person B: „Moim rodzicom?”
    Person A: „Nie Twoim, moim rodzicom”


----------



## Drakonica

Lorenc said:


> It seems to me that in such cases Polish uses być, but never (?) chodzić: wczoraj byłem w sklepie, wczoraj byłam u swojej koleżanki Ani. Any thoughts?


In Polish it is sometimes possible in informal questions:
- Chodziłaś wczoraj do sklepu?
- Chodziłaś wczoraj do Anki?
> Did you go (once or more) to the ... yesterday?
but if you're not a native speaker, better don't use this form.

In declarative sentences with direction:
- Chodziłam do ...
it means always "I went to ... (many times)".

In declarative sentences without direction:
- Wczoraj chodziłam w deszczu.
- Wielokrotnie chodziłam w deszczu.
It creates something similar to English contiues times:
> Yesterday I was walking in the rain (for some time)..
> I was walking in the rain many times.


----------



## zaffy

Drakonica said:


> In Polish it is sometimes possible in informal questions:
> - Chodziłaś wczoraj do sklepu?
> - Chodziłaś wczoraj do Anki?


I'm not familiar with this usage.


----------



## rotan

Neither am I


----------



## Ben Jamin

Drakonica said:


> In Polish it is sometimes possible in informal questions:
> - Chodziłaś wczoraj do sklepu?
> - Chodziłaś wczoraj do Anki?
> > Did you go (once or more) to the ... yesterday?
> but if you're not a native speaker, better don't use this form.


I woudn't use "chodziłem" if it was the same shop visited many times.


----------



## Włoskipolak 72

Drakonica said:


> In Polish it is sometimes possible in informal questions:
> - Chodziłaś wczoraj do sklepu?
> - Chodziłaś wczoraj do Anki?
> > Did you go (once or more) to the ... yesterday?
> but if you're not a native speaker, better don't use this form.
> 
> In declarative sentences with direction:
> - Chodziłam do ...
> it means always "I went to ... (many times)".
> 
> In declarative sentences without direction:
> - Wczoraj chodziłam w deszczu.
> - Wielokrotnie chodziłam w deszczu.
> It creates something similar to English contiues times:
> > Yesterday I was walking in the rain (for some time)..
> > I was walking in the rain many times.



If you want you can say e.g. wczoraj chodziłem/chodziłam  po sklepach  , yesterday I was shopping around ?
_łazić po sklepach / _krążyć po sklepach ?


----------



## rotan

Yes, it works in that case
However, with examples quoted by zaffy, I guess it would still be simplified to "byc" not "chodzic", even if it happened more than once


----------

