# ściąć



## stelingo

I cannot find a table showing me how to conjugate ściąć in the future tense, either online or in my dictionaries. Is the future not used with this verb?


----------



## Thomas1

It is:
ja zetnę
ty zetniesz
on/ona/ono zetnie
my zetniemy
wy zetniecie
oni/one zetną

EDIT: You can try this dictionary: http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/polish/. I've just found the whole conjugation of 'ściąć' in it.


----------



## stelingo

Thanks a lot. It certainly looks nothing like the infinitive. I did a search on the dictionary in your link. It found 4 matches for the verb, but nothing seems to happen when I click on the 4 links.


----------



## DearPrudence

Cześć, Stelingo 

Click on 'View inflection Tables' of 4. ściąć. And then, click again on '_pf.:_ ściąć'


----------



## Thomas1

For what it's worth, if you know how to conjugate the root verb 'ciąć'  in the present tense, you know the future tense of its derivative  'niedokonany' forms:


ciąć 
(present tense)ściąć 
(future tense)przeciąć
(future tense)jatnęze*tnę*prze*tnę*tytnieszze*tniesz*prze*tniesz*on/ona/onotnieze*tnie*prze*tnie*mytniemyze*tniemy*prze*tniemy*wytniecieze*tniecie*prze*tniecie*oni/onetnąze*tną*prze*tną*


The thing is that, in order to make the pronunciation of 'ściąć' in the  future tense easier, the 'ś' prefix changes to 'ze' in front of certain  consonant clusters, 'tn' being one of them. Here are some rules on that:z-  przedrostek występujący przed spółgłoskami dźwięcznymi oraz przed s,  sz, ś, h, np. zbaranieć, zdrzemnąć się, zginąć, zniknąć, zrąbać,  związać, zsunąć, zszarzeć, zsinieć, zharmonizować
[...]
ze- rozszerzony wariant przedrostka przed trudnymi do wymówienia grupami  spółgłosek, np. zebrać, zedrzeć, zemdleć, zemleć, zemścić się, zerwać,  zeskoczyć, zetrzeć.

s- przedrostek tworzący czasowniki dokonane od niedokonanych, np.  skreślić, skuć; pisany jako s- przed literami odpowiadającymi  spółgłoskom bezdźwięcznym, oprócz s, sz, ś, ć;

ś- postać fonetyczna i graficzna przedrostka s- przed spółgłoską ć, np.  ściąć, ściągnąć, ściemnieć, ścierać, ścierpieć, ścierpnąć, ścinać,  ściskać, ściszyć.
Source: _Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN_ © Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA​


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> The thing is that, in order to make the pronunciation of 'ściąć' in the  future tense easier, the 'ś' prefix changes to 'ze' in front of certain  consonant clusters, 'tn' being one of them.


To be more precise: z(e)* is the original form:  z(e)ciąć  -> ś-ciąć. There occurs an assimilation of *z* into *ś* before palatal consonant in *ci*ąć in the infinitive. The finite (personal) forms have preserved the original *z* sound.

**"e"* is inserted between *"z"* and following consonant clusters to make it easier to pronounce.


----------



## stelingo

Thanks for your help guys.


----------



## Thomas1

Ben Jamin said:


> To be more precise: z(e)* is the original form:  z(e)ciąć  -> ś-ciąć. There occurs an assimilation of *z* into *ś* before palatal consonant in *ci*ąć in the infinitive. The finite (personal) forms have preserved the original *z* sound.
> 
> **"e"* is inserted between *"z"* and following consonant clusters to make it easier to pronounce.


Sorry, but I've got some doubts about your explanation. 

'*z*' is used in front of *voiced consonants *and s, sz, ś, h (zdrapać, zwierać, zbadać, etc.).
'*ze*' differs in that it occurs in front of *difficult-to-pronounce consonant clusters *(zeskrobać, zedrzeć, zewrzeć, etc.). These may also include voiceless consonants in the front (zetnę, zetrzeć, zepchnąć, zechcieć, etc.).

'*s*' is used in front of *voiceless consonants* (skreślić). 'c' being voiceless in Polish normally allows for 's' ('scałować', 'scalić', etc.); however, 's' becomes *'ś'* *in front of 'ć'*, in pronunciation, (ściąć, ściskać, ścierpieć, etc.).

So how come 'z(e)* is the original form:  z(e)ciąć  -> ś-ciąć'?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas1 said:


> So how come 'z(e)* is the original form:  z(e)ciąć  -> ś-ciąć'?


Why not? "Z" is the basic form of the preposition "with". It assimilates to following voiceless consonants becoming "s" and to palatals becoming "ś" or "ź".
The asimilation occurs not only in verbs written together with the preposition , but also between separate words ("z tobą" is actually pronounced "stobą").


----------



## Thomas1

I see what you mean. It might be the case with the preposition 'z', but is it with the prefix? The semantic value of the preposition 'z' is different than that of the prefix marking the 'niedokonany' verb forms. Although it may be temtping to analyse them as one, I'm not sure, really, we can do it. Roughly, the spelling of the prefix: 
'z'-->voiced
's'-->voiceless
Are there any examples where 'z' would be placed in front of an voiceless consonant in a 'niedokonany' verb?

The spelling of the preposition varies however:
'spośród' (believe it or not, but I've recently seen 'z pośród' in an add for a job related to linguistics)
but
'z powrotem'
They are both pronounced as 's'. I'm wondering if there is any rule to the spelling of the preposition 'z' (perhaps, there is just this that if it's spelled with 'z', the two are separate words, but how to know that?).


----------



## Ben Jamin

The Common Slavic word for "with" was most probably "s" (probably cognate with Latin "cum" and Greek "συν"), but in Polish turned into "z" before the XIV century. 
There is a possibility that the voicing of isolated "s" developed paralelly with formation of "phrasal verbs" with the prefix "s", but in the the modern Polish language this distinction is only of historical interest, as the language functions exactly in the same way as if "z" was the origin of the prefix.


----------



## bibax

The Protoslavic word for 'with' was *sъn*, it's for sure. The final *n* was eventually dropped, only in some cases it is still preserved, e.g. in Czech: *sъ*n* jimi (with them) > s *n*imi, not s jimi; *sъ*n*jesti > s*n*ísti (to eat up), s*n*ědl, not sjísti, sjedl.

*Sъn*- is really a cognate with cum-/con-/syn-, however there are other Proto-IE/Protoslavic prepositions (prefixes) that also led to the simple *s* or *z *in (some) modern Slavic languages. They are cognate with Greek kata- or ek-.

The problem with these prepositions/prefixes is that they are pronounced either voiced [z] or voiceless [s] according to the following consonant (regressive assimilation of voiceness). In Czech we have strict orthographic rules for writing s/z (based on etymology), regardless of pronunciation - a real nightmare for the school children as the pronunciation cannot be a clue.

BTW, ściąć is stíti (setnu, setneš, ...; sťal, sťala, ...) in Czech, always pronounced with [s] as the palatal consonant ť is voiceless.


----------



## Ben Jamin

bibax said:


> The Protoslavic word for 'with' was *sъn*, it's for sure. The final *n* was eventually dropped, only in some cases it is still preserved, e.g. in Czech: *sъ*n* jimi (with them) > s *n*imi, not s jimi; *sъ*n*jesti > s*n*ísti (to eat up), s*n*ědl, not sjísti, sjedl.
> 
> *Sъn*- is really a cognate with cum-/con-/syn-, however there are other Proto-IE/Protoslavic prepositions (prefixes) that also led to the simple *s* or *z *in (some) modern Slavic languages. They are cognate with Greek kata- or ek-.
> 
> The problem with these prepositions/prefixes is that they are pronounced either voiced [z] or voiceless [s] according to the following consonant (regressive assimilation of voiceness). In Czech we have strict orthographic rules for writing s/z (based on etymology), regardless of pronunciation - a real nightmare for the school children as the pronunciation cannot be a clue.
> 
> BTW, ściąć is stíti (setnu, setneš, ...; sťal, sťala, ...) in Czech, always pronounced with [s] as the palatal consonant ť is voiceless.



The Protoslavic *sъn *is to be found as "są" in the Polish word "*są*siad" (from *sъnsiad?)*. 

It's a riddle why Greek, a kentum language, has "συν", while Latin has "cum".


----------

