# rozumieć/zrozumieć



## surikatka

Hello all,

I am a beginner Polish learner, trying really hard to understand the whole perfective/imperfective contrast.  Can someone enlighten me as to why "zrozumieć" is used in the following sentence, instead of "rozumieć"?:

Nie jest łatwo *zrozumieć* co mówią, jeśli nie znasz znaczenia idiómow.

Dziękuję!


----------



## zaffy

I believe because it implies the action/activity will be fully completed, so you'll fully understand the idioms. 

Nie jest łatwo posprzątać mój pokój. - completely. If you said 'Nie jest łatwo sprzątać', it would point just the activity being in progress, not the final result.


----------



## Ben Jamin

You will get a good explanation here: Perfective aspect - Wikipedia

In this particular case:
*rozumieć* (imperfective) is used in present, 'rozumiem' means 'I understand', in the meaning of 'the state of my mind', it is static
rozumieć (imperfective) is used in the past, 'rozumiałem" means 'I understood', in the meaning of 'this was the state of my mind', it is static too
*zrozumieć *(perfective) is used in the past and in the future, it has no present tense
the meaning is dynamic, 'zrozumiałem' means "I came into the state of understanding", there was a change in my mind
'zrozumiem" (perfective future) means "I will come into the state of understanding".

It is impossible to guess if the English "I understood" relates to a static state or dynamic change in the mind, but the Polish system gives the possibility of expressing it by using another verb.

In the case of your sentence "Nie jest łatwo *zrozumieć* co mówią, jeśli nie znasz znaczenia idiomów." the meaning is "It is not easy* to grasp the meaning* of what is being said .... The action is "transition from hearing to understanding", that's why a perfective verb is preferred. However, in this case some people would also use an imperfective verb 'rozumieć', indicating another approach to the understanding process.
In other cases the choice between perfective and imperfective verbs is more rigid, even obligatory.


----------



## Lorenc

surikatka said:


> Hello all,
> I am a beginner Polish learner, trying really hard to understand the whole perfective/imperfective contrast.  Can someone enlighten me as to why "zrozumieć" is used in the following sentence, instead of "rozumieć"?:
> Nie jest łatwo *zrozumieć* co mówią, jeśli nie znasz znaczenia idiómow.



Hello surikata, I'm a fellow Polish learner. If you're only starting your adventure with aspect, I suggest you focus for now on the indicative mood (in particular the past tense), for which the distinction is usually clear cut and you can more easily make logical sense of the choice. The choice perfective/imperfective in the infinitive and in the imperative moods can be much trickier and often catches me out. In some cases it is not dictated by logic alone, but by usage: `thus is it willed where every thing may be because it has been willed. So ask no more.'
For example, to ask 'Can you help me?', asking for assistance in one specific instance, Poles generally say 'Możesz mi pomóc?' (perfective), not 'Możesz mi pomagać?' (imperfective). To me personally the second option makes more sense and it is what I would instinctive say. This is because asking for help I'm thinking of the interval of time spent being helped and not on the moment in time when I obtain the desired result. So, although we are dealing with a one-time activity, the imperfective form makes more logical sense to me.
Similarly, if you say with resignation 'I can't do anything' Poles will say 'nic nie mogę *z*robić', ie use perfective aspect, I guess because there is a focus on the one-timeness of the action and the (hypothetical) result of the action; the imperfective form 'nic nie mogę robić' with a focus on (not) doing something for an interval of time makes perfect logical sense to me but is not generally used. Things are even similarly confusing in the imperative. On a practical level, I think of aspectual mistakes in the infinitive as not very strident, more a matter of style than grammar. Even if you use the wrong choice the meaning of the sentence will be clear, and that's what counts most at the beginning


----------



## Ben Jamin

Lorenc said:


> 1. For example, to ask 'Can you help me?', asking for assistance in one specific instance, Poles generally say 'Możesz mi pomóc?' (perfective), not 'Możesz mi pomagać?' (imperfective).
> 
> 2. Similarly, if you say with resignation 'I can't do anything' Poles will say 'nic nie mogę *z*robić', ie use perfective aspect, I guess because there is a focus on the one-timeness of the action and the (hypothetical) result of the action; the imperfective form 'nic nie mogę robić' with a focus on (not) doing something for an interval of time makes perfect logical sense to me but is not generally used.


I agree that the use of perferctive and imperfective aspect can be tricky, not only in Polish but in all Slavic languages.
However, the most intricate is the use of the imperfective, when one would expect perfective.
The examples you gave are quite straightforward and logical for Polish speakers.

1. 'Możesz mi pomóc?' is perfective, because it usually is a question of obtaining a defined result, which requires the perfective aspect, for example changing a car wheel with flat tyre, learning something, and so on.
Poles will say "Możesz mi pomagać?", when they will suggest that the help is required intermittently, and not to achieve  one definite goal. For instance if someone needs help *every time* he needs to change the car tyres from summer to winter type. 

2. 'nic nie mogę *z*robić' is likewise quite logical for us, in the case when we are asked to do something with a defined goal, for example "can you help me to cancel my traffic fine", or when someone says "My neighbours play noisy music every night and i can't sleep, but the man that lives there is a hulk and I'm afraid of him. Nic nie mogę zrobić".
The meaning is: I am unable to carry out any action to obtain the goal in question.
"Nic nie mogę robić' on the other hand, has the meaning of "I am so upset that I can't do anything at all", that is he is unable of undertaking any action.


----------



## jasio

Lorenc said:


> Hello surikata, I'm a fellow Polish learner. If you're only starting your adventure with aspect, I suggest you focus for now on the indicative mood (in particular the past tense), for which the distinction is usually clear cut and you can more easily make logical sense of the choice.


True. And often can be derived from the tense used in English or phrase. For example past continuous always translates to imperfective (although it's not true the other way round - that's why we typically overuse continuous tenses). Any phrase concerning repetitive actions - likewise unless you refer to results of the actions. In phrases with sequence of tenses, verbs describing more past activity typically require perfective. Besides, it's all about dynamic words. In case of static words, as BenJamin pointed out with regards to 'understand', typically imperfective is used to name the state, while perfective - a change of the state.
BTW - if you speak Spanish or Italian it may be somewhat easier for you, since verbs in Imperfecto typically translates to imperfective verbs, while verbs in indefinido and perfecto - to perfective.



Lorenc said:


> The choice perfective/imperfective in the infinitive and in the imperative moods can be much trickier and often catches me out. In some cases it is not dictated by logic alone


True. And unlike English where you can select tenses not related to a specific aspect, like simple past, in Polish (and Slavic languages) in general you *must* choose to use either perfective or imperfective. There's no other possiblity. So we use one option or the other without thinking - and as your wrote: often it's obvious, but sometimes it's not and whan we're forced to give an explanation we sometimes tend to create a theory which justifies the selection. Think of using definite and indefinite articles in English. Using them is only natural for the native speakers, but the specific rules - which we have to memorize lacking the articles in our language - occupy two A4 pages.



Lorenc said:


> For example, to ask 'Can you help me?', asking for assistance in one specific instance, Poles generally say 'Możesz mi pomóc?' (perfective), not 'Możesz mi pomagać?' (imperfective). To me personally the second option makes more sense and it is what I would instinctive say. This is because asking for help I'm thinking of the interval of time spent being helped and not on the moment in time when I obtain the desired result. So, although we are dealing with a one-time activity, the imperfective form makes more logical sense to me.


The issue is, most of the speakers do not fully understand the aspects - including the native speakers. We're tempted to literally apply their names: ("perfective" is derived from a Latin word meaning "completed", likewise in Polish, "dokonany", you may think of Evangelical "dokonało się", "it is done"). But in fact it is used for one-time actions of unspecfied duration but with no internal time structure. Most often they are indeed used to differentiate between a completed and uncompleted action (a typical example: "Posprzątałeś swój pokój?", "- Sprzątałem"), but not always. Your phrase with "help" is a good example. "Czy możesz mi pomagać" is correct, but invites you to speciy either a duration ("czy możesz mi pomagać przez najbliższą godzinę?") or a repetition ("czy możesz mi pomagać przez najbliższy miesiąc?"). On the contrary, "czy możesz mi pomóc?" clearly specifies a one time action - even, if in fact it would require a long time or several meetings ('Czy możesz mi pomóc pomalować dom?", "can you help me paint my house?"). This leads to an interesting observation when you use a modal verb:

Czy możesz mi pomóc (prf) pomalować (prf) dom? - means one time help, until the job is done
Czy możesz mi pomóc (prf) malować (imprf) dom? - one time help perhaps for a fracion of the job, we do not expect that house is finally painted
Czy możesz mi pomagać (imprf) malować (imprf) dom? - perhaps it will take several days to paint the house and I need your help every day.



Lorenc said:


> Similarly, if you say with resignation 'I can't do anything' Poles will say 'nic nie mogę *z*robić', ie use perfective aspect, I guess because there is a focus on the one-timeness of the action and the (hypothetical) result of the action;


This is another oposition: between the result and the action itself. The perfective phrase is naturally focused on the effect, even in infinitive. This particular phrase is often used in past tense in action or detective movies: 'nie mogłem nic zrobić' is used to express something like 'I kept applying CPR for an hour to rescue the guy but he died anyway'.



Lorenc said:


> the imperfective form 'nic nie mogę robić' with a focus on (not) doing something for an interval of time makes perfect logical sense to me but is not generally used.


The imperfective phrase Is focused on action. "Nie mogłem nic robić" - perhaps my legs hurt and I had to sit still on a sofa without doing literally anything. But indeed, it's rather rare because typically you have to explain why you haven't delivered expected results - and that would invite perfective verbs.



Lorenc said:


> Things are even similarly confusing in the imperative.


Indeed, when I think of it, sometimes it seems pretty random and with some verbs (like 'iść', 'chodzić') it's mainly the popular usage rather then logic. But often the disctintion is clear: "posprzątaj pokój" means "do whatever is needed until your room is clean", while "sprzątaj pokój" is rather something like "make some cleaning until I ask you to do something else". Perfective is used perhaps more often because you ask people to do things to obtain results of their actions.



Lorenc said:


> On a practical level, I think of aspectual mistakes in the infinitive as not very strident, more a matter of style than grammar. Even if you use the wrong choice the meaning of the sentence will be clear, and that's what counts most at the beginning


I confirm. We are used to the fact that foreign speakers tend to mess aspects, grammatical cases, genders etc. Even if they generally speak good Polish.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jasio said:


> The issue is, most of the speakers do not fully understand the aspects - including the native speakers.


Most Polish speakers don't even know the term 'aspect', but surprisingly they make very seldom errors. The usage is somehow "transferred by mother's milk".On the other hand, not all use of the aspects is logical. There are many expressions that are idiomatic, and can't be explained using the principal rules, and attempts at justifying the usage becomes extremely intricate and sophisticated. Take for example a situation when somebody receives guests at his door and says "Proszę bardzo, wchodźcie!", even if he wants them to fulfill the action, and according to the rules should have said "Proszę bardzo, wejdźcie!". (By the way, both forms are used.)
As I said before the biggest part of the intricacy and idiomatic character lies when using the imperfective when one should expect the perfective, and not ehen using the perfective mood, and concerns mostly imperative and conditional mood.



jasio said:


> The imperfective phrase Is focused on action. "Nie mogłem nic robić" - perhaps my legs hurt and I had to sit still on a sofa without doing literally anything. But indeed, it's rather rare because typically you have to explain why you haven't delivered expected results - and that would invite perfective verbs.


The difference between 
1. "Nie mogłem nic robić" and 
2. "Nie mogłem nic zrobić"
is that 1. concerns inability of performing any action, being completely idle, while 2. concerns inability of undertaking or completing any action with a definite purpose. 



jasio said:


> I confirm. We are used to the fact that foreign speakers tend to mess aspects, grammatical cases, genders etc. Even if they generally speak good Polish.


But it does not mean that a foreigner should neglect an effort directed at internalising the use of aspects if he/she wants to become really fluent in Polish, or any other Slavic language, just like mastering the use of the definite article in English.


----------



## jasio

Ben Jamin said:


> Most Polish speakers don't even know the term 'aspect',


Indeed, I should have written 'most Polish speakers who are aware of perfective and imperfective aspects'. ;-)



Ben Jamin said:


> Take for example a situation when somebody receives guests at his door and says "Proszę bardzo, wchodźcie!", even if he wants them to fulfill the action, and according to the rules should have said "Proszę bardzo, wejdźcie!". (By the way, both forms are used.)


Verbs related to movement seem to be special cases anyway.



Ben Jamin said:


> But it does not mean that a foreigner should neglect an effort directed at internalising the use of aspects if he/she wants to become really fluent in Polish, or any other Slavic language, just like mastering the use of the definite article in English.


I didn't want to suggest negligation at all, instead, I wanted to reduce a fear of speaking.


----------



## surikatka

Wow, thank you for the detailed responses!  


Lorenc said:


> Even if you use the wrong choice the meaning of the sentence will be clear, and that's what counts most at the beginning


This is what I remind my students (I am a college Spanish lecturer here in the US), and have to remind myself as well.  Thanks for the encouragement!




> 1. 'Możesz mi pomóc?' is perfective, because it usually is a question of obtaining a defined result, which requires the perfective aspect, for example changing a car wheel with flat tyre, learning something, and so on.
> Poles will say "Możesz mi pomagać?", when they will suggest that the help is required intermittently, and not to achieve one definite goal. For instance if someone needs help *every time* he needs to change the car tyres from summer to winter type.
> 
> 2. 'nic nie mogę *z*robić' is likewise quite logical for us, in the case when we are asked to do something with a defined goal, for example "can you help me to cancel my traffic fine", or when someone says "My neighbours play noisy music every night and i can't sleep, but the man that lives there is a hulk and I'm afraid of him. Nic nie mogę zrobić".
> The meaning is: I am unable to carry out any action to obtain the goal in question.
> "Nic nie mogę robić' on the other hand, has the meaning of "I am so upset that I can't do anything at all", that is he is unable of undertaking any action.


This was extremely helpful and clear.  Dziękuję bardzo!  

Thankfully, I do speak Romance languages that differentiate between preterite and imperfect in the past tense, so I understand the concept when it has a past meaning.  It is learning the differences in present and future, and expanding my language "worldview" to encompass these distinctions, that is my current challenge.  But if there is one thing I have learned from learning languages, it is that with use and with *exposure* comes (eventual) comprehension, that you just have to stick with it and keep an open mind. Dziękuję wszystki bardzo serdecznie!


----------



## surikatka

> Czy możesz mi pomóc (prf) pomalować (prf) dom? - means one time help, until the job is done
> 
> Czy możesz mi pomóc (prf) malować (imprf) dom? - one time help perhaps for a fracion of the job, we do not expect that house is finally painted
> 
> Czy możesz mi pomagać (imprf) malować (imprf) dom? - perhaps it will take several days to paint the house and I need your help every day



This is one reason I'm so fascinated by the Polish language.  Język polski jest pięknym i złożonym językiem!


----------



## Lorenc

Ben Jamin said:


> However, the most intricate is the use of the imperfective, when one would expect perfective.


Do you have any specific case in mind? Are you thinking of imperfective imperative forms of verbs indicating motion of one's body, like: _chodź! wstawaj!_ ?



Ben Jamin said:


> The examples you gave are quite straightforward and logical for Polish speakers.


Straightforward, yes. I'm sure the man in the street would consider them trivial, just as the native English speaker would consider proper use of articles a trivial matter. But are they _logical_, really? `Logic' in languages is a slippery concept, and often what natives think it's logic it's actually familiarity coming from years and years of usage.



> 1. 'Możesz mi pomóc?' is perfective, because it usually is a question of obtaining a defined result, which requires the perfective aspect, for example changing a car wheel with flat tyre, learning something, and so on.
> Poles will say "Możesz mi pomagać?", when they will suggest that the help is required intermittently, and not to achieve one definite goal. For instance if someone needs help every time he needs to change the car tyres from summer to winter type.



I understand your explanation and I accept it, although in my own personal perception it doesn't quite square with my `feeling' of the verb 'to help', at least not in all situations. Perhaps it's an influence of my native Italian, or perhaps it's my personal idiosyncrasy. Let's leave out of the discussion the intermittent/repetitive request for help and let's focus on the one-time case. In my view the question 'Can you help me?' without any further specifications is a request that the person asked devote his time and attention for some time; the helping action is to me an on-going process, hence imperfective aspect seems appropriate to me. As Jasio said you can also think of the helping action as an indifferentiate whole, a `_one-time action of unspecified duration but with no internal time structure_' as he very aptly put it. I admit this is a possible, legitimate way of looking at the process, but to me it isn't the only logical possibility.
For example, in the sentence 'Can you help me, please? Can you hold the ladder while I change the lightbulb?' helping is an on-going action (holding the ladder) with no concrete result. Hence according to my personal logic I would be inclined to choose the imperfective form:
???_Możesz mi pomagać [przez kilka minut]? Potrzymaj mi drabinę jak wymieniam żarówkę._

On top of those considerations the perfective 'możesz mi pomóc?' seems to imply, to me, a focus on the achievement of the final result (absent in the previous example). To me it sounds almost alike to 'Can you successfully help me?'. To 'możesz mi pomóc?' my logic would answer with 'mogę ci pomagać, ale nie wiem, czy mogę ci pomóc. O co chodzi?'
In my (flawed) logic I'd reserve the perfective infinitive to one-time goal-focused actions, for example:
_I wish I could help you => Chciałbym móc ci pomóc_

said with reference to a particular problem, not repetitive help, and with a focus on solving the issue at hand. In this case I think we all agree perfective is more appropriate (=I wish I could solve your problem) rather than the imperfective (=I wish I could assist you, not necessarily solving your problem).

Another type of structure which I've noticed normally uses the imperfective are sentences like `` you don't have to [verb] anything', e.g.:

_nie musisz nic mówić  / you don't have to say anything
nie musisz nic robić  / you don't have to do anything
nie musisz nic udowadniać / you don't have to prove anything_

It seems to be an extension of the rule 'use imperfective for negated imperatives'. Other than that I don't see any strong logical reason for preferring imperfective over perfective aspect.



jasio said:


> BTW - if you speak Spanish or Italian it may be somewhat easier for you, since verbs in Imperfecto typically translates to imperfective verbs, while verbs in indefinido and perfecto - to perfective.



In the main the Italian (+French, Spanish) verbal system is rather similar to English in terms of tenses, so I don't think it is of much help when we're dealing with aspect. As I said most of my aspectual perplexities have to do with the infinitive and (to a lesser extent) imperative moods, for which ASAIK Romance and Germanic languages don't make a distinction in aspect.


----------



## jasio

Lorenc said:


> `Logic' in languages is a slippery concept, and often what natives think it's logic it's actually familiarity coming from years and years of usage.


Indeed. ;-)



Lorenc said:


> For example, in the sentence 'Can you help me, please? Can you hold the ladder while I change the lightbulb?' helping is an on-going action (holding the ladder) with no concrete result. Hence according to my personal logic I would be inclined to choose the imperfective form:
> ???_Możesz mi pomagać [przez kilka minut]? Potrzymaj mi drabinę jak wymieniam żarówkę._


Perhaps it's an influence of the aforementioned familiarity, but since the most popular form is perfective, for me this form is neutral. It's the imperfective which conveys an additional message - in this case stressing duration of the help (even, if it's only a few minutes).

BTW - are you standing on the floor with the ladder and bulb in hands or up on the leaning ladder? In the former case, I would use future tense: "potrzymaj mi drabinę gdy będę wymieniał żarówkę". In the latter present tense is ok - but in English you would probably use present continuous.



Lorenc said:


> On top of those considerations the perfective 'możesz mi pomóc?' seems to imply, to me, a focus on the achievement of the final result


Receiving an assistance is also an achievement, if you're looking for a logic in a natural language. ;-)

BTW - does your grammar book say anything about aspects in "móc + infinitive" constructions? I have a vague impression that perfective aspect is more typical than imperfective, especially if you mean something specific. Let me give you a few examples (albeit there's an extra complexity related to an inherent ambiguity of 'can'):

Umiesz czytać? - can you read? (in general)
Umiesz to przeczytać? - can you read it? (perhaps it's in a foreign language)
Możesz to przeczytać? - can you read it for me (as a favour)? Also, Isn't the inscription too pale, the letters too small or the light too weak?
Możesz czytać? - perhaps you have health problems which make reading difficult or impossible?
Similarly: możesz pisać? (do you have pen, and paper) Możesz jeść? (aren't you ill) Możesz jechać? (do you have time to go) Możesz słuchać? (can you bear listening to it) Możesz oglądać? (likewise)
As you can see, imperfective verbs are used in more general statements, typically concerning preconditions or circumstances.



Lorenc said:


> In my (flawed) logic I'd reserve the perfective infinitive to one-time goal-focused actions, for example:
> _I wish I could help you => Chciałbym móc ci pomóc_


I would rather translate it as "żałuję, że nie mogłem ci pomóc" - but perhaps it depends on context.



Lorenc said:


> _nie musisz nic mówić  / you don't have to say anything
> nie musisz nic robić  / you don't have to do anything
> nie musisz nic udowadniać / you don't have to prove anything_


Interestingly enough, in the last case I would only use a Genitive case: "nie musisz *niczego* udowadniać", although a quick look-up shows that "nic" is also used. In the two former phrases both forms are possible. There must be a nuance in the meaning, but I'm not ready to discuss it in details right away.



Lorenc said:


> In the main the Italian (+French, Spanish) verbal system is rather similar to English in terms of tenses, so I don't think it is of much help when we're dealing with aspect.


Unlike Romance languages with their imperfettos I couldn't identify an unambigously imperfective past tense in English. Past continuous is too specific to serve as an example of what I wanted to demonstrate.


----------



## Lorenc

jasio said:


> Perhaps it's an influence of the aforementioned familiarity, but since the most popular form is perfective, for me this form is neutral. It's the imperfective which conveys an additional message - in this case stressing duration of the help (even, if it's only a few minutes).


Yes, I'll try to keep that in mind. 



jasio said:


> BTW - are you standing on the floor with the ladder and bulb in hands or up on the leaning ladder? In the former case, I would use future tense: "potrzymaj mi drabinę gdy będę wymieniał żarówkę". In the latter present tense is ok - but in English you would probably use present continuous.



I had in mind rather the first situation, with me still standing on the floor. Thanks for the remark, it is very useful. In Italian the future tense rather refers to events in the far future and even then in informal language it is often substituted by the simple present. As a result I tend to over-use the present tense. 



jasio said:


> BTW - does your grammar book say anything about aspects in "móc + infinitive" constructions? I have a vague impression that perfective aspect is more typical than imperfective, especially if you mean something specific. Let me give you a few examples (albeit there's an extra complexity related to an inherent ambiguity of 'can'):


I didn't find anything specific in Swan's grammar. I found some examples of 'móc + infinitive' in I. Sadowska, 'Polish -a comprehensive grammar'. No explanation is given, though. Some of the examples are (perfective in red, imperfective in blue):

1. Pracodawca może wypowiedzieć pracę pracownikowi. 
2. Po roku intensywnych ćwiczeń pacjent mógł ponownie chodzić.
3. Z przejedzenia nie mogę zasnąć.
4. Ojciec tracił wzrok i nie mógł czytać.
5. Długo nie mogłam zajść w ciążę. 
6. W rok możesz skończyć studia magisterskie.
7. Ceny mogą ulec zmianie. 
8. W centrum mogą być korki. 

The only example I'm not sure about is 1, because it is a general statement, an employer can (always) dismiss one of his employees. Would the sentence with wypowiadać sound ok? How about _Pracodawcy mogą wypowiadać pracę swoim prawnikom_ ?


----------



## jasio

Lorenc said:


> I didn't find anything specific in Swan's grammar. I found some examples of 'móc + infinitive' in I. Sadowska, 'Polish -a comprehensive grammar'. No explanation is given, though. Some of the examples are (perfective in red, imperfective in blue)


Considering the proportions, I'm satisfied that the list supports my first impression. ;-)
I'm not sure if I would be able to construct these phrases like a foreigner, from scratch, based only on understanding the rules, but let me give you some reverse-engineering comments - perhaps for the sake of other foreign readers.


Lorenc said:


> 1. Pracodawca może wypowiedzieć pracę pracownikowi.


Indeed. Once you're fired, you cannot be fired again, can you? A one-time, result-oriented action. Clearly perfective.


Lorenc said:


> The only example I'm not sure about is 1, because it is a general statement, an employer can (always) dismiss one of his employees. Would the sentence with wypowiadać sound ok?


Only if the employee had nine lives, like a cat... ;-) The fact that you may dismiss other employees as well does not really matter, because singular number defines a 1-on-1 situation, so imperfective would describe a fire-hire-fire sequence. Like "Pracodawca może wypowiadać pracę pracownikowi najwyżej trzy razy z rzędu.


Lorenc said:


> How about _Pracodawcy mogą wypowiadać pracę swoim prawnikom_ ?


I'd rather not dismiss my lawyers without searious reasons and backup. ;-) But from a grammatical standpoint it's ok. - but it suggests a general law of the universe and economy. I would take a risk of saying that in this context plural + imperfective is more typical for a common language (and treating employers and employees as groups/classes etc), while singular + perfective is more typical for a legal style, thus underlyning the fact that a dismissal typically is a 1-on-1 situation (an empolyer vs. an empolyee). BTW - _Pracodawca może wypowiadać pracę swoim pracownikom_ (1-to-many relationship) would also be correct



Lorenc said:


> 2. Po roku intensywnych ćwiczeń pacjent mógł ponownie chodzić.


Indeed. Permanent, activity-oriented situation suggests an imperfectiv verb. Actually in this meaning - referring to an indirectional movement - this verb does not have a perfective counterpart. But if a perfective 'iść' was used it would suggest that a patient could only take a walk and collapse again.


Lorenc said:


> 3. Z przejedzenia nie mogę zasnąć.


Because once you start sleeping, you cannot start sleeping again because you already sleep. Imperfective "zasypiać" would suggest that you have a permanent problem, night after night.


Lorenc said:


> 4. Ojciec tracił wzrok i nie mógł czytać.


Indeed. Inability to read is permanent once you loose your sight. Perfective "przeczytać" would suggest a one time problem, like missing glasses or not enough light.


Lorenc said:


> 5. Długo nie mogłam zajść w ciążę.


Yes, because you can get pregnant only once at a time. And once you get pregnant, your 'inability' state is over.


Lorenc said:


> 6. W rok możesz skończyć studia magisterskie.


Again, you can graduate only once at a time. Imperfective "kończyć" could be used to describe the whole process of graduating: writing a thesis, final exams, etc.


Lorenc said:


> 7. Ceny mogą ulec zmianie.


Perfective suggests a one-time change - like a warning that prices listed on a price list are not guaranteed. Imperfective would also be correct (both singular and plural), thus suggesting that prices fluctuate.


Lorenc said:


> 8. W centrum mogą być korki.


This one should actially be purple rahter than blue: być. Although it's normally described as imperfective without a perfective counterpart, "być" has some features of both perfective and imperfective verbs:

simple past generally has an imperfective meaning describing a state
infix -wa- produces a verb with a repetitive meaning (bywać)
It has a present tense, albeit of different origin (jestem/jesteś/jest/... etc)
But

It has simple future form (będę/będziesz/będzie... etc), like perfective verbs.


----------



## Poland91pl

it's better to understand that with past tense involved. 
Mary read the book (przeczytała completed)
Mary was reading the book ( czytała action not completed) we don't know if she's finished reading .


----------



## Poland91pl

understand- zrozumiec is always used in simple tenses and maybe that's why it may be hard for you to understand this particular verb. in polish in can be used as a completed action verb zrozumiec and not completed rozumiec 
plus zrozumiec is never used in a present tense in polish but zrozumiec


----------



## Ben Jamin

Poland91pl said:


> understand- zrozumiec is always used in simple tenses and maybe that's why it may be hard for you to understand this particular verb. in polish in can be used as a completed action verb zrozumiec and not completed rozumiec
> plus zrozumiec is never used in a present tense in polish but zrozumiec


Wszystko to już jest wyjaśnione dogłębnie w tym wątku. Jak dopisujesz się na końcu dyskusji to wypada przeczytać co napisali inni.


----------



## Poland91pl

Ben Jamin said:


> Wszystko to już jest wyjaśnione dogłębnie w tym wątku. Jak dopisujesz się na końcu dyskusji to wypada przeczytać co napisali inni.


wyjaśniłem to po swojemu ponieważ Twoje tłumaczenie z coming into ( raczej to zamiast into ) wydawało mi się być merytorycznie ubogie


----------

