# I was convinced



## Thomas26

I am wanting to say "I was convinced". 

Jaka jest różnica między 

*"Byłem przekonana" i "przekonywałem"? *

Są identyczne?

Dziękuję


----------



## inter1908

Byłam przekonana  - femine
Byłem przekonany - masculine

przekonywałem - I was convincing/I've been convincing masculine
przekonywałam - I was convincing/I've been convincing femine


----------



## NotNow

Shouldn't that be either _byłem przekonany_ or _byłam przekonana_?

_Byłem przekonany m_eans I was convinced, and _przekonywałem_ means I convinced (in the imperfect aspect).


----------



## inter1908

Nope, I convinced / I have convinced = przekonałem/przekonałam. Przekonywałem (-am) means I was convincing/I've been convincing.


----------



## BezierCurve

Yeah, there's that -yw- interfix indicating imperfective aspect, possibly in its frequentative form.


----------



## NotNow

Can't_ przekonywałem_ be translated as I convinced when it's used to denote a repetitive action, as in the sentence_ I convinced people everyday that I am insane_?


----------



## BezierCurve

Thanks to that frequentative form it can. It just carries no information whether the act (or multiple acts) of convincing has (or have) been ever completed.


----------



## polskajason

NotNow said:


> Can't_ przekonywałem_ be translated as I convinced when it's used to denote a repetitive action, as in the sentence_ I convinced people everyday that I am insane_?


Yes. In English, you can use the simple past to convey repeated actions (or the imperfect form of the Polish verb), if you use the appropriate modifiers, of course.

Chodzilem na spacer z przyjacielem codziennie kiedy mieszkalem na wsi.
I went on a walk with a friend every day when I lived in the country.


----------



## majlo

I wouldn't say "I went..."; I'd say "I would go for walks with a friend....".


----------



## polskajason

majlo said:


> I wouldn't say "I went..."; I'd say "I would go for walks with a friend....".


That construction is commonly used, too. It doesn't sound as correct as "I went..." or "I used to go..." but many native speakers say it that way.


----------



## majlo

What do you mean it doesn't sound as correct? It is correct.


----------



## BezierCurve

I'm sure it's correct. I just wonder if it can be used in situations when you repeated an action that wasn't really a habbit (say, just a few times).


----------



## majlo

Ha*b*it. 

That's interesting what you're saying. That begs a native speaker to opine on that...


----------



## NotNow

Yes, it can be used as majllo suggested, and it quite often is.  In such as situation, one would probably hear_ *would *_and_ *used to *_more frequently than the simple past.


----------



## polskajason

majlo said:


> What do you mean it doesn't sound as correct? It is correct.


 I mean exactly that: it doesn't sound as correct. OK - it's correct. You've studied English more thoroughly than I have, and, in any case, English grammar is descriptive of the way people do speak, not the way they should.


----------



## majlo

OK, in my opinion it does sound as correct. And as NotNow has explained, you'd probably hear it more often than the simple past.


----------



## Thomas26

polskajason said:


> *You've studied English more thoroughly than I have*...............
> English grammar is descriptive of the way people do speak, *not the way they should.*



You must have studied it pretty thoroughly if you know the way people should speak English............I'm just saying.....


----------



## polskajason

Thomas26 said:


> You must have studied it pretty thoroughly if you know the way people should speak English............I'm just saying.....


Thank you! Just saying.


----------



## polskajason

majlo said:


> OK, in my opinion it does sound as correct. And as NotNow has explained, you'd probably hear it more often than the simple past.


Maybe.


----------



## Thomas26

polskajason said:


> You've studied English more thoroughly than I have



But his native language is Polish and yours is English. You are meaning he has just done more research on the language?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas26 said:


> But his native language is Polish and yours is English. You are meaning he has just done more research on the language?



You all suggest that there is ONE language called English... What sounds correct to one speaker, sounds incorrect to another.


----------



## polskajason

Ben Jamin said:


> You all suggest that there is ONE language called English... What sounds correct to one speaker, sounds incorrect to another.


 Thank you. Some people are being unnecessarily combative about something so trivial. I guess that's a problem that you'll have on a slow-moving board...


----------



## Thomas26

polskajason said:


> Thank you. Some people are being unnecessarily combative about something so trivial. I guess that's a problem that you'll have on a slow-moving board...



No one is being combative, but you cannot make the quote and then not be able to explain what you meant by that which is what I was asking. When you say "not the way they should" I am just curious what you mean. Who defines how one "should" speak? 

Yes I agree with Ben Jamin, that one way may sound incorrect to one person yet normal to another, is that also what you were wanting to convey by saying "English grammar is descriptive of the way people do speak, not the way they should."?? 

English has the distinction of being the most used, 1st or 2nd language, in the world..........thus making bad English almost acceptable. I encounter, in my workplace, people everyday from Bosnia, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, etc....that speak English as a 2nd language and make multiple grammatical errors in almost every sentence but I do not correct them as I know what they mean. I have been told though that if I went to Poland and made the same mistakes I would be laughed at or not understood because 98% of spoken Polish in the world is by native speakers....they do not hear "bad 2nd language" Polish that often. 

Also where did you learn Polish? Multilingual household growing up?


----------



## majlo

Sure, one thing may sound correct to one native speaker and incorrect to another one ('poszłem' sounds correct to many Polish people, e.g.). However, in my experience "would" is far more common in this context than the past simple is, which was propped up by one native speaker. I somehow have the impression that would be the case with many other native speakers.


----------



## Thomas26

majlo said:


> Sure, one thing may sound correct to one native speaker and incorrect to another one ('poszłem' sounds correct to many Polish people, e.g.). However, in my experience "would" is far more common in this context than the past simple is, which was propped up by one native speaker. I somehow have the impression that would be the case with many other native speakers.


 
I agree that "would" in that example sounds better to me than the simple past, but to someone else it could sound bad. My wife hates when people use "at" to end a sentence."Where are you at?" She always says "Where are you?' but to me the firrst sounds perfectly fine also.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thomas26 said:


> I have been told though that if I went to Poland and made the same mistakes I would be laughed at or not understood because 98% of spoken Polish in the world is by native speakers....they do not hear "bad 2nd language" Polish that often.


There is a difference between the treatment you would get as a foreigner and a native speaker. Poles are usually much more tolerant to language errors produced by foreigners than those made by other Poles.


----------

