# Piotr rozbił mi samochód



## Nino83

Hello everyone.
I'd like to ask you something about "free datives" or "dative of interest" in Polish.

Piotr rozbił *mi* (dative) samochód.

In this sentence, if I'm not wrong, you use the dative case to indicate the subject that has some disadvantage from the action, the subject that has some interest. It is possible also in Italian, in fact we can say "Pietro *mi* (to me, dative) ha rotto (rozbił) la macchina (samochód)" 

If you lend me your car and some people break/destroy it while I'm using it, while I have the possession of the car, we can say "Loro *mi* (dative) hanno rotto (rozbił) la *tua* (*twój*, possessive adjective) macchina (samochód).
Is it correct, possible, to say in Polish "Rozbili *mi* (dative) *twój* samochód", with a similar meaning?

Thank you


----------



## Ben Jamin

Yes, it is possible: "Rozbili *mi* (dative) *twój* samochód". It means that somebody has damaged your car when I was using it.
If you yourself were in charge of your car then I would say "Rozbili *ci* *twój* samochód"

It also can be interesting for you to read this thread: Granny has died


----------



## Nino83

Hi, Ben Jamin, and thank you for answering.
In this thread it was said that "Ktoś rozbił mi twój samochód" sounds a bit odd in Polish but "Razbili so mi tvoj avto" is possible and also preferred in Slovenian.
It was said that "Ktoś ukradł/zabrał mi twoje pieniądze" is more common, and it is more common in Italian too, and it is possible also in German ("sie haben *ihm dein* Auto gestolen" is possible but "sie haben *ihm dein* Auto zerstört" is not).
In Italian and Spanish are both possible but with the verb "to steal" or "to take" they are more common, so I think it would be a semantic matter, i.e using both "mi" and "twój" with the verb "to break" is not very common.

How would you translate this sentence?
The car broke down *on* me. (English)
*Mi* (mi) si è rotta (się zepsuł) la macchina (samochód). (Italian)
Samochód *mi* się zepsuł. (Polish?)

Does it sound right the pronoun *mi* in this sentence?


----------



## jasio

Nino83 said:


> Samochód *mi* się zepsuł. (Polish?)


Meaning that my car is now broken? It's just natural. "Samochód mi się zepsuł, komputer mi się zawiesił, rower mi ukradli, dom mi się spalił, żona mi się pochorowała, pies mi uciekł, babcia mi zmarła" - dziś jest 13, nic dodać nic ująć. 

If you meed a translation (only the meaning, not a specific form):
My car is broken, my computer hanged, my bicycle is stolen, my home has burnt, my wife is sick, my dog has escaped, my granny has died - today's thirteenth, nothing more, nothing less. 

BTW - please note using reflexive particle in many cases to show that something just happend "by itself", for no apparent reason or conscious action (or just disregarded by the speaker). Unlike in the English translations they are all in active voice, using posessive pronoun in dative.

BTW, how would it go in Italian?
Mi macchina ha rotta? Mi bicicleta è rubata?


----------



## Nino83

jasio said:


> Meaning that my car is now broken? It's just natural.


Ciao, jasio!
In Italian, with the parts of the body, we use *always* the dative case.
*Mi* (to me) fa male (hurts) il piede (the foot), *gli* (to him) lava (she washes) le mani (hands), while in German they can use the dative, the possessive pronoun or both of them. In English they use the possessive pronoun.
How is the situation in Polish? Can you say, in Polish, "my foot hurts", or do you say always "to me foot hurts", "she broke his leg" or "she broke leg to him"?

With other objects, we can use the dative or the possessive pronoun.
"Hanno rotto (they broke) la *sua* (his) macchina (car)". Neutral.
"*Gli* (to him) hanno rotto (they broke) la macchina (the car)". More personal and emotional. For example "Do you know what happened to John? Some people broke his car, what a pity!".
How does it works in Polish?
Rozbili *jego* samochód. Rozbili *mu* samochód.
Are both sentences common in Polish? Do they have the same meaning?


jasio said:


> BTW - please note using reflexive particle in many cases to show that something just happend "by itself", for no apparent reason or conscious action (or just disregarded by the speaker).
> BTW, how would it go in Italian?
> Mi macchina ha rotta? Mi bicicleta è rubata?


In Italian these "anticausative" verbs work in the same manner, i.e using reflexive pronouns (but they *take* the auxiliar verb "essere", "to be").
Gli (mu) *hanno* rotto (rozbili) la macchina (samochód).
La sua (jego) macchina (samochód) *si* (się) *è* rotta (zepsuł). (neutral)
Gli (mu) *si* (się) *è* rotta (zepsuł) la macchina (samochód). (more personal, emotional)
*Jego* samochód się zepsuł. *Mu* samochód się zepsuł.
Are both common in Polish? Do they have the same meaning?
Thank you


----------



## Ben Jamin

Nino83 said:


> *Jego* samochód się zepsuł. *Mu* samochód się zepsuł.
> Are both common in Polish? Do they have the same meaning?


*Jego* samochód się zepsuł. Normal, neutral. 
Jemu zepsuł się samochód. (The weak form "mu" does not occur at the beginning of the sentence.)
A more personal attitude. More common than the latter, as people tend to be emotionally involved in such cases, or at least pretend to be.
More common word order is however: "Zepsuł mu się samochód."
If you begin with "Jemu" you put the sentence stress on the word, and emphasize the fact that ir was just to him it happened.


----------



## Nino83

Ben Jamin said:


> *Jego* samochód się zepsuł. Normal, neutral.
> Jemu zepsuł się samochód. (The weak form "mu" does not occur at the beginning of the sentence.)
> A more personal attitude. More common than the latter, as people tend to be emotionally involved in such cases, or at least pretend to be.


Thank you, Ben Jamin.
You're confirming that the use of the dative is similar to that of the Romance languages, i.e it makes the sentence more personal and emotional.
In this book Anna Wierzbicka says:


> Dative can also be used if a spontaneous, agentless, change occurs in a person's possessions. It appears, however, that in sentences of this kind the change has to be seen as "bad"
> Samochód *mi*        się zepsuł
> car          me: Dat  broke
> My car broke down (on me)


----------



## Lorenc

Nino83 said:


> How is the situation in Polish? Can you say, in Polish, "my foot hurts", or do you say always "to me foot hurts", "she broke his leg" or "she broke leg to him"?



In Polish for `my foot hurts' they actually say 'foot hurts me', i.e. with the recipient of the pain in the accusative and often with the word order 'hurts me foot': _boli go noga_, _boli ją brzuch_, _boli mnie głowa. _I don't know if the same sentences using a word order of the type_ głowa mnie boli _carry a different shade of meaning in terms of style.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Lorenc. 
Let's change verb. For example, how do Polish speaker say "I washed my hands" and "I washed her hands"? 
In Italia we use the dative case, "*mi* (to me) sono lavato le mani" and "*le* (to her) ho lavato le mani".  
Do you use the possessive adjective (or the genitive case) or the dative case?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Nino83 said:


> Thank you, Ben Jamin.
> You're confirming that the use of the dative is similar to that of the Romance languages, i.e it makes the sentence more personal and emotional.
> In this book Anna Wierzbicka says:


I think that generalization _"if a spontaneous, agentless, change occurs in a person's possessions. It appears, however, that in sentences of this kind the change has to be seen as "bad" _is not justified.
Here are examples of the opposite:
Przyśnił mi się piękny sen. (I dreamed a beautiful dream) Literally „A beautiful dream dreamed to me”
Wpadła mi w ręce świetna książka. (I came over an excellent book) Literally (An excellent book fell to me in the hands).

The construction only conveys the fact that the topical person in the sentence was not active.


----------



## Nino83

Ben Jamin said:


> Here are examples of the opposite:


These last examples are similar to the Latin _dativus possessivus_, with this construction, (subject)agent-dative, (direct object)patient-nominative. 
_Mihi (to me) liber (book, nominative) est (is)_ = _I have a book_.  
Probably Mrs Wierzbicka didn't want to say that every time there is a dative, this implicates that there is some emotive involvement, but that when something happens to an object we own (it is broken, repaired, changed, or things like these), using the dative *instead of* the possessive adjective means that there is some emotive involvement or some interest.


----------



## Ben Jamin

I meant that this part of the statement is easily falsified: "... the change has to be seen as bad... ", not the rest of it. That's why I chose examples with the opposite (positive) impact.


----------



## Nino83

Ben Jamin said:


> I meant that this part of the statement is easily falsified: "... the change has to be seen as bad... ", not the rest of it. That's why I chose examples with the opposite (positive) impact.


Ah, ok, I see. Yes, the dative can be both of advantage and of disadvantage (_dativus commodi_ and _incommodi_). It depends on the verb.
In fact, she says:


> It is true that agentless sentences can also imply a welcome change in an object, as in the sentences:
> _ciasto ładnie mi się upiekło_
> cake nicely me: dat (itself) baked
> my cake came out nicely


It is the same in Italian.


----------



## Lorenc

Nino83 said:


> Thank you, Lorenc.
> Let's change verb. For example, how do Polish speaker say "I washed my hands" and "I washed her hands"?
> In Italia we use the dative case, "*mi* (to me) sono lavato le mani" and "*le* (to her) ho lavato le mani".
> Do you use the possessive adjective (or the genitive case) or the dative case?



You'd use the dative, as in Italian. For example `le ho lavato le mani' _umyłem jej ręce. _For 'mi sono lavato le mani' you can say _umyłem sobie ręce_, where _sobie _is in the dative (_siebie _or_ się_ are the genitive/accusative). You can also just say _umyłem ręce_ and it is normally clear that it is your hands you washed, while in Italian _ho lavato le mani_ may sound incomplete or ambiguous. _Sobie_ also has the weak form _se_, which is considered incorrect and coarse but sometimes used for humorous effect: _umyj se ręce!_


----------



## jasio

Nino83 said:


> Ciao, jasio!


Ciao Nino, 



Nino83 said:


> How is the situation in Polish? Can you say, in Polish, "my foot hurts", or do you say always "to me foot hurts"


"Boli mnie stopa" - where "mnie" is a common form for of the first person singular pronoun (I) in several cases, but here it's accusative. 



Nino83 said:


> "*he* broke his leg" or "*he* broke leg to him"?


"Złamał nogę". Apparently in Polish it's obvious that if you don't mention that he broke a leg of another person, you mean that he broke his own leg.



Nino83 said:


> With other objects, we can use the dative or the possessive pronoun.
> "Hanno rotto (they broke) la *sua* (his) macchina (car)". Neutral.
> "*Gli* (to him) hanno rotto (they broke) la macchina (the car)". More personal and emotional. For example "Do you know what happened to John? Some people broke his car, what a pity!".
> How does it works in Polish?
> Rozbili *jego* samochód. Rozbili *mu* samochód.
> Are both sentences common in Polish? Do they have the same meaning?


Both are possible, and a specific usage depends on context. If you use a pronoun, I perceive the latter as more natural. With the first name ("Rozbili samochód Adama" (G) vs. "Rozbili Adamowi samochód" (D)) - I feel that they are not quite the same, but I'm unable to identify the precise difference right from the top of my head - other than the former is more formal, and the later - more emotional. If there is more than one victim, I can't imagine using names in dative, only in genitive. 



Nino83 said:


> In Italian these "anticausative" verbs work in the same manner, i.e using reflexive pronouns (but they *take* the auxiliar verb "essere", "to be").
> Gli (mu) *hanno* rotto (rozbili) la macchina (samochód).
> La sua (jego) macchina (samochód) *si* (się) *è* rotta (zepsuł). (neutral)
> Gli (mu) *si* (się) *è* rotta (zepsuł) la macchina (samochód). (more personal, emotional)
> *Jego* samochód się zepsuł. *Mu* samochód się zepsuł.
> Are both common in Polish? Do they have the same meaning?


Anticausative verbs In Polish (and Slavic languages in general) are constructed using reflexive pronoun as well (in Polish there is only one, '*się*', for all persons).
Rozbili mu samochód.
Jego samochód się zepsuł. (formally correct, but with a possessive pronoun it sounds a bit awkward for me)
Samochód mu się zepsuł.

The meanings are pretty similar, but please mind the word order. 


> *Jego* samochód się zepsuł.
> Samochód *Adama* się zepsuł.
> Samochód *mu* się zepsuł.



In all of these statements the focus is on the car. However, you can change the word order to move the focus onto the problem, like when responding to a question 'why is he so sad'?


> Zepsuł się *jego* samochód. (looks slightly strange though)
> Zepsuł się samochód *Adama*.
> Zepsuł *mu* się samochód.



PS. Imparo italiano da più o meno tre anni. Non parlo tanto bueno, ma no devi tradurre tutte le parole per me.


----------



## jasio

Lorenc said:


> In Polish for `my foot hurts' they actually say 'foot hurts me'


Perhaps the verb 'to hurt' is not the best for demonstrating the different word orders. Your leg may hurt ('może cię boleć noga'), but you may hurt someone else ('możesz krzywdzić kogoś') - and then the actual meaning of the verb is diferent. This ambiguity does not exist in Polish though.



Lorenc said:


> often with the word order 'hurts me foot': _boli go noga_, _boli ją brzuch_, _boli mnie głowa. _I don't know if the same sentences using a word order of the type_ głowa mnie boli _carry a different shade of meaning in terms of style.


Often you can use them interchangeably, so perhaps you should not draw too deep conclusions.

However in the former order there is a focus on the pain, while on the latter - on the part of the body. So for example if I had a broken leg, I would probably say "noga mnie boli" rather than "boli mnie noga" - to demonstrate that the actual problem is with the leg, so it may hurt more often or I cannot walk, or it happened again, etc. If you want to inform why someone is in a bad mood, you would probably say 'boli ją brzuch', as the pain itself is more important (as a reason of a bad spirit) than the actual reason. However saying 'brzuch ją boli' moves the focus to a stomach problem - perhaps you suspect poisoning, maybe it's serious, maybe an action should be undertaken. It's a nuance though.


----------



## jasio

Ben Jamin said:


> The construction only conveys the fact that the topical person in the sentence was not active.


...and the subject of the sentence was not actually a direct object of the action either - because then you would use passive voice. Compare:
* Śnił mi się piękny sen.
* Każdy _sen_, ten czarowny i piękny, zbyt długo _śniony_ zamienia się w koszmar.


----------



## jasio

Lorenc said:


> You'd use the dative, as in Italian. For example `le ho lavato le mani' _umyłem jej ręce. _For 'mi sono lavato le mani' you can say _umyłem sobie ręce_, where _sobie _is in the dative (_siebie _or_ się_ are the genitive/accusative). You can also just say _umyłem ręce_ and it is normally clear that it is your hands you washed, while in Italian _ho lavato le mani_ may sound incomplete or ambiguous.


Normally, I would just say "umyłem ręce", it univocal. I would say "umyłem sobie ręce" only when I would like to stress that I washed my own hands rather than something else. 
"Się" is an indeclinable reflexive particle (like 'si' in italian, but it's used with all grammatical persons). "Umyłem się" = "mi sono lavato". "Adam się umył" = "Adam si è lavato".
Usage of "sobie" is more complex, as it may serve various purposes, including emotional shade ("umyj uszy" means that your ears are dirty, "umyj sobie uszy" may suggest that you are annoying by not hearing or listening). 



Lorenc said:


> _Sobie_ also has the weak form _se_, which is considered incorrect and coarse but sometimes used for humorous effect: _umyj se ręce!_


In general, I would discouraged using it. 
It's very colloquial, sometimes just careless speech of the underclass or dialects, sometimes may express negative emotions. "Umyj ręce" is neutral. In "umyj se ręce" I hear aggresion. If I ever use this word, it's in private circumstances, when I want to demonstrate that I am angry.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jasio said:


> "Się" is an indeclinable reflexive particle ...


What about siebie, sobie, z sobą, o sobie?


----------



## jasio

Ben Jamin said:


> What about siebie, sobie, z sobą, o sobie?


myję się
myjesz się
myje się

myjemy się
myjecie się
myją się

myję siebie czy myję sobie mean something else - don't they?

Please also look at Aneks:Język polski - zaimki – Wikisłownik, wolny słownik wielojęzyczny - they clearly consider "siebie" or "sobie" separate, indeclinable pronouns. Same with "sobą".


----------



## Ben Jamin

jasio said:


> myję się
> myjesz się
> myje się
> 
> myjemy się
> myjecie się
> myją się
> 
> myję siebie czy myję sobie mean something else - don't they?
> 
> Please also look at Aneks:Język polski - zaimki – Wikisłownik, wolny słownik wielojęzyczny - they clearly consider "siebie" or "sobie" separate, indeclinable pronouns. Same with "sobą".


Do you know the rationale of such classification? For a non grammarian "się" looks like a declinable personal pronoun.


----------

