# jest / to / to jest



## kanadaaa

Hi, I have a question about the following sentences: how are they different in interpretation?
(I'm just collecting data and don't understand Polish at all.)

(1) Jan jest moim najlepszym przyjacielem.
(2) Jan to moj najlepszy przyjaciel.
(3) Jan to jest moj najlepszy przyjaciel.


----------



## grassy

They mean the same thing. It's "mój", though.


----------



## jasio

grassy said:


> They mean the same thing. It's "mój", though.


Except that the first variant sounds the most natural and universal to me. I can think of a context where the second variant is OK as well, but I could hardly imagine where or when I would use the third one. Perhaps during a longer conversation about Jan - but then I would skip the subject.


> (we're talking about Jan)
> - To mój najlepszy przyjaciel (he's my best friend)
> (...)


----------



## grassy

jasio said:


> I could hardly imagine where or when I would use the third one.


I can easily imagine one:

A: Widujesz się z Janem?
B: Żartujesz? Jan to jest mój najlepszy przyjaciel. Co tydzień chodzimy na piwo.


----------



## jasio

grassy said:


> A: Widujesz się z Janem?
> B: Żartujesz? Jan to jest mój najlepszy przyjaciel. Co tydzień chodzimy na piwo.


In this context I would still skip the verb, resulting in the phrase #2.


----------



## grassy

jasio said:


> In this context I would still skip the verb, resulting in the phrase #2.


Are you being descriptive or prescriptive? I've heard people say things like (3) all my life.


----------



## jasio

grassy said:


> Are you being descriptive or prescriptive?


Did I write "I would skip" or "you should skip"? :-D



grassy said:


> I've heard people say things like (3) all my life.


With exactly this wording? What can I say? 
In my bubble I would use #1 anyway, then perhaps #2 (or perhaps on equal chances at the best). But never #3. As long as I'm sober, that is. But apparently in your bubble it's the other way round.


----------



## Henares

To me #1 sounds more natural. #2 would be the second choice. I would only use 3 if I wanted to emphasize it.


----------



## gvergara

Sześć,

I am reviving this thread, as I hope this helps me clarify this subject. As stated in my first question posted on this forum (this is my second one, just starting out with the language...), I am pretty much new to Polish, so up to now I have been exposed to very basic sentences that describe/define something or someone, some using _być_, some using _to _(_To *jest *długopis/Mój numer telefonu *to *243982734_)_. _Despite the fact that I still cannot quite figure out when to use which, while studying the days of the week, I came across two example sentences using both in the same sentence: _Poniedziałew *to jest* dzień godnia/Wtorek, środa, czwartek *to są *dni tygodnia_. And to conclude, the third example only uses to: _Siedem dni *to *tydzień_, which really left me puzzled. Could anyone please explain to me why the first two sentences were constructed using them both in the same sentence?

Z góry dziękuję!

G.


----------



## jasio

gvergara said:


> Sześć,


If it's an intentional joke (quite common in Polish) then ; if it's a typo, the spelling is "cześć".



gvergara said:


> I am reviving this thread, as I hope this helps me clarify this subject. As stated in my first question posted on this forum (this is my second one, just starting out with the language...), I am pretty much new to Polish, so up to now I have been exposed to very basic sentences that describe/define something or someone, some using _być_, some using _to _(_To *jest *długopis/Mój numer telefonu *to *243982734_)_. _Despite the fact that I still cannot quite figure out when to use which, while studying the days of the week, I came across two example sentences using both in the same sentence: _Poniedziałew *to jest* dzień godnia/Wtorek, środa, czwartek *to są *dni tygodnia_. And to conclude, the third example only uses to: _Siedem dni *to *tydzień_, which really left me puzzled. Could anyone please explain to me why the first two sentences were constructed using them both in the same sentence?


From grammatical standpoint, both variants, with or without the copula "jest" are correct most of the cases. Using it or omitting is primarily stylistic choice, sometimes hinted by the context. For example, if you show someone a pen, it would be more naturally to say "to jest długopis". However, if someone else shows you a pen and asks "co to jest?", you would naturally respond: "to długopis" - using a full phrase would sound somewhat bookish (albeit it would be correct).

The last phrase, "siedem dni to tydzień", is an exception as "siedem dni to jest tydzień" does not sound natural to me; technically it's correct, but I would probably prefer to say something like "siedem dni tworzy tydzień", "siedem dni nazywamy tygodniem" - that's why skipping the copula makes it sound better.

As an L2 beginner, it's probably safer for you to use the copula if unsure, unless you deal with the fixed, memorised phrases. 


I hope that it was clear and helpful.


----------



## gvergara

Hi again,

I have got a(nother) question regarding this topic. Can _to _be omitted in the answer to a question such as

_Przepraszam, czy to jest pana waliszka?
Nie, nie *jest moją waliszką*._

, or should "to-questions" always be answered using the "to (+nominative)-structure"?


----------



## Drakonica

waliszka -> walizka

We use full sentence mostly in school answers.

- Przepraszam, czy to jest pana walizka?

- Nie.

- Nie moja.
- Nie, nie moja.

- To nie moja.
- Nie, to nie moja.

- Ta nie jest moja.
- Nie, ta nie jest moja. (No, this one is not mine, but probably, I'm here asking for my own).

- To nie moja walizka. (If you've gave me not mine sutcase).
- Nie, to nie moja walizka. (If I've used shorter answer before, but you are still asking).

- To nie jest moja walizka. (If you've gave me not mine sutcase).
- Nie, to nie jest moja walizka. (at shool or emphatic).


----------

