# Present/Past Adjectival Participle



## Kos

Cześć wszystkim 

I have a question about the Present and Past Adjectival Participle in Polish. Overall, I know how to use these forms, but there is something that I read that questions my understanding of these forms. To my knowlegde, we use the perfective verb form for the past participle to mean that something was completed. ex: "_Książka została napisana przez....._", "_Tomek ma złamaną nogę_."

When it comes to using the imperfective verb in the present (passive) participle, I'm a bit unsure. I have a grammar book that I often reference when I have questions about Polish. The book indicates that a sentence with the present participle usually implies that the action is in progress of being completed (hence the name ). Anyway, the book gives the following example:

Odzież sprzedawana tam jest tania.

Is this really how we use this adjectival form all the time in Polish? Is this the most common way of expressing this action?

And by the way, I'm a bit lost involving verbs ending in "ano".
ex. Złapano trzech nastolatków przez policj_ę_.

Doesn't this carry the same meaning as the past adjectival participle? I don't see it that much and I was once told that this verb form is more formal and seldomly used. 

I hope this thread isn't too extensive or confusing.

Będę BARDZO wdzięczny za odpowiedzi 
-Kos


----------



## BezierCurve

> When it comes to using the imperfective verb in the present (passive) participle, I'm a bit unsure. I have a grammar book that I often reference when I have questions about Polish. The book indicates that a sentence with the present participle usually implies that the action is in progress of being completed (hence the name ). Anyway, the book gives the following example:
> 
> Odzież sprzedawana tam jest tania.
> 
> Is this really how we use this adjectival form all the time in Polish? Is this the most common way of expressing this action?


 
Indeed, this form can be used for indicating an action still in progress, but *it is also used for describing repetitive actions, which not necessarily have to be completed:*

Co niedzielę sprzedawane są tam używane samochody.

Actually, even the example given in your book does not really describe an action to be completed; a better example for that would be probably:

Mój samochód jest właśnie naprawiany przez fachowca.

And yes, those forms are pretty common.



> And by the way, I'm a bit lost involving verbs ending in "ano".
> ex. Złapano trzech nastolatków przez policj_ę_.
> 
> Doesn't this carry the same meaning as the past adjectival participle? I don't see it that much and I was once told that this verb form is more formal and seldomly used.


 
Well, the main purpose of the impersonal forms with -to and -no is to present an action without revealing/mentioning the subject (hence I really doubt if adding "przez policję" in that example makes any sense or if it's correct at all). It works a bit differently from the past adjectival participle, as it doesn't really require the passive voice and the object (in active voice ) does not become the subject. 

If you wanted to change that sentence accordingly to that it would be:

Trzech nastolatków _zostało złapanych_ przez policję.

Here "przez policję" is fine.

I'm not sure if I succeeded in answering your questions though. Tell me what possibly is still unclear to you (if anything is).

EDIT: a few minor details - fixed.


----------



## Kos

Thank you very much for the response/ explanation, BezierCurve.   You essentially cleared up my doubts.  I had a feeling the "przez policję" part of the sentence was odd, but I found it randomly on a website, which was most likely inaccurately translated.
The only small question I have left is, would one be more likely to see a sentence with the past adjectival participle or the impersonal -no & -to forms? 
For example: "_Napisano książkę w roku xxxx" or "Książka została napisana w roku xxxx"?_

Thanks again.


----------



## majlo

Without context it's hard to say. As it stands alone, I like the latter more.


----------



## BezierCurve

> The only small question I have left is, would one be more likely to see a sentence with the past adjectival participle or the impersonal -no & -to forms?
> For example: "_Napisano [tę] książkę w roku xxxx" or "Książka została napisana w roku xxxx"?_


 
As majlo wrote, it would depend on the context. Let's take your examples. If the book itself was more important than the time of writing in a given context (say, we're talking about different aspects of the book), then I'd go for "Książka [ta] została napisana w roku xxxx". 

If we're more concerned about the chronology, then I'd word it "_książkę [tę] napisano w roku xxxx"._

I'd risk to say that "została napisana" (or colloquially: "była napisana") would be more frequent in spoken language. Forms with -to/-no are mostly used by media and in books.


----------



## Kos

Sorry for the lack of context. I was trying to get an general overview of which wording is more commom in every day conversation. As I can see, however, both phrases emphasize different aspects. 

By the way, Bezier Curve, you actually confirmed something I've always been unsure of. I didn't know if it was acceptable to use "być" instead of "zostać" in such sentences. I thought it carried a different meaning, so thank you for clearing that up.

Thank you as well, Majlo. I had more hits on google for that phrase, so it seems it may be a bit more appealing.


----------



## BezierCurve

Well, formally there is a difference between "być" and "zostać" (the first one used with imperfective spects, especially to indicate a frequentative character of some action: "Ta zasada była już wielokrotnie przypominana."). 

However in colloquial speech people tend to use "być" with both aspects.


----------



## Thomas1

Bezier, are you sure about it? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen ‘być’ with both perfective and imperfective verbs in any kind of writing. 
  The difference to me between sentences like:
  Samochód został kupiony. 
  and
  Samochód był kupiony.
  is quite slight and consists in emphasising (dynamic) change and state respectively, but the meaning is practically the same: the car was sold. Or am I missing something?


----------



## BezierCurve

Yes, you're right. It is possible indeed to use "być" with perfective aspect, but then in many cases it would be more suitable for describing _a state_ than _an action _in past_,_ hence carrying a slightly different meaning. Compare:

"Stanąłem pod blokiem i zagwizdałem. Okno _było_ otwarte." with
"Stanąłem pod blokiem i zagwizdałem. Okno _zostało_ otwarte."

I was mostly concerned about expressing actions in my previous post, that's why I made that distinction ("być" vs. "zostać"). Maybe too hasty one, I agree. 

Still, "zostać" can only be used with the perfective aspect.


----------

