Polish Declension in Usea booklet by barsorro

Preface(... you've guessed right you can skip that part :)) The following is my attempt to familiarize foreign learners of Polish with the subject of declension and case government. I am a complete amateur in languages and language teaching. The idea to produce a guide like this has come out of internet friendships and meeting people attracted to Polish language and interested in learning it. Being myself fond of languages I have understood my friends' impractical fancy ;) and wanted to do all I can to keep up their interest and help their study. Unfortunately, maybe just on account of an inadequate search, I was unable to find much free self-study material for them on the Internet . (...at the time.) As a result, I've been brought to try and explain the intricacies of Polish grammar by myself. I realize that this is a bold endeavour, both generally (as Polish is probably one of the more difficult languages to learn, quite different from the non-Slavic languages of the West that I'm able to compare it with, and featuring some grammatical concepts that may prove a substantial challenge to everyday users of English, Spanish, or Portuguese), and especially for a person like me, who lacks any advanced formal education in the field of languages. Not only did I have to learn up on some of the essential grammar theory and terminology as I went along, I also struggled with methodology and composition. I have simply never done anything like this before, nor learned how to do it. In consequence, the script you have in front of you can probably serve as a good example of how this kind of things should not be written :). Its use of terminology is intuitive in places, and more than once just plain inventive. What is probably worse, the text features a multitude of digressions and side-notes, loosely related to the main threads of thought they appear in. This has been probably my biggest fault at the work: I just couldn't help myself explain almost everything at once :) Of course, I'm offering you this self-critique (... remember: I come from a post-communist country :)) as a sort of caveat. I wouldn't have finished writing the script, and, quite surely, I wouldn't have submitted it here, if I had thought that it was useless. No, I believe that, actually, it is not too bad :) I think I have reached my goal of presenting a concise, but possibly comprehensive, overview of the system of declension cases in Polish language: of showing both in a sketchy theoretical description and on examples when and what for each case is used. My goal was to inform about and to acquaint with the usage, so I think I can be pardoned for some theoretical imprecisions in fact, as it is, I believe I might have used an excessive amount of terminology. I chose declension, because I suppose that must be the most alien and intimidating area of Polish grammar for most foreign learners. In the numerous side-notes I've also smuggled in elements from other areas; most of them deserve a separate and much more detailed treatment, but I felt it was impossible to leave unexplained some of the grammatical structures that surface in the examples. An important note: this is a guide on function and usage. I haven't dealt in any way with the patterns of morphological changes in inflected words. I will speak straight with you: the patterns are rather numerous and not all that simple. In my opinion, trying to learn them synthetically would be extremely difficult and tedious. There are, of course, breakdowns of the morphological paradigms, and you are welcome to check them out for example, here: http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/gram/en/deklin00.html but I suggest that you don't spend too much time on them. You can use those tables to get a general overview, and later, if necessary, to try and construct or confirm your speculations on inflected forms of some nouns you need (when you do that, watch out for the changes that have to be made to many of the ending stem-consonants!). Yet, as far as learning is concerned, I think it is better to set on acquiring the patterns

more intuitively: by reading texts seeing words, realizing what a word's function in a sentence is and what declension case it must be in and thus, slowly and naturally, tuning your mind in to them. If you would still rather get some "clinical" exposure first, I suppose this set of tables should be a bit better for that than those from the previous link: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Polish/Masculine_noun_declension (feminine and neuter noun charts are hyper-linked at the bottom of the page) I really wish I could offer you a web address of a "declinator" an applet that would present you with the full declensions of any given substantive. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything like that, so it looks like there's no real way around using the declension tables once in a while. HOWEVER, for a piece of good news, as I am writing this I have looked in to Wikisownik, which is the Polish part of the Wiktionary, and I can see that many (perhaps even: most) of the popular nouns are given there together with their full declensions! Wikisownik: http://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikis%C5%82ownik:Strona_g%C5%82%C3%B3wna The declensions are presented on the page of an entry word, under the title: "odmiana". The "lp" marker stands for "liczba pojedyncza" = singular; "lm" "liczba mnoga" = plural. Declensions are listed after each marker in the regular order: 1. nominative, 2. genitive, 3. dative, 4. accusative, 5. instrumental, 6. locative, 7. vocative but most of the forms are presented as only the suffix that has to be added to the word-stem; the nominative is given as a whole word, and the stem is the part of it that comes left of the vertical dividing line "|" (if there is no such dividing line, then it means that the nominative form has no suffix and that the whole of the word in nominative is the stem); in situations of a stem-change in an inflection form, the whole inflected word is shown. I think that the Wikisownik can to some degree stand as a surrogate "declinator". Things are easier the opposite direction. You can enter any word found in a Polish text into the "znajd sowa" (find words) searchbox of this dictionary: http://so.pwn.pl/ (PWN dictionary of Polish orthography) and you will get the base form (the nominative) of the word (plus select irregular inflection forms if that word has such but those are not presented in a particularly clear way, I'm sorry) Then, once you have that base form, you can use these online dictionaries to look up its meaning in English: http://www.angool.com/ http://www.dict.pl/dict_iso http://slowniki.pwn.pl/angielski/pl/polski (these are the ones I use and like; there are others around, too... and let's not forget about the Wikisownik which works very well as an interlingual dictionary) At the end of this foreword, I'd like to recommend to you three Internet addresses with valuable resources to help you extend your knowledge of Polish, and of Polish grammar in particular: - "A Grammar of the Polish Language" a brilliant public domain compendium of Polish grammar by Grzegorz Jagodziski: http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/gram/en/gram00.html - Oscar E. Swan's "Polish Grammar in a Nutshell" http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/firstyear/nutshell.pdf

(had I found that one earlier, maybe I wouldn't have written this booklet :)) - a very impressive (at the first look at least) Polish section on the Transparent Language site (featuring a really, really nice blog in English about Poland's current events, curiosities and trivia, as well as some language games and interactive tests): http://www.transparent.com/languagepages/polish/polish.htm

I suppose that the only thing left for me to do now is to wish you pleasant and fruitful studies :) I really hope you don't get discouraged easily Polish may not be an easy language to learn, but there are areas of its grammar in which it is actually much simpler than, for example, English (tenses, the co-ordination of tenses, the conditional mood); in addition to that: Polish vocabulary tends to be markedly more specific than that of English, so the context is much less of an issue in the interpretation of things said. As far as declension and inflection patterns are concerned, it might all look terrifying when approached from the angle of classifications and charts. In practice, however, as soon as you get to know 200-300 substantives with a few (a random 2 or 3, not necessarily all) inflection forms for each of them, your mind will be ready to supply the missing forms by making them up, based on the memory and on intuitive perception of the morphological changes occuring in similar words in the desired declension case form. Some of the forms deduced this way will, obviously, be wrong, but you can always try cross-checking them with a declension chart and with the dictionary of orthography... And besides you don't expect to learn without making mistakes, do you? :) I've got a Polish proverb for you that fits the occasion: "Jak si nie przewrcisz, to si nie nauczysz." ("If you don't stumble and fall even once, then you will not learn for good.") :) I keep my fingers crossed for you! You have no reasons to worry after all there are about 40 million speakers of Polish, and I'd venture to say that at least half of them can be called fairly articulate and fluent ;) You wouldn't think those 20 million are are all exceptionally gifted for languages, would you? :) A zatem... Powodzenia! (Well then... I wish you success!)

Zaczynamy! (Let's go! [literally: "We start / commence!"] )

The declension chart number 1. Here is an example of all declension forms of three nouns (selected quite randomly) of three different genders (the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter). I'll try to use those nouns in many of the example sentences I'm going to make in the course of this booklet, but it's not always possible to use just those three so, this chart is meant as a general overview of the number of declension cases and the way they modify the nouns. Pay attention to the ordinal numbers for the cases they are traditionally always listed in that very order I'm going to use those numbers to refer to specific declension cases.

ord.num. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Polish name mianownik dopeniacz celownik biernik narzdnik miejscownik woacz

int. name ex.noun.masc. nominative kot genitive kota dative kotu accusative kota instrumental kotem locative kocie vocative kocie!

ex.n.fem. truskawka truskawki* truskawce truskawk truskawk truskawce truskawko!

ex.neut. dziecko dziecka dziecku dziecko dzieckiem dziecku dziecko!

*) in case of all nouns ending in "-ka" the form of genitive (singular) is identical to the plural nominative

the word "truskawki" also stands for plural: "strawberries".

From now on I'll be either using the name of a case or and I'll be doing that most of the time an acronym with the case's number, example: Przynie (r4) tu kota (d4, kot). Bring the cat here. d4 = declension (case number) 4 = the accusative (biernik) r4 = case government for case 4 I'm going to use the letter "r" here, because "case government" is called "rekcja" in Polish (we've borrowed the term from German), and I think that the letter "r" will stand out better and be more noticeable in the text. Possibly, I'm also going to use "rekcja" in the explaining text, because it seems a handy, single-word term. More about the idea of case government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_government

And now let's get down to business and see what those cases are all about! :)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> d1. the nominative (mianownik) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::This case is used for the words (mainly a noun, but it can also be a personal pronoun, or even a proper/personal name [because they also undergo declension in Polish]) that is the subject of a sentence.

Examples: Kot (d1) pije mleko (d4). A/The cat drinks milk. Truskawka (d1) ronie na krzaku (d6). A/The strawberry grows on a shrub. Dziecko (d1) grzecznie (adv.) si bawi (v). A/The child is playing in a nice and orderly manner. (the verb in that example is "bawi si" (it's a reflexive verb in Polish); explanations of the reason for a verb's position at the end of the sentences and of an inversion like the one to "... si bawi" will appear later on in the booklet; let me just say that "Dziecko bawi si grzecznie." would have been correct as well) Ja (d1) jem niadanie (d4). I'm eating breakfast. Ona (d1) myje naczynia (d4). She is washing/washes dishes. Wy (d1) chodzicie na dugie spacery (d4). You (plural) go for long walks. Ania (d1) mieszka teraz w Anglii (d6). Ania lives in England now. Wojtek (d1) uczy si (r2) angielskiego (d2) ze (r5) mn (d5). Wojtek learned/used to learn English with me. ("angielskiego" is the genitive form of the noun/adjective "angielski"; "mn" is the instrumental case form of the personal pronoun "ja"; don't get terrified with the symbols I'm putting so many of them here to show you that the use of the genitive form (d2) of "angielski" is enforced by the case government ("rekcja") (r2) of the verb "uczy si" (to learn: in Polish

it's a reflexive verb something like "to teach oneself"), and that the instrumental form (d5) of "ja" is enforced by the rekcja (r5) of the preposition "z/ze" (with)... yes... prepositions, too, have their own case governments in Polish: they require a specific declension form in the words that follow them...; I will not use so many symbols at once in other examples: just remember the rule a symbol refers to the word/words that come immediately before it)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> d2. the genitive (dopeniacz) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The functions of the genitive: a) to indicate possession it doesn't have to be something material, it can be some quality or either a physical or a non-physical state. It is the substantive that stands for the possessor which comes in the genitive. The genitive is also used to indicate a belonging to specific subcategory: where the noun in genitive is the one that defines the category and allows for a precise distinction of what we're talking about (look at the example with "krzak truskawki" below).

Futro kota (d2) jest mikkie. The fur of a/the cat is soft. Krzak truskawki (d2) jest niski. A shrub of strawberry is low. (note that in English it is more correct to say: "A strawberry shrub is low.") Zabawka dziecka (d2) jest bezpieczna. The toy of the child is safe. Kolczyki tej sawnej aktorki (d2) byy z platyny (d2). The earrings of that famous actress were ~made~ of platinium. (the nominatives = "(ta) (sawna) aktorka" (fem.), "platyna" (fem.); the explanation for why it's "z platyny" and why "platyna" comes in the genitive here you will find in point "e)" of this section on the genitive) Odpowied tego pana (d2) bya prawidowa. The answer of this gentleman was correct. (in a better English: "This gentleman's answer was correct."; the nominative = "(ten) pan" (masc.)) Jako tych zdj (d2) jest marna. The quality of these photos is poor. (the nominative = "(te) zdjcia" (plural) singular nominative = "(to) zdjcie" (neut.)) Plae Brazylii (d2) s pikne. The beaches of Brazil are beautiful. (the nominative = "Brazylia" (fem.)) Skra Ani (d2) jest do ciemna. The skin of Ania [Ania's skin] is quite dark. (the nominative = "Ania" (personal (first) name)) Wosy Manueli (d2) s dugie, rude i lnice. Manuela's hair is long, red and shiny. (the nominative = "Manuela" (personal (first) name)) in Polish we don't use a collectve noun for "hair"; instead, we employ the plural of "wos" (a hair); that's why the grammar number mismatch between the original sentence and the translation: "Wosy ... s... "

"(The) hair... is..."; one more thing: the adjective "rudy" (here inflected into plural adjective "rude" to fit the plural "wosy") is used specifically and solely with reference to the red colour of the hair, or to a red-head person :))

As you can see, both regular nouns and proper (personal) names are inflected into the genitive form and used in the function described by this point ("a)"). However, notice that this is not so with personal pronouns when a "possessor" is to be denoted by a personal pronoun ("ja", "ty", "on", etc.), we have to use an appropriate possessive pronoun : "mj/moja/moje..moje/moi (*)" my, "twj/twoja/twoje..twoje/twoi (*)" your, "jego" his, "jej" her, "jego" its (for "ono" 3.person.neuter), "nasz/nasza/nasze..nasze/nasi (*)" our, "wasz/wasza/wasze..wasze/wasi (*)" your-pl., "ich" their (*) these two last forms refer to two plural genders: non-personalmasculine and personal-masculine we are not going into the details of that now, but if you're interested in thequestion of genders, look there: http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/gram/en/gram03.html#rodzaj ;

the three forms that come before the two marked with the asterix (*) apply to the "possessed" things being of the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter gender, respectively (so, we have, e.g., "mj kot (m)", "moja truskawka (f)", "moje dziecko (n)"); when the "possessor" is in the third person, there is just one possessive pronoun serving for every gender of the things posessed (e.g., "jej kot", "jej truskawka", "jej dziecko"); possessive pronouns follow declension what is presented above are possessive pronouns in their nominative forms; we'll get to the inflection patterns for possessive pronouns some other time... for comparison, here are the genitive case forms for personal pronouns: "mnie" (gen. of "ja"), "ci / ciebie" (... of "ty"), "jego" ("on"), "jej" ("ona"), "jego" ("ono"), "nas" ("my"), "was" ("wy"), "ich" ("oni") ( as you can see some of the forms are identical ). And note: while the "possessor" noun in genitive nearly always comes second in the word order, to the "thing that is possessed", a possessive pronoun nearly always comes before the thing possessed. Look: Moje (possessive pronoun) wosy s krtkie. My hair is short. (not! : "Wosy mnie (pers.pron. in d2) s krtkie." WRONG! "Wosy moje (poss.pron.) s krtkie." not plain wrong, but most unnatural in normal usage) Twj (poss.pron.) pies jest milutki. Your dog is cute. (not! : "Pies ciebie (pers.pron. in d2) jest milutki." WRONG! "Pies Twj (poss.pron.) jest milutki." not plain wrong, but most unnatural in normal usage) Jego (poss.pron.) motocykl jest bardzo gony. His motorbike is very loud. (here, there would have been less difference, because, as we have noticed earlier, the genitive form of the personal pronoun "on" (he) is identical to the possessive pronoun for that person; however, if the "jego" were to be placed after the subject "motocykl", then the resulting sentence "Motocykl jego jest gony." would have looked very unnatural and stilted: this "jego" would have been perceived as being the possessive pronoun for, as we know, a personal pronoun genitive in the possessive role is a grammatical error and the

positioning of a possessive pronoun after a subject is only allowable in solemn utterances and in verse)

b) as the direct object in negative sentences. This is very characteristic of Polish grammar: in all the instances where a positive sentence has a direct object in the accusative (and this is so probably in more than 90% of all direct objects), the corresponding negative sentence must have this direct object set in the genitive. (side-note: quite a number of careless and/or under-educated native Polish speakers have some difficulty with that rule, but it sounds really bad if someone, who otherwise speaks fluent Polish, makes the mistake of leaving direct objects in the accusative in negative sentences).

Note: a very typical example of this usage is the Polish way of saying "there is not {here, there} / there are not {here, there} / isn't (aren't) {here, there}" "Nie ma {tu, tam} " : the cause for the use of the genitive lies in the literal reading of a sentence of this type: " nie ma " " doesn't have " [1] - in this case: an unidentified 'somebody' representing us all [2] - in this case: the thing that is 'missing', ... and an additional important fact is that the "rekcja" for the verb "mie" (to have) wants an object in the accusative as you can see, the thing that is "missing" the "thing" from the sentence "there isn't " is the direct object (of the verb "mie"), and so in the negative sentence ("... nie ma ... ") the "thing" must be put in the genitive. Tu nie ma mojego kota (d2). My cat isn't here. [quite literally: Here (it) doesn't have my cat.] (the corresponding positive sentence would be and watch out for a totally different grammatical construction, including the fact that in this one "kot" is the subject (!!): "Mj kot (d1) jest tu." My cat is here.)

Other examples of negative sentences: Nie gaszcz mojego kota (d2) zbyt czsto. I don't stroke my cat too often. (notice, however, that the noun "kot" has identical forms for the genitive (d2) and the accusative (d4), so that a positive sentence, which takes the object in accusative, looks practically the same: Gaszcz mojego kota (d4) bardzo czsto. I stroke my cat very often.) Nie jem truskawki (d2). I'm not eating a strawberry. (The positive would be: "Jem truskawk (d4).") Nie gryz truskawki (d2). I'm not chewing a strawberry. (P: "Gryz truskawk (d4).") Nie mam dziecka (d2). I don't have a child. (P: "Mam dziecko (d4)." : notice that the accusative in the neuter nouns (i.e. those ending in "-o" is always the same as the nominative (d1, the "basic" form)) Nie lubi jej dziecka (d2). I don't like her child.

(P: "Lubi jej dziecko (d4).") By negatives we don't only mean negative statements but also negative interrogatives (= question sentences) and negative imperatives (= orders or requests): Nie gaszcz ich dziecka (d2)! Don't stroke their child! (a positive imperative sentence would be: "Gaszcz ich dziecko (d4)!"... although a more natural one would actually be "Pogaszcz ich dziecko (d2)!": why is that so is a subject for another lecture... ; as for now, we're trying to concentrate on the fact that where positive sentences of any kind including imperatives, like here have objects in the accusative, the corresponding negative sentences have them in the genitive) Nie jade jeszcze nigdy w yciu truskawki (d2)? Have you never eaten a strawberry in your life? (note that in Polish we use a double negative in such sentences: "Nie jade ... nigdy ..." "nigdy" means "never" while in English you either say "Haven't you ever ..." or "Have you never ..."; a positive question here would be: "Czy jade ju kiedy (w yciu) truskawk (d4)?" "Have you already [ever] eaten a strawberry (in ~your~ life)?")

And let's stress that once again: we are talking here of sentences whose verbs take direct objects in the accusative which is the absolute majority of verbs that take direct objects (more about direct objects and the accusative case in the section about the accusative further on in the text). These verbs include those used in the examples above: "mie" (to have), "je" (to eat), "gaska" (to stroke (give caress))

other words: they present a (fixed) case government for the genitive. Among those verbs are: "dotyka" (to touch), "uywa" (to use), "dowiadcza" (to experience (sth), to suffer (sth)), "pozbywa si" (to get rid of), broni" (to defend), "pilnowa" (to watch over sth-sb / to stand guard to sth-sb / to keep an eye on sth-sb) Pozbywam si tego kota (d2)! I'm getting rid of that cat!

c) For some verbs the object must always be in the genitive (instead of the usual accusatived4). In

Uywam truskawki (d2) do zrobienia tego koktajlu. I use a strawberry to make that cocktail. (... literally it's more like: "(...) for the making of that cocktail.", but that's not really important right now) Ta kobieta pilnuje mojego dziecka (d2), gdy jestem w pracy. That woman watches over my child when I'm at work. Bezdomni czsto dowiadczaj zimna (d2). The homeless often suffer cold. (the nominative = "zimno" (noun, neuter)) Dotknam gorcego garnka (d2) i si poparzyam. I touched [fem.] a hot cooking-pot and I burned [fem.] myself. (the nominative = "(gorcy -adj.) garnek" (masc.); the reflexive pronoun "si" which, in Polish, is the same for all persons, i.e., it stands equally for: "myself", "yourself, "himself", ..., "yourselves", "themselves" is usually not placed "hanging out" as the last word in a sentence) Prawo powinno broni kadego obywatela (d2). The law should defend every citizen. (the nominative = "(kady) obywatel" (masc.)) Bro mnie (d2)! Defend me!

d) when a certain quantity of a substance (or even of something abstract) is the complement (the object or a "quasi-object") of a verb that substance comes in the genitive in those situations. Often (but not always) a word like "troch" (some), or "odrobin" (a little bit of) precedes a substantive put in genitive used this way:Nalej mi wina (d2), prosz. Pour me (some) wine, please. (in English you need to add the word "some", in Polish because the verb choice and the genitive complement it is not strictly necessary: it becomes evident that it's some quantity of wine that is meant; the nominative = "wino" (neutr.)) Trzeba doda odrobin cukru (d2). There is a need to / It is necessary (= Trzeba...) to add a little bit of sugar. [in English it would probably be best to say: "It needs a some/a little more sugar."] (the nominative = "cukier" (m)) Tego (d2) jest tu mnstwo! There is a lot of that in here! ("Tego" = genit. of "to" ("this/that") = "of that" it's abstract: we don't know what the speaker was talking about, but it's not important: the speaker wants to inform us about the quantity of something we are probably expected to know from the context what it is that he/she means) Mam ju do jego zachowania (d2)! I already have enough of his behaviour! (the nominative = "(jego) zachowanie" (fem.); in proper English, one that is more remote from Polish syntax, this sentence would be: "I've already had enough of his behaviour.")

many prepositions (and prepositional expressions) are always followed with nouns in the genitive. In other words: those prepositions govern the genitive case. Some of them are (I cannot absolutely warrant that the list is complete, but I guess I managed to remember most of them :)): - "dla" (for) - "od" (from: for all situations not covered by the preposition "z/ze" [look below]: and especially, when you get something from a person) - "do" (to, into) - "z/ze" (out of in the sense that something is made of something (parts, materials); out of / from (inside) to say that somebody or something comes from a place, is taken out of a place, or has this place as the origin; in case of people, it can be used to denote the country, the city, etc., that they come from; generally speaking, this is the preposition to which the English "from" would be translated in clear majority of situations; "ze" is a phonetic variant used in those situations in which the first sound of the following word would make pronounciation nearly impossible: so, we have "ze srebra" and not "z srebra") - "bez" (without) - "obok" (beside, next to) - "wewntrz" = "w rodku" (inside) - "na zewntrz" (outside) - "powyej" (higher than, above) - "poniej" (lower than, below) - "wzdu" (along, alongside) - "zamiast" (instead of) - "podczas" = "w czasie" (during)

e)

Raz w tygodniu kupuj jedzenie dla kota (d2). Once in a week I buy food for the cat.

Chyba zjem gruszk zamiast truskawki (d2). I think ("chyba" = I think that / it seems to me that / probably) I will eat a pear instead of a strawberry. Dostaa to w prezecie od dziecka (d2). She got this as a present from a/the/her child.

Some examples using other nouns to demonstrate the use of the remaining prepositions followed by nouns in the genitive: Dla Manueli (d2) portugalski jest atwy. Dla mnie (d2) jest trudny. For Manuela Portuguese is easy. For me ~it~ is difficult. (the nominatives = "Manuela" (... yes, declension applies to proper names as well); "ja" (pers.pron.); side-note: notice that, in Polish, in the second sentence there is no need for an explicit subject just like in Portuguese or Spanish, it's enough to say "Dla mnie jest trudny.": "Dla mnie on jest trudny." wouldn't be wrong, but it would be unnatural in this place; ["portugalski" "jzyk portugalski" "jzyk (masculine)" "on"]) Zdenerwowany czowiek chodzi od ciany (d2) do ciany (d2). An upset [nervous; angered] person is walking from one wall to another. [literally: from wall to wall] (the nominative = "ciana" (f)) Ten naszyjnik jest ze zota (d2). This necklace is (made) out of gold. (the nominative = "zoto" (neuter); "ze" is a form of "z" there are just those two existing (the "z" and the "ze"); don't worry: there are no words "zi" or "zu"... well... there is "za", but that's a different preposition... and a different story :) the "ze" is used when the first syllable of the substantive that follows would make it too difficult to pronounce the it together with the preposition; for the story of "za" which is a totally different, unrelated preposition look into sections about prepositions in the descriptions of the accusative and instrumental cases) Woody Allen jest z Nowego Jorku (d2). Ja jestem z Krakowa (d2). Mj przyjaciel jest z Brazylii (d2). Zesp ABBA by ze Szwecji (d2). Czy jeste z Polski (d2)? Woody Allen is from New York. I'm from Krakw. My friend is from Brazil. The band ABBA was from Sweden. Are you from Poland? (the nominatives = "Nowy Jork" (m)", "Krakw (m)", "Brazylia (f)", "Szwecja (f)", "Polska (f)") Najlepsze zegarki s ze Szwajcarii (d2). Tego ciasta nie upieka moja mama. Ono jest ze sklepu (d2). Te jabka s z mojego drzewa (d2). The best watches are/come from Switzerland. My mom didn't bake this cake*. It is [comes] from a shop. These apples are [come] from my tree. (the nominatives = "Szwajcaria (f), "(to) ciasto (n)", "sklep (m)", "(moje) drzewo (n)"; the noun "jabka", as you can guess, is the subject of the last sentence, so it's in the nominative form as well, but this is the plural nominative the singular is "jabko (n)"; I've combined the sentences again, as I did in the example above, because they, again, demonstrate a common trait: in the previous example, the common denominator was the notion of a city or a country being the place that a person comes from; in this example, we're talking about a place of origin for a thing; I think a short explanation is due with regard to the sentence marked with the asterix (*). This sentence is basically the same as the following sentence, only with its word-order modified:

"Moja mama (d1) nie upieka tego ciasta (d2)." [d2 because "to ciasto" is the direct object in a negative sentence: we have already covered this application of the genitive in the point "b)"] I expect you now to be asking the question: why then this modified word-order? The answer is the emphasis. In a situation like we have here with this sentence and the one following it, in English one would use the passive mode in the first one, because it is the cake the that is central to the message. So, we would have: "This cake wasn't baked by my mom. It comes from a shop." (probably the Present Perfect Tense should actually be used in the first sentence: "... hasn't been baked...", but let's not get further into that). In Polish, however, (and that's the benefit resulting from declension), we have a very flexible word-order, which we can use to focus the reader's (or listener's) attention on certain parts of a sentence without resorting to means such as the passive voice: in fact, passive voice is not used too often in Polish, and it is particularly little seen in informal language.) Nie bd dzi wychodzi z domu (d2). I will not be getting out (of home) today. (the nominative = "dom (m)") Jak dugo leci si z Warszawy (d2) do Parya (d2)? How long is the flight from Warsaw to Paris? [more literally: How long does one fly from Warsaw to Paris?] (the nominatives = "Warszawa (f)", "Pary (f)"; "leci si": this is actually a subject for a separate little "lecture", but since it's nothing too complicated why should I leave it as a mystery? You might be recognizing the "si" as the reflexive pronoun (which, incidentally, is one and same for all grammatical persons). However, in this grammatical construction, it doesn't have much to do with reflexiveness. The combination + "s i" is used in much the same way as the "one/you" + in English to speak about actions where the subject is poorly defined, or those that are talk of a universal experience: those of the second group usually having the nature of some experimentally proved truths, or recommendations. Examples:O tym koncercie wci jeszcze si mwi! One still keeps talking about that concert! / / People still keep talking about that concert. Gdzie kupuje si znaczki pocztowe? Where do you buy postal stamps? Czym usuwa si te plamy? What does one remove these stains with? )

Magik wyjmuje krlika (d4) z kapelusza (d2). The magician is taking (*out) a rabbit out of a hat. (the nominatives = "krlik" (m), "kapelusz" (m); the "*out" is put there to indicate that the Polish verb "wyjmowa" means "to take out (of somewhere)" this verb is only used when the object of the action is inside something) Nie da si y bez przyjaci (d2). It's impossible to live without friends. (the nominative = "przyjaciele" (plural); the phrase "da si" being a specific figure of speach based on the verb "dawa" (to give) is used impersonally to express the idea: "it is possible (to do something)", "it is managable (to take/suffer sth)", "This is doable." ("Da si.")) Na tym zdjciu stoj obok mojego zwariowanego kolegi (d2) i mojej najlepszej przyjaciki (d2). In this photo I'm standing next to my crazy pal [male] and my best friend [female]. (the nominatives are: "(mj -possess.pron.) (zwariowany -adj.) kolega (masc.)", "(moja -p.p.) (najlepsza -adj.) przyjacika (fem.)" note that the conjunction "i" ("and") does not by itself have any influence on the declension case of "moja najlepsza przyjacika" (conjunctions

are totally neutral with regard to declension): the reason why that part of the sentence is in the genitive is that it, too, is associated (and governed by) the preposition "obok"; in fact, the end of the sentence could look like this: "...stoj obok mojego zwariowanego kolegi i obok mojej najlepszej przyjaciki.", but the repetitive "obok" wouldn't look well; in English you say "in the photograph", in Polish you use the preposition "na" which most contexts corresponds to the English "on"). Wewntrz tego owocu (d2) nie ma pestki (d2). There is no stone (= big seed) inside that fruit. (First, the nominatives: "(ten) owoc" (m), "pestka" (f); now, notice that the use of the genitive case has two different motivations here: "tego owocu" is demanded by the preposition "wewntrz", "pestki" is demanded by the fact that we have "pestka" as the object of a negative sentence in this case: a typical "There is no..." sentence) Chciabym zobaczy, co jest w rodku kota (d2). I would like [male subject] to see what is inside a cat. (... of course, this sentence is only a bit of black humour; and... it's correct! (although I'm sure cats would be of a different opinion :)) Na zewntrz jego domu (d2) stoi jaki podejrzany czowiek (d1). Outside his house there is a suspicious-looking man/person standing. (the nominative = "(jego) dom" (m); "(jaki) (podejrzany) czowiek" (masc.) is the subject of this sentence: once again, I have used the flexible word-order to place the key element of the sentence at the the head of it that sentence equals this one: "Jaki podejrzany czowiek stoi na zewntrz jego domu.", where you have the more familiar "subject, verb, object" order; I can't resist a temptation to divert your attention from the main subject for yet a moment...: note that the "jego dom" ("his house") is not the house belonging to the suspicious-looking man not only because that would make no sense as far as the message of the sentence is concerned, but also because in Polish the possessive pronoun used for the subject of a sentence is "sw j " (inflected appropriately to the number, gender and case of the thing "possessed."). Examples:"Ja umiem zadba o sw oj e sprawy." I can take care of my business. "I" is the subject of the sentence, and the "possessor" of the business. "Ona musi spakowa sw oj walizk." She must pack her suitcase. "She" is the subject of the sentence and the possessor of the suitcase. "Ona umie zadba o mo je sprawy." She can take care of my business. "Ja musz spakowa je j walizk." I must pack her suitcase.

while (when the subject is not the same as the "possessor")...:

This rule is not very strict if the subject is the 1st or the 2nd grammatical person (either singular or polural); however, for a 3rd person subject a variant of "swj" is the only correct possessive pronoun. Therefore, had I wanted to say that a suspicious man is standing outside his own house, I would have said: "Podejrzany czowiek stoi na zewntrz swojego domu.") W tym miejscu woda w morzu siga mi tylko powyej kolan (d2). In this place the water in the sea reaches for me only above my knees. (first, this is not very good English, but I didn't want to stray too far away from the Polish syntax in a proper English it would be something like this: "At this spot, the water of the sea reaches only above my knees."; second, the nominatives: "kolano" (singular, neuter, nominative) "kolana" (singular, neut., genitive); "kolana" (plural, nominative... yeah, I know it looks just like sing. genitive...) "kolan" (plural, genitive)) Mam tego (d2) powyej uszu (d2)! I have this reaching above my ears! (this is a figurative and very popular way of saying "I've really had enough of this!"; the nominatives: "to" ("this") (neuter); "ucho" (singular, nominative)

"ucha" (singular, genitive), uszy (pl. nom.) uszu (pl. genitive); "tego" = genitive of "to" (demonstrative pronoun); the reason for the genitive form of "to" ("tego") is that we're speaking of some "quantity" of his behaviour, or rather of experiencing that behaviour: look at the last example illustrating the earlier point "d)") Ta sukienka jest duga (ona) siga poniej kolan (d2). This dress is long it reaches below the knees. Jego wyniki byy poniej oczekiwa (d2). His results were below expectations. (the nominative: "oczekiwania" (plural this noun usually comes in plural)) To by cios poniej pasa (d2)! This was a blow (a punch) below the waistline! (= (figurative) something grossly unfair; the nominative = "pas" (masc.); note that "pas" means the "waist" (or "waistline"), i.e. the middle part of a human body, but it also means "a belt": after all, that's where you wear a belt, isn't it? :)) Droga biegnie wzdu rzeki (d2). The road runs alongside the river. (the nominative: "rzeka" (f)) Uywam owka (d2) zamiast dugopisu (d2). I use a pencil instead of a ball-point. (the nominatives: "owek" (m), "dugopis" (m); the motivations for the use of genitive are different for the two nouns in the sentence: "owka (d2)" is demanded by the verb "uywa" (look at sub-point "c)"), "dugopisu (d2)" is required by the preposition "zamiast") Podczas jazdy (d2) autobusem musisz trzyma si porczy (d2). During a ride in a bus you must hold onto a handrail. (the nominatives = "jazda" (f), "porcz" (f); like in the previous example, the reason for inflecting "jazda" into its genitive ("jazdy") is the "rekcja" of the preposition "podczas", and the reason for the use of genitive "porczy" is the "rekcja" of the verb "trzyma si" (to hold on / to hold onto sth); the noun "jazda" can describe any kind of journey on wheels, including getting a ride in a car or driving one) W czasie deszczu (d2) dzieci si nudz. During the rain children get bored. (or, in a good English: "Children get bored when it's raining."; the nominative = "deszcz" (m); maybe it's not the best place for that, but let me quickly clarify that the verbal phrase "to get bored" corresponds in Polish to a reflexive verb "nudzi si" now, the "si" part can come either after or before the main verb, and it is usually avoided that the "si" would come as the last word in a sentence.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> d3. the dative (celownik) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: a) The main function of the dative is to designate the indirect object of a verb. What it means is that if we have an action that takes an object (a person or a material thing), but the result of the action affects another person (or thing), then that "another" person (or thing) we call the indirect object and the substantive for that person (or thing) we (usually) put in the dative. In English, designation of the indirect object is achieved through the use of constructions like "to me", "for you" or just by putting the indirect

object before the direct object in the order of the sentence. Here are some examples of English sentences to show what I mean :) "She gave me a book." "a book" is the direct object, "me" is the indirect object. "He bought his child a toy." "his child" is the indirect object, "a toy" is the direct object. The object of the verb "to buy" is the thing you buy, and that's the direct object, but an important goal of the sentence is to show the beneficiary of the purchase, the person whom the result of the action really affects and that's the child (the indirect object of this sentence). "Give it to me." again, we have the verb "to give" here, but in this case the indirect object comes as second in the order of sentence, so the "to me" construction must be used.

And now some examples using the three model nouns: a cat, a strawberry, a child. Czesz kotu (d3) futerko (d4). I comb / I'm combing the fur for my cat. ("futerko" = diminutive of "futro"; when we speak about the soft coat of the small furry animals, we use the dimunitive; note: a more universal term for the hairy coat of an animal is "sier"... yeah, how did I guess you wouldn't like it much? ;) (... I mean: the pronounciation.) Unfortunately, this the only word to use with regard to dogs and horses...; all neuter nouns (i.e. these ending with "-o" have the accusative (d4) form identical with the nominative (d1)) Cukier dodaje sodyczy (d2) truskawce (d3). Sugar adds sweetness to a strawberry. (in most situations the indirect object would be something animate, a person or an animal, but, as this example shows, it doesn't have to be so. What is affected by the adding of the sugar? "Truskawka", right? :) So we have a strawberry in the dative. I don't want to pile to many things in one place, but in this sentence you can see another example of the genitive (d2) being used to say that sugar a certain amount, or some, sweetness (d1 = "sodycz") to the strawberry this is the aspect of genitive usage that we've talked about in the point "d)" of the earlier section). Czytam ksieczk mojemu dziecku (d3). I'm reading a (children's) book to my child. (the nominatives = "ksieczka" (f), "(moje) dziecko" (n); "ksieczka" is the dimunitive of "ksika" (f) which is "a book": "ksieczka" often suggests a small format of a book and therefore it is often used for personal documents in the format similar to that of a passport but it is also the word that is applied to all books for little children)

b) the important thing to remember is that the action described by the verb affects the indirect object this says nothing about the nature of the effect, which doesn't have to be, and very often is not, beneficial or advantageous to the indirect object.Ukradli mi (d3) zegarek. They [= somebody, we don't know who, some thieves] stole the watch "for me". (of course, in English a sentence like that looks ridiculous and one would say "They stole my watch." I'm just trying to use the nearest corresponding grammatical construction. In Polish it is also correct to say "Ukradli mj zegarek.", which literally has the meaning of "They stole my watch."; however, this doesn't appear as natural as the variant with the dative which puts emphasis on the person affected; "mi" = the dative of "ja" (pers.pron.)) Temu chopcu (d3) umara matka (d1). [syntax translation:] For that boy / To that boy ~his~ mother has died. (ATTENTION!!: the "syntax translation" is meant to show the structure of the

sentence! The natural way to speak the same message in English would be: "This boy's mother has died.". As before (in the sentence with the watch), we prefer a sentence like "Temu chopcu (d3) umara matka." to "Matka tego chopca (d2) umara." in situations when this is a recent event and when we want to touch upon the personal and tragic aspect of the fact. We want to show that what happened really affected somebody. The second sentence which literally means "The mother of the boy (has) died." ("Matka tego chopca umara.") sounds quite impassionate and almost suggests that this is something that happened in a further past. An important note to make is that the Polish sentence does not carry the meaning that the mother died for the boy in the way it is understood in the English language: that she died to save his life, or to protect him. No. Here we speak only about the fact that her death influences him (his life); "(temu) chopcu" = the dative of "(ten) chopiec"; "matka" is the subject of this sentence Polish syntax is very flexible, so there is no problem in modifying the word order so that the thing that the whole sentence is about would appear right at the start) Zepsu si nam (d3) samochd. The car broke down on us. (I think that this americanism this "on us" has a very similar function to the Polish dative: in this sentence it's not so important that car broke down, but that the failure affected the "us": probably, "we" couldn't get somewhere on time; "nam" = the dative of "my")

c) The Polish like it a lot to speak about things happening without there being somebody that can be held responsible :) OK, joke aside, I'm speaking here about sentences with indeterminate subjects. Something happened, but we're totally uninterested or unable to say who did it. And yet... we are often interested who was affected by the action :)Perhaps somewhat funnily, some of those things that we speak about so impersonally in Polish are quite personal experiences I guess we assume that they come to us whether we want them or not, and that's why we put ourselves as objects rather than subjects of them :) Look at these examples: Jest mi (d3) zimno. [syntax tr.] (It) is cold to me. [proper En.] I feel cold. (or: It's cold (here)). Jest mi ciepo. I feel warm. (...You don't need to give me your sweater, dear :)) Czy nie jest Ci (d3) za gorco? Don't you feel too hot? (ATTENTION!: this is not a question: "Don't you think you're too attractive?" ;)); ("Ci" = the dative of "Ty") Jej (d3) jest smutno. She feels sad. ("jej" = the dative of "ona") Jest mu (d3) trudno. Things are difficult for him. / He's finding his life hard. ("mu" = the dative of "on")

As you can see, the repeating pattern of those examples is: Jest + nou n/p ron oun in da tiv e + adv erb (all adverbs end in "-o", so if you know that something is not a noun and when it ends in "-o" it is an adverb; ... to be quite precise, in the example with "jej" above, we have the pronoun

in the first position in the sentence, but that's just a matter of word order: placing the pronoun first makes more emphasis be put on it: such modification to the word order may suggest that the "she" of the sentence was sad while "the others" (some "others", we don't know who) were not; of course, the following variant of the sentence is equally correct: "Jest jej smutno.").

There are also a few verbs about impressions and personal experiences for which we use a different type of dative construction which is, again, a construction in which the person who feels and experiences the things is not the subject but the indirect object of the verb. Ta piosenka podoba mi (d3) si. [syntax tr.] This song "presents itself well" to me. [proper En.] I like this song. (Don't get too scared about the seeming "weirdness" of it. And don't take this English "present itself" too directly the Polish verb "podoba si" isn't so stiff and formal: it is a really nice verb whose meaning is something like "to be likeable", "to be pleasing". It's important that you understand the way we express the notion that we like something in the Polish language: we, sort of, don't say that it is us who choose to like it it is more that the thing itself is pleasing and we cannot help being affected by it. Isn't that sweet? ;)) Actually, I believe that the Spanish language has a similar dative construction for the "I like sentences", doesn't it? "Me gusta la cancin." I like the song. "No me gustan hormigas." I don't like ants. one note: sentences of this type "Podoba mi si " have the meaning: " appeals to my senses [especially to the sight]" ; but when you speak about something that fits your preference, that is in your taste, that you have a sympathy for, when you talk about people you like, or things to eat, when this "liking" is stronger and lasting, then you say: "Lubi "; this expression follows the typical grammatical patern, i.e. the person who likes this "something" (or somebody) is the subject of the sentence)

Wydaje mi (d3) si, e co zrobiem le. ~It~ seems to me that I have done [masc.v.form] something wrong. (actually surprise, surprise! ;) there is not much to add or explain there, because in English the expression is similar, the only difference being that in Polish we have a reflexive verb: "wydawa si") Przypomniao mu (d3) si, e musi wzi lekarstwo. He remembered that he had to take a medicine. [syntax translation:] ~It~ reminded itself to him, that he has to take a medicine. ("mu" = the dative of "on"; well, there's one more thing that you might have noticed: in Polish, in a noun clause (which is a type of subordinate clause like the one in this example, i.e., one that serves as a complement of the verb of the main clause) we don't adjust the tense to fit the tense of the main clause so we have "musi" (present tense) no matter what the tense of the main sentence: in this case the past ("przypomniao si")) nio jej (d3) si, e lata. She dreamt she was flying. (It's quite impossible to make a "syntax translation" for this one. The verb "ni" can, in some situations, be used like "to dream" in English, with the "dreamer" being the subject and the active agent in the sentence: "Ja ni." "I'm dreaming." But in case you want to tell the story of a vision you had in your sleep, it is much more common and more natural to say that something "was dreamt to you". I think it makes a lot of sense, because we don't actively shape

our dreams, do we? (... Hello, Mr. Freud! ;); in this example you can see again how the noun clause (the subordinate clause) is in present tense ("lata": the past would have been "lataa") even though the main clause speaks about an action that was happening in the past: "nio jej si" - the present would be "ni jej si"))

d) Some verbs take the main object in dative (like an indirect object) even if there is no direct object (which nearly always comes in the accusative) given in the sentence. Look at those examples: dzikowa (to thank):Dzikuj Ci (d3). Thank you. (and not "Dzikuj Ty (d1)." or "Dzikuj Ci (d4-accus.).") Podzikuj temu panu (d3). Thank this gentleman. [imperative sentence] (the nominative = "(ten) pan") Podzikuj jej (d3) za prezent. Thank her for the present. [imperative sentence] (the nominative = "ona"). Just consider that (in the logic of the Polish language) thanking is not a process in which you somehow modify or directly influence somebody, which is what usually happens when you have actions (verbs) that take a direct object. Rather than that, thanking seems to be viewed as an action that is only directed at somebody. It so as if we didn't "thank a person" ("dzikowa kogo (d4)" incorrect) but thanked "to a person" ("dzikowa komu (d3)") (of course, this second expression is incorrect in English).

A similar thing happens with the Polish verb "to help" ( pomaga). We look upon the action as one of "giving help to someone" ("pomaga komu (d3)"), rather than doing something that somehow directly changes the person that is being helped. Czsto pomagam mojemu tacie (d3). I often help my dad. (the nominative = "(mj) tata" (masc.)) Janek pomaga swojemu bratu (d3) napisa wypracowanie szkolne. Johnny is helping his brother write a school essay. (the nominative = "jego/(swj) brat" (masc.); the use of inflected "swj" (instead of "jego") is dictated by the fact that the "possessor" refered to by this possessive pronoun is also the subject of the sentences - I've presented that shortly as an extended side note to one of the examples in the point "e)" of the section on the genitive). Pom mi (d3)! Help me!

Another important verb using an indirect object in the dative is the Polish equivalent of the English "to say / to tell / to speak" " mwi". Well, this is not one verb in Polish to cover all situations of a person speaking or saying things to another person / other people, but this is certainly the one most used. The person that you tell the things always comes in the dative, whether the sentence says what was said or not. One note: unfortunately, the perfective form of the verb "mwi" is quite irregular: "powiedzie". (We'll talk about the perfective aspect of verbs at some other occasion).Powiem mojej dziewczynie (d3) o moich problemach. I will tell my girlfriend about my problems. (the nominative = "(moja) dziewczyna" (fem.) side-note: yes, I could have also used "swojej" in place of "mojej" in that sentence; however, this is not obligatory for 1st-person subjects (while it is obligatory in case of some of the other grammatical persons, particularly: the 3rd); in fact the individual possessive pronoun ("moja"), when used with a 1stperson subject, appears more personal) Powiedz mi (d3)! Tell me!

Zawsze mwi Ci (d3) prawd! I always tell you the truth! ;) Powiedzia swojemu tacie (d3), e rozbi jego samochd. He told his dad that he had crashed his [i.e., his father's] car. (the nominative "jego/(swj) tata" (masc.); once again you can observe the use of an "individual" possessive pronoun ("jego") and the "generic", "meant-for-the-subject" "swj": the dad "belongs" directly to the guy who is the subject of the sentence; the car, however, doesn't directly belong to the guy, but to the dad and this we are informed about on account of the "jego" having been placed before the car. Had the car also directly belonged to the guy, the sentence would have been as follows: "Powiedzia swojemu tacie, e rozbi swj samochd." - here the owner of the car and the "owner" of the dad is the same person.) Mwiem mu (d3), eby uwaa. I told him [not once] to be careful. (... again, this is a matter of the perfective / imperfective aspect of a verb, and we won't deal with that here in detail - let me just say that "mwiem" is the imperfective form of "mwi", and that if the sentence was meant to inform about a single specific warning then we would have it use the perfective and, consequently, look like this: "Powiedziaem mu, eby uwaa."... of course, in both cases it is a male person who was giving the warning: if it had been a female, the conjugated verb would have ended with "-am")) There is probably yet a number of verbs that use dative for the main object. Two more that I can think of now are " wierzy ": to believe , and " ufa ": to trust Wierz Ci (d3). I believe you. Nie wierz temu politykowi (d3)! I don't believe that politician! (the nominative = "(ten) polityk" (masc.)) Ufam mojej przyjacice (d3). I trust my (female) friend. (the nominative = "(moja) przyjacika" (fem.)) Po prostu jej (d3) ufam. I simply trust her. (the nominative = "ona" (personal pron.)) Nie ufam mojemu kotu (d3)! I don't trust my cat! (nominative = "(mj) kot") (You might want to notice that in the negative sentences above the objects do not change into genitive. Remember: only the direct objects in the accusative case change their grammatical case (to the genitive) in negative sentences.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> d4. the accusative (biernik) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The accusative is by far the most used case for direct objects which means that, except for some verbs that take direct object in the genitive (some of which I already presented earlier) and really few that use the instrumental case (which I'll cover later), almost every transitive verb has its direct object in the accusative. In other words, if you have a verb that speaks about some action that has an object, in about 80% of situations that object will be in accusative case. The direct object is what the action of the verb directly influences or changes in some way. It can also be a direct result of an action. ATTENTION!: in negative sentences we always use the genitive instead of the accusative! Examples: Karmi (r4) mojego kota (d4). I'm feeding my cat.

Wanie kroj (r4) ostatni truskawk (d4). Just now I'm cutting the last strawberry. (nominative = "(ostatnia) truskawka") Matka uczy (r4) dziecko (d4) my zby (d4). The mother teaches the child to wash ~its~ teeth. (nominatives = "dziecko" (neuter: the neuter nouns, all of which end with "-o", have identical forms for the nominative and for the accusative), "zby" (plural: nouns whose plural form ends with "-y" in the nominative, have the same form in the accusative); the singular nominative is "zb" (masc.) (a tooth)); notice that we have two verbs here the entire phrase "my zby" is the indirect object of the verb "uczy", but, more importantly, let's observe that both of the verbs ("uczy" and "my") are transitive and take a direct object in the accusative r4; the direct object of "uczy" is the person you teach in this case: "dziecko (d4)", and the direct object of the verb "my" is what you wash "zby (d4)")

I could practically end there... but why not have a few more examples? :) (especially if I have found them, so I didn't even have to invent them :) I've borrowed the example sentences from a matchless free compendium of Polish grammar by Grzegorz Jagodziski, available online at: http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/gram/en/gram00.html ) Matka widzi (r4) syna (d4). A/The mother sees ~her~ son. (the nominative = "syn" (masc.)) Sysz (r4) muzyk (d4). I (can) hear music. (d1 = "muzyka" (fem.)) Jemy (r4) obiad (d4). We are eating dinner. (d1 = "obiad" (masc.)) Pijecie (r4) wino (d4). You are drinking wine. (d1 = "wino" (neuter)). Opowiem (r4 + (optional) r3) Ci (d3) bajk (d4). I will read you a children's story / a fable / a fairy-tale. (d1 = "bajka" (fem.); the translation to English makes things a bit confused but the direct object here is "bajka", because what you read is a story, not a person the person you read the story to is the indirect object of the action of reading; the English sentence can be easily modified to show that clearly: "I will a story to you.") Pacjent dostaje (r4) lekarstwo (d4) codziennie z rana. The patient gets the medicine every day in the morning. (d1 = "lekarstwo" (neuter)) Twoje zachowanie (r4) martwi rodzicw (d4). Your behaviour worries ~your~ parents. (parents = "rodzice" (d1, pl.); singular "parent" "rodzic" exists, but is rarely used, because in Old-Polish that word clearly referred to a father, not to a mother. Therefore, "rodzic" is used only in the formal language. The normally used form is "jedno z rodzicw" "one of the parents".)

Oh yes, I would have nearly forgotten that there are a couple of prepositions that take words in accusative :) ; I can now recall five: "na", "pod", "za", "przed", and "w/we"... There's a catch, though. These prepositions do not always govern the accusative case. There are no prepositions with a single "rekcja" for the accusative case. These five I have just named are prepositions that belong to what I'd like to call a "dual-rekcja" category. This means that they govern one case in one type of situations, and another one in other situational settings. Well, it's not so bad, as it looks at the first glance: all those prepositions have a "primary rekcja" which for the "na" and the "w/we" is the locative (d6), while for the "pod", the "za" and the "przed" is the instrumental (d5) and they have a "secondary rekcja", which is always one for the accusative. Now, the "primary rekcja" is the one that is used in the majority of situations (I'd like to refer to them as "static situations"). The rekcja for the accusative ("the secondary rekcja") applies only to the situations where

the preposition describes the destination, the goal, or the specific target of an aimed movement which can also be an action of thrusting, poking, stabbing, or shooting. I'd like to refer to them as the "motiontowards situations". The important thing characterizing the "motion-towards situations" that require the use of the accusative rekcja is that the movement would be directed, that it would be dynamic, and that it would be aimed at reaching the target. I realize that in theory it looks like a pretty bizzare concept, but the examples will show you that it's not that difficult in practice. Here are the prepositions again: "na" on top of / onto the top of the version that is used with a word in the accusative is "onto the top of" "pod" under (underneath, beneath) again, the word that comes after it is put in the accusative only when there is aimed movement directed to a place which is underneath something "za" behind / in behind the second translation variant carries the sense of a motion-towards situation, which is one where we would put the substantive that follows in the accusative "przed" in front of / to the front of in the instances where the second translation variant applies, we have the accusative rekcja "w/we" in / in (into) this preposition governs the accusative nearly exclusively in situations where the following substantive is a target of a thrusting, poking, punching, pricking, kicking or shooting action; watch out not to form too strong a mental association between the "w/we" and the English "into", as the "into" more frequently corresponds to the Polish preposition "do" (which we have already met with in the section about the genitive, which is the declension case it governs) (the "w/we" variantivity is motivated by facilitating pronounciation just like in case of the "z/ze" that we have already seen in the section on the genitive) Examples: Skoczy na st (d4). He jumped onto a/the table. But: Lea na stole (d6locative). He was lying on a/the table. (the nominative = "st" (masc.)) Samochd (d1) przewrci si na dach (d4). A/The car rolled onto its roof. But: Samochd (d1) lea na dachu (d6). A/The car was lying on its roof. (the nominative = "dach" (masc.)) Rzucam pienidze (d4 d ir ec t ob jec t) na st (d4 be ca us e of the prep osi ti on and the dyn ami c ac tio n) . I'm throwing money on the table. But: Pienidze (d1) le na stole (d6). The money is lying on the table. (nominatives: "pienidze" (pluralthe word is usually used in plural), "st" (masc.)) Wchodz pod st (d4). I'm coming in under a/the table. But: Siedz pod stoem (d5instrumental). I'm sitting under a/the table. Kot (d1) ucieka pod st (d4). A/The cat is running [running to hide / escaping] under a/the table. But: Kot (d1) pi pod stoem (d5). The cat is sleeping under a/the table.

And now for an interesting example :) : The reflexive verb "chowa si" (literally: "to be hiding oneself") can be used in two ways: 1. to say that a sbd/sth is moving furtively (silently, "invisibly") to a place where they can hide, or 2. to say that sbd/sth is "staying low" in a hide-out. Now look how the choice of the declension case tells us whether the little girl is still running to her hide-out,

or if she's already there, just lying low and keeping quiet notice that nothing changes in the whole sentence except for the gram. case of one noun :) Dziewczynka (d1) chowa si pod ko (d4). A/The little girl is going in under a/the bed to hide there. (nominative = "ko" (neut.)) Dziewczynka (d1) chowa si pod kiem (d5). A/The little girl is hiding under the bed. (we don't know how long she's been there; actually, she might have just slid in there, but she is not in the process of running to the bed or squeezing in under it right now :))

Pacjent wchodzi za parawan (d4). The patient comes in behind the screen. (nominative = "parawan" (masc.)) Compare: Pacjent (d1) czeka na lekarza (d4) za parawanem (d5instrumental). A/The patient is waiting for a/the doctor behind the screen. (the nominatives = "lekarz" (m), "parawan" (m); accidentally, we have one unplanned usage example here "na lekarza" is also a situation where we have the preposition "na" followed by a noun in the accusative : however, this is something a bit different, because here the "na" doesn't have the function of telling us about a location this "na" belongs to the "rekcja" of the verb "czeka": in English we say "to wait for sbd/sth", in Polish, "czeka na kogo/co (d4)") Wyszam za drzwi (d4). I went [fem.verb.form] out of the door / I stepped outside (through) the door. [literally:] I went behind the door. [bad English] Compare: Staam za drzwiami (d5). I was standing [fem.verb.form] behind the door. (the nominative = "drzwi" (always plural in Polish!)) On zawsze pcha si przed szereg (d4). He always pulls forward of the line. [even more literally:] He always pushes himself to (a place) in front of the line. (the nominative = "szereg" (masc.); the phrase "pcha si przed szereg" is a Polish idiom signifying as much as "to come out volunteering when nobody needs you to, or when it can even cause trouble or embarassment"; its meaning is noticeably different from the seemingly similar English phrase "to step out of line") Compare: Prezydent przemaszerowa przed szeregiem (d5) onierzy (d2). The president marched through in front of a line of soldiers. (notice that the president did not walk towards the soldiers: he just walked along the line formed by them which means that we have no "motion towards" situation, and so the preposition "przed" adopts the more common of its two variantive case governments here the one for the instrumental, d5) Ten idiota (d1) uderzy w mj samochd (d4), gdy staem na czerwonym wietle (d6)! That idiot hit my car as I was standing at the red signal! [literally:] (...) as I was standing on the red light. (the nominatives: "(mj) samochd" (masc., the accus. form looks the same), "(czerwone) wiato" (neut.) the phrase "sta na czerwonym wietle" makes use of the preposition "na" with its ordinary, "primary" government for the locative. "idiota" (masc.) this is the subject of the main clause, so it is the nominative form I just wanted to assure you that I have made no mistake here: it's one of the few masculine nouns in Polish that end with "-a" and show a declension pattern similar to that of feminine nouns; this is an example of the preposition "w" being coupled with an accusative object, because of the "motion-towards" situation, or more specifically: an action of hitting something (in Polish it's expressed as "hitting into something"), which is the most typical sort of action requiring the accusative after the "w";

this particular example sentence could have used a different verb combined with the "w": "wjecha w" ("to drive into" (with the sense of: to have a collision with): "Ten idiota wjecha w mj samochd (d4) (...)" ("That idiot drove into my car (...)"), and as you can see the nature of the situation calls for the accusative rekcja of the "w" also in this eventuality. side-note: the subordinate clause here is an adverb clause we need to corelate the tenses of the clauses simply because the whole point of this particular subordinate clause is to say when the action of the main clause took place (this is different from what we had with the subordinate noun clauses in two examples for the point "c)" of the section on the dative)) Compare: Zawsze wo map (d4) w samochodzie (d6). I'm always carrying a map in ~my*~ car. (the nominatives: "mapa" (fem.), "samochd" (masc.) *) you may have already noticed it in the earlier examples that in Polish we use possessive pronouns quite sparingly and we don't place them before the nouns whose belonging or direct relation to the subject comes as obvious from the context; in Polish there are two popular verbs corresponding to the English carry: "nosi" and "wozi" the first is fitting to use when you carry the things walking (like a porter, or when you simply carry little things on you, in the pockets of your clothes or on your body); the second comes into play when we use any means of transportation) One notable exception to the rule regarding the choice of case government in the "dual rekcja" prepositions is the verb "sia da " to take a seat does not use the accusative, even though it is a verb that speaks about a "motion towards". With that verb, the noun that comes after a preposition uses the same case as with the "static" (not speaking of any dynamic changes) verb: "siedzie" to be sitting. See the examples: Siadam na krzele (d6). I take a seat on a chair. Just as well as with: Siedz na krzele (d6). I'm sitting on a chair. Notes: the nominative = "krzeso" (neuter). The first activity is "dynamic" (with a quality of a set target of the movement, i.e. of a "motion towards"), the second is "static", but the dynamic "siada" always uses the same "rekcja" as the static "siedzie". The "primary case government" of the preposition "na" is for the locative (d6); let me repeat it, the "secondary rekcja" (for the accusative (d4)) would be used in most of the dynamic, "motion-towards" situations not those concerning the action of the verb "siada", though. Chopczyk siada za stoem (d5). A/The boy takes a seat behind a/the table. And pretty much the same here: Chopczyk siedzi za stoem (d5). A/The little boy is sitting behind the table. Same thing as before, the only difference being that the natural complement for the preposition "za" is a word in the instrumental case (d5).

It's really time to finish the story of this declension case, but... I remembered a preposition that ALWAYS takes the accusative in the word that follows it! :) That preposition is "prz ez " "through", "across", "by". Examples: Zawsze ostronie przechodz przez ulic (d4). I always go across the street carefully. (the Polish sentence puts the emphasis on the "carefulness" (that's why "zawsze ostronie" "always carefully" goes up front and starts it), so in English this message would be put best like this: "It's always carefully that I cross / go across the street."; the nominative = "ulica" (fem.)) Patrz przez okno (d4). I'm looking out a/the window. (in Polish we say "I'm looking through a/the window"; the nominative = "okno" (neut.)) Ta szafa nie przejdzie przez drzwi (d4)! This wardrobe will not go through the door! (the nominative = "drzwi" (always plural)) Ko skacze przez przeszkod (d4). A/The horse is jumping [across] a hurdle. (in English the verb jump can be used transitively, that is: the thing that is

being jumped over simply becomes the direct object, and thus no prepositions are necessary; in Polish the verb "skaka" is always intrasitive: it cannot have a direct object and there has to be a preposition ("przez", "nad") used before an object (an indirect object); the nominative = "przeszkoda" (fem.); "przeszkoda" comes from the verb "przeszkadza": to disturb, to be a trouble, to be an obstacle/hurdle) Ten samochd si nie psuje, bo zosta wyprodukowany przez Niemcw (d4). This car doesn't break down, because it had been produced by the Germans ;)) (the nominative = "Niemcy" (plural); singular forms = "Niemiec" (masc.) (d1), "Niemca" (d4))

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> d5. the instrumental (narzdnik) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: a) The main role of the instrumental case is to indicate that a substantive is an instrument or a means (a method, a way) by which the action of the verb is executed. This "instrument" doesn't always have to be a physical object. In English that function of the instrumental is handled by putting "with" in front of the word ("to be doing something with something"), or with such constructions as "by means of ", "using ", or, in specific circumstances: "by ".Examples: Pisz list (d4-accu) pirem (d5-instr). I'm writing a/the letter with a pen. (the pen is the instrument, the tool of the action of writing; the letter is the direct object of the action it is what directly results from the writing; the nominatives = "list" (masc.), "piro" (neut.)) Manuela lubi pisa pirem (d5). Manuela likes to write with a pen. (side-note: a simple infinitive ending in "-" comes after the verb "lubi" when we speak about liking to do something) Codziennie jad do szkoy (d2) autobusem (d5). Daily / Every day I go to school by bus. (the bus is a means of going; it is important to know that in Polish we say: "id" ("i " = to go (on foot)): when we go on foot; while, when we use some means of transport we say: "jad" ("je cha " = to ride (.../in/on sth)): for any kind of land vehicle, "lec" ("le cie " = to fly (in/on sth)): for any air/space transport, or "pyn" ("p yn " = to float (in/on sth)): for water transport; with all these verbs (jecha, lecie, pyn) the specific vehicle is usually indicated by a noun in the instrumental; off-topic: we have a use of the genitive in this sentence: "do szkoy (d2)" (to school) the preposition "do" is always followed by a word in the genitive; the nominatives = "szkoa" (fem.), "autobus" (masc.)) Mieszam zup (d4) yk (d5). I'm stirring (=~ mixing) the soup with a laddle. (the nominatives = "zupa" (fem.), "yka" (fem.); the soup direct object, the laddle the tool of the action) Nie wiem, jak opisa to (d4) sowami (d5). I don't know how to describe it with words. (the nominatives = "to" (neuter) (= it, this), "sowa" (plural, d1) "sowo" (sing.,neutr.,d1)) Nie wiem, jak wyrazi to (d4) jednym sowem (d5).

I don't know how to express that with one word. (the nominative = "(jedno) sowo" (neuter)) Pisarz oczarowuje czytelnikw (d4) opowieci (d5). The writer enchants the readers with the story. (the readers, being the direct object of the enchanting, are also the direct object of the sentence so, they come in the accusative; the nominatives: "czytelnik" (singular, masc., d1), "czytelnika" (d4), "czytelnicy" (plural, d1), "czytelnikw" (pl., d4); "opowie" (singular, fem., d1))

Note that the action doesn't have to be intentional: Ubrudziam sobie (d3) bluzk (d4) sosem pomidorowym (d5). I soiled [fem.v.form] myself the blouse with tomato sauce. (this is also an interesting sentence because we have three different grammatical cases in use here: (1) the direct object of the sentence is the blouse, because it was the blouse that was soiled; however, (2) we also have an indirect object, because the soiling of the blouse really affected personally even more than grammatically ;) the owner of it: the "me" (a woman) in the sentence; it is the "me" who is complaining about the misfortune and its consequences; for that reason we have a reflexive dative "sobie" [this reflexive dative "sobie" just like the accusative "si" is universal: "(to) myself", "(to) yourself", "(to) himself", "(to) herself", "(to) ourselves", etc.]; and finally, (3) we have "the means", "the method", or "the instrument" of the soiling ;) with tomato sauce: this comes in the instrumental; the nominatives: "sobie", being universal to all gram. persons it, doesn't have just one nominative: well, in this case it would be "ja"; "bluzka" (fem., d1), "sos (masc.) pomidorowy (adj. -masc.) (d1)")

b) Probably the second most frequent use of the instrumental is that when it is coupled with the verb "by" (to be) in all sentences of the type: I/you/he/they... am (are) / was (were) / will be... somebody/something. (those sentences speak of a function, a role in life, a status in it, etc.) ATTENTION: this "somebody/something" means a noun. If the word after the (conjugated) "by" is an adjective, then that adjective is put in the nominative (the "basic form" the only thing to take care of there is to make it agree with the subject about the gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter).Examples: Manuela jest aktork (d5) i piosenkark (d5). Manuela is an actress and a singer. (the nominatives: "aktorka" (fem.), "piosenkarka" (fem.)) Basia jest przeliczn dziewczyn (d5). Basia is a wonderously beautiful girl. (the nominative = "(przeliczna) dziewczyna" (fem.)) Panna Santos jest Brazylijk (d5). Miss Santos is a Brazilian. (the nominative = "Brazylijka" (fem.), the masculine form is "Brazylijczyk"(d1)) Robert DeNiro jest sawnym aktorem (d5) i reyserem (d5). Robert DeNiro is a famous actor and director. (the nominatives: "(sawny) aktor" (masc.), "(sawny) reyser" (masc.)) Martin Luther King by odwanym czowiekiem (d5). Martin Luther King was a brave man (person). (the nominative: "(odwany) czowiek" (masc.)) Jane Goodall ratowaa goryle (d4). Ona te bya dobrym i odwanym czowiekiem (d5). Jane Goodall was saving gorillas. She too was a good and a brave person. (the nominatives: "goryle" (plural, d4 has the same form as d1), "goryl" (sing.,masc.,d1); "(odwany i dobry) czowiek" (masc.))

Musiaby by wariatem (d5), eby to zrobi! He would have to be a madman to do it! (the nominative: "wariat" (masc.) a female "wariat" is "wariatka" (a madwoman ;); a more natural way to express this message in English would have been "He would have to be crazy to..." with an adjective) On bdzie tu nowym szefem (d5). He will be the new boss here. (the nominative = "(nowy) szef" (masc.) female boss = "szefowa" (fem., d1))

As said before the situation is different when the words describing the person are just solo adjectives without nouns. Then, the adjectives come in the nominative the "basic" form (whose gender, let me repeat, must agree with that of the subject). Look at these examples and compare them to those above to see the difference: Manuela jest utalentowana (adjective, d1). Manuela is talented. (...Let's play and add a noun now... we'll get, for example: Manuela jest utalentowan (adj. d5) aktork (noun, d5)). Basia jest przeliczna (adjective, d1). Basia is wonderously beautiful. Ta kawa jest brazylijska (adj. d1). This coffee is Brazilian. (additional information: in Polish, differently than in English, the adjectives relating to countries and nationalities are written all in lower-case letters; .. and we don't use stand-alone nationality adjectives to refer to people's nationalities: in English you can say "He is a Pole (noun)." or "He is Polish (adj.)." in Polish you cannot say "On jest polski." ... unless you're talking about an object (a material thing) that comes from Poland and has a masculine noun for its name: "To jest mj telewizor (masc.). On jest polski." ("This is my TV-set. It [literally: He] is Polish."); the only way to talk about people is: "On jest Polakiem (noun, d5).", "Ona jest Polk (noun, d5)." (the nominatives: "Polak" (masc.), "Polka" (fem.); unlike the adjectives mentioned above, the nouns for representatives of nations are written starting with a capital letter.) DeNiro jest sawny (adj. d1). DeNiro is famous. Martin Luther King by odwany (adj. d1). Martin Luther King was brave. Jane bya bardzo (adverb adverbs are not inflected) dobra (adj. d1). Jane was very good. Musiaby by szalony (adj. d1), eby to zrobi! He would have to be crazy to do it! Miejmy nadziej, e bdzie odpowiedzialny (adj. d1). Let's hope that he will be responsible.

c) There are some verbs that take the direct object in the instrumental. The list is not long, and even though I don't intend to present here that entire list, I believe there must be only few that I have left out :)(>) zostawa / stawa si (kim (d5)) to become (somebody) talking about a role, a job, a function, or about acquiring a certain quality or status; "zostawa" is only used to talk about jobs and functions; "stawa si" is used when the personal aspect of the role is important; also, "stawa si" can be followed with a stand-alone adjective, and then we have the same situation as in the point "b)" above) Examples: Zosta aktorem (d5) w wieku dwudziestu trzech lat. He became an actor at the age of 23. Wkrtce sta si bardzo sawnym czowiekiem (d5). Soon he became a very famous person. Po pewnym czasie sta si cakiem nieznony (a solo adjective - d1). After a (certain) time he became totally intolerable.

(>) rusza to move (something); actually, rusza can take direct object either in the instrumental or (like most other verbs) in the accusative and it's not a matter of free choice, really: - rusza + a word in the accusative when we move an object from one place to another (and leave it there); it is usually, but not exclusively, used with objects that are rather heavy and difficult to move, push, etc.; because the action is rarely continuous or repetitive, in most cases the perfective for of the verb is used ("ruszy" ""to have moved""). Ex.: Musimy jako ruszy t szaf (d4). We have to move this wardrobe somehow. (the nominative = "(ta) szafa" (fem.)) Jak to (d4) ruszy? How to move this? (the nominative = "to" (neut.); the "it" doesn't always mean something physical: this is a popular phrase to use in situations when you need to do something difficult, especially when it's about solving some practical problem that you have never tried yourself against before, so you don't know even how to start: "Where do I start?", "How do I go about this?") Ruszae moje rzeczy (d4)? Have you touched [masc.v.form] my things? (literally it is: "Have you moved my things?", but the kind of situation when this sentence is used would be when you see that somebody was manipulating your personal belongings while you were away (a visible evidence of which would probably be that the things have changed position): in English the verb "to touch" is used for the occasion; the nominative: "(moje) rzeczy" (plural) "(moja) rzecz" (sing.,fem,d1)) Notice that the direct object in accusative means that the negatives for those sentences are built with the direct object in the genitive: Nie ruszaj moich rzeczy (d2)! Don't touch my things! (the nominative = "(moje) rzeczy" (plural)) Nie bd rusza Twoich rzeczy (d2). I will not touch your things. (the nominative = "(Twoje) rzeczy" (plural))

And now we move from an actual off-topic to something on-topic :) which is the second usage of the verb rusza this time, finally, with a word that follows the verb being put in the instrumental:

- rusza + a wo rd in the in str ume nta l when we move move parts of our body, or when we make controlled movements with an object by holding it in our hand(s) or as if we were holding it in our hand(s). Ex.:

Boli mnie, gdy ruszam praw rk (d5). I feel pain when I move my right hand. (more literally: "It gives me pain when..."; the nominative = "(prawa) rka" (fem.)) Nie ruszaj gow (d5)! Don't move your head! (...something you might hear at a hairdresser's :) ; notice that having the direct object in the instrumental (and not in the accusative) in positive sentences, the rekcja of this "rusza" maintains the instrumental also for the negative; the nominative = "gowa" (fem.)) Rusz myszk (d5). Move the (computer) mouse. (the nominative = "myszka" (fem.)) Ludzie na odzi powoli ruszaj wiosami (d5). The people on the boat slowly move the oars. (the nominative = "wiosa" (plural), "wioso" (sing., neut.))

(>) opiekowa si (+ a word in the instrumental: kim (d 5) / czym (d5 )) to look after (somebody / something) W weekendy opiekuj si moim chorym ojcem (d5). On weekends I look after my sick father. (the nominative = "(mj) (chory) ojciec" (masc.)) Ta kobieta nie opiekuje si swoim dzieckiem (d5) dobrze. This woman doesn't look after her child well. (the nominative = "(jej / (swoje)) dziecko" (neut.) again, the direct object being in the instrumental case means that it stays in the instrumental also in this negative sentence; "dobrze" is an adverb these are non-inflected: they always stay the same) Czy bdziesz opiekowa si moim kotem (d5), gdy mnie nie bdzie? Will you look after my cat when I'm not here? (the nominative = "(mj) kot" (masc.); side-note: notice that in Polish we put that subordinate clause the part after the "gdy / when" in the future tense in this kind of situation: talking about a a future possibility/condition)

(>) zajmowa si (kim (d 5) / czym (d5 )) to take care of / to deal with / to be/get busy with / to do as one's occupation or special interest W pracy zajmuj si rachunkowoci (d5). At work I deal with accountancy. / ... I take care of the accountancy. (the nominative = "rachunkowo" (fem.) of course, there's no need for you to remember this particular noun: I just had to think of something that you can be dealing with at work, so as to demonstrate the meaning of the verb) Zajm si tym (d5)! I'll deal with this! / I'll take care of this! (the nominative = "to" (neuter)) Zajmij si swoimi sprawami (d5)! Take care of your own business! (meaning: "It's not your cup of tea!", "Mind your own business!"; "sprawy" (pl., d1) matters, issues; "sprawa" (sing., d1)) Ona kiedy troch zajmowaa si sportem (d5). At some point in the past she used to do (...) / / she used to have something to do with (...) sports. (the slash separates two translation versions, each carrying a moderately different meaning: that's because the Polish "zajmowa si" is somewhat ambiguous (imprecise): it's difficult to say clearly by the light of that sentence if the "she" was an active sportswoman, or if she was doing something "around" the sports: she might have been a sports journalist for example; without a context we would usually assume an active involvement: i.e., that she was doing the sports, that she was a sportswoman; the nominative = "sport" (masc.)) Oni wiedz, jak zajmowa si dzieckiem (d5). They know how to take care of a child. (the nominative = "dziecko" (neut.))

(>) chwali si (czym (d 5 ) / also: kim (d5 ) ) to boast (about) something (somebody), to pride oneself on something

Mj ssiad bez przerwy chwali si swoj znajomoci (d5) japoskiego(d2). My neighbour incessantly boasts his command of Japanese. (notice the use of the instrumental, but also the use of the genitive in the nominative: "the knowledge / command of Japanese" = "znajomo (d1) japoskiego (d2)"; the nominative = "japoski" (adj., masc.)) Nie chwal si swoimi sukcesami (d5). I don't boast about my successes. ("moje / (swoje) sukcesy" (pl.,d1), "mj / (swj) sukces" (sing.,d1))

(>) kierowa (czym (d 5 ) / also: kim (d5 ) ) to steer / to direct (a team of people) / to drive (a car) Mj tata kierowa dziaem (d5) transportu (d2). My dad directed the transport department. ["... the department of transport."] (the nominatives = "dzia" (masc.), "transport" (masc.)) Kto kieruje tym samochodem (d5)? Who is driving this car? (the nominative = "(ten) samochd" (masc.); side-note: an alternative and equally much used verb meaning "to drive (a motor-vehicle)" is "prowadzi (r4)": notice that prowadzi comes with the standard case government for transitive verbs, which means it is followed by a word in the accusative; therefore, the sentence above, given the other verb for "to drive", would look as follows: "Kto prowadzi ten samochd (d4)?")) Przypadek kierowa jego yciem (d5). Chance directed his life. (the nominative = "(jego) ycie" (fem.)) Kiedy bd kierowa miejskim autobusem (d5). I will drive a city bus some day / at some point in the future. (the nominative = "(miejski) autobus" (masc.); side-note: the same sentence using the alternative verb "prowadzi": "Kiedy bd prowadzi miejski autobus (d4).")

(>) sterowa (czym (d5 )) to steer, to control

Pilot steruje samolotem (d5). A/The pilot steers a/the plane. (the nominative = "samolot" (masc.)) On nigdy nie sterowa odzi (d5). He has never steered a boat. (the nominative = "d" (fem.); no change of case for the object substantive but you already know that only the accusatives change) Ruchami (d5) robota (d2) steruje komputer (d1). A computer controls the movements of the robot. ("ruchy" (pl.,d1), "ruch" (sing.,d1), "robot" (masc.,d1); sorry for adding a little complication, but you should also be prepared for this, because that's just an element of natural Polish: observe that the sentence has an inversed word order the subject ("komputer") has been moved to the last position in the sentence; that sentence is in no significant way different from this one: "Komputer steruje ruchami robota.", with the exception that the first one the one in the example looks and sounds more natural: the reader/listener would have a natural tendency expect the most significant,

informative part of the sentence to come at its end, so that's the position we try to shift it to. In English, that same expectation of the reader/listener has to be satisfied through the use of passive voice: "The movements of the robot are controlled by a computer.")

d) As with the three cases before, we have a few preposit