Čeština— Koko

[Koko]

Hey all! I recently got a desire, more a craving, to learn some (probably going to be a lot ) Czech. So to start off, I am going to write a few simple sentences and hopefully I make few mistakes

[flag=]en-ca[/flag]I go to the house. [flag=]cs[/flag]Jím k domě. (I believe this implies the action is completed; unless I got the aspect wrong)

[flag=]en-ca[/flag]He is writing a letter to me. [flag=]cs[/flag]Mi dopis píší.

[flag=]en-ca[/flag]In my house, we have a dog and a cat. [flag=]cs[/flag]V moje domě, my pesa i kočku máme. (místo je "v domě moje…"?)

[Naihonn]

Hey all! I recently got a desire, more a craving, to learn some (probably going to be a lot ) Czech. So to start off, I am going to write a few simple sentences and hopefully I make few mistakes

[flag=]en-ca[/flag]I go to the house. [flag=]cs[/flag]Jím k domě. (I believe this implies the action is completed; unless I got the aspect wrong)

[flag=]en-ca[/flag]He is writing a letter to me. [flag=]cs[/flag]Mi dopis píší.

[flag=]en-ca[/flag]In my house, we have a dog and a cat. [flag=]cs[/flag]V moje domě, my pesa i kočku máme. (místo je "v domě moje…"?)

Ok, that first sentence seems strange. Shouldn't it be I am going to the house? But of course that is an unfinished action. But it doesn't matter, translation is the same. Jdu (jím means I am eating ) k tomu domu (not going inside) / do toho domu (going inside).

Second sentence should be Píše mi dopis. ( píší is more formal form of píšou - they are writing ).

And the last one - V mojem domě máme psa a kočku. (we drop the subject my here, verb in correct form is enough, psa i kočku is possible, you emphasize that you have both a cat and a dog.

[kotrcka]

1. (Já) Jdu k domu - in progress, not completed

2. (On) Píše dopis pro mě. Or you can use short version "Píše mi dopis".

3. V mým domě (my) máme psa i kočku.

I am not a czech native, but I hope it is correct.

[Koko]

Why does the demonstrative need to be used? Does this imply significance like "the"?

[Naihonn]

Why does the demonstrative need to be used? Does this imply significance like "the"?

Yes. In English there is the, this, that, these and those. I believe you could say that it translates into Czech as ten/ta/to, tenhle,tento/tahle,tato/tohle,toto, tam(hle)ten/tam(hle)ta/tam(hle)to, tihle,tito/tyhle,tyto/tahle,tato a tam(hle)ti/tam(hle)ty/tam(hle)ta.

For clarification, parts in parentheses can be dropped, more options are separated by commas and order is masculine/feminine/neuter. Uff, and now I am tired. Hopefully, this ( tohle,toto ) will help you. Oh, one more thing. We use neuter form of the - to also for it. Now it should be a complete explanation.

[Koko]

I write to the man.- Píšu muži.
I wrote to the man.- Psal muži jsem.
I write a letter to the man.- Píšu dopis muži.
I wrote a letter to the man in a castle.- Ve hradu psal jsem dopis muži.
You are writing a letter.- Pisuješ dopis.
You write in Czech.- Píšeš v Češtině.
He wrote to me.- Psal mi.
She was writing me a letter.- Pisovala mi dopis.
She'll write a letter to a woman for me about cats.- Bude psát dopis o kočkách žene pro mne.

Well, that's enough of "psát." I'll conjugate the verbs "mýt, nést," and "číst" now.

A man washes dishes in his house.- Muž myje nádobí v joho[*] domě.
Moje matka čte mi starou knihu. (My mom reads me an old book.)
Já ponésu ten čaj tátovi, ty čti. (I'll carry the tea to dad, you read.)
Myji ten dům. (I clean the house.)

Yes, I got lazy on the last sentence

Please correct me! The imperatives in the second-to-last particularly worry me. Thanks in advance!!


(also, one table tells me the conjugations of mýt, but auto-correct tells me wrong . Was the table unreliable?)

[*]I don't know how to decline this

[Koko]

I purposefully left out the articles in the sentences without, as Wikipedia and a few other sources say is possible and acceptable. I prefer not having them there, but if not having 'em makes the sentences sound unnatural, I guess I'll need to get used to using them.

[Ashrak]

I write to the man.- Píšu muži.

Correct, even though mužovi sounds better to me.

I wrote to the man.- Psal muži jsem.

Psal jsem muži

I write a letter to the man.- Píšu dopis muži.

If you want to emphasize that you write a letter this would be correct. I you'd like to emphasize the man, you need to change the word order: Píšu muži/mužovi dopis (Czech word order is wuite variable)

I wrote a letter to the man in a castle.- Ve hradu psal jsem dopis muži.

Psal jsem dopis muži v hradu (the man and in castle need to be together) or Mužovi v hradu jsem psal dopis (again depends on emphasis)

I will get to the rest of your sentences as soon as I'm back home It's hard to write Czech on a German keyboard

[Koko]

Psal jsem dopis muži v hradu (the man and in castle need to be together) or Mužovi v hradu jsem psal dopis (again depends on emphasis)

Actually they are meant to be separated Even in the English it is not the man who is in it, but me as I write the letter (hence why I put it first).

Děkuji! No rush for the others ^^

[Ashrak]

Oh oh right, i didn't realize that from the english sentence

V hradu jsem psal mužovi dopis

I can't really explain why do Man and letter change place here, but it sounds better to me Still sounds a bit off to me, i will think further.

You are writing a letter.- Pisuješ dopis.

Píšeš dopis

You write in Czech.- Píšeš v Češtině.

Here you wrote it correctly, As far as I`m aware czech doesn't really make difference between simple and continuous present tenses
anyway this would correctly be: Píšeš česky (instead of "in language" we make the language name an adverb, v Česštině is gramatically coreect, but not used )

He wrote to me.- Psal mi.

Correct Eventhough in past this would translate as: He was writing to me. He wrote me is: Napsal mi. (notice how we simple and continuous past tenses of psát say with different verbs, this doesn't work in present though ... napíšeš mi is future tense)

More explanation about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatica ... _languages

She was writing me a letter.- Pisovala mi dopis.

Psala mi dopis

More again later

[Koko]

Seems I have the classic problem of confusing the aspects

[Ashrak]

A man washes dishes in his house.- Muž myje nádobí v joho[*] domě.

Muž myje nádobí v jeho domě or Muž myje nádobí ve svém domě (his second puts emphasis would mean in his own house)

Moje matka čte mi starou knihu. (My mom reads me an old book.)

Moje matka mi čte starou knihou.

Já ponésu ten čaj tátovi, ty čti. (I'll carry the tea to dad, you read.)

Já přinesu tátovi ten čaj, ty čti. ... we don't use carry in this type of sentence, rather bring. The imperative is correct

Myji ten dům. (I clean the house.)

Correct, your auto-correct might have the colloquial "myju".

[Koko]

Wow, I did surprisingly well in the last four sentences, and I had more time to work with psát than them Only wrong verb and not knowing the declensions of joho were my major mistakes. I'd consider putting mi after the verb less an error than the others. It's so small.

Thanks for all your corrections (again) Ashrak n.n !

[hreru]

V hradu jsem psal mužovi dopis

I can't really explain why do Man and letter change place here, but it sounds better to me Still sounds a bit off to me, i will think further.

I think it sounds weird because it's just a training sentence to exercise grammar, they're always weird and there's no need to think about how they should sound naturally.

He wrote to me.- Psal mi.

Correct Eventhough in past this would translate as: He was writing to me. He wrote me is: Napsal mi. (notice how we simple and continuous past tenses of psát say with different verbs, this doesn't work in present though ... napíšeš mi is future tense)

I'd be careful about comparing simple and continuous tense to perfective and imperfective aspect. In this case, when we don't know more, it could be translated just as well with "psal mi" as Koko suggested.

Only wrong verb and not knowing the declensions of joho were my major mistakes.

It's "jeho". And it's jeho in all cases, you don't decline it.

[Ashrak]

As czech doesn't have continuous and simple tenses we rather use grammatical aspects. I don't know how about you but for me the distinction between psal and napsal is quite clear. The first either saying it was: Psal mi každý pátek (we was writing to me every friday) - meaning the action was repeated or Psal mi v pátek (He was writing to me on Friday) - meaning the action isn't completed yet and Napsal mi v Pátek (he wrote to me on Friday) - meaning the action took place once is done and didn't repeat.

So as long as Koko tries to translate: He wrote to me on Friday i stand behind my perfective aspect

[Koko]

In English it is possible to use the simple past for habitual actions: He was writing to me every Friday (better "He used to write to me…")= He wrote to me every Friday. But I was intending for the perfective.

[Ashrak]

Yeah, in czech it would be possible to write Napsal mi každý pátek as well.

Anyway i should let myself drive less by my feel for the language and repeat some grammar structures. It's been too long since I used the proper variant of the language (not the vulgar one = obecná čeština)

[hreru]

So as long as Koko tries to translate: He wrote to me on Friday i stand behind my perfective aspect

And you were right. But she might have wanted to say something else, I just meant "he wrote to me" isn't automatically perfective in Czech. In your example it is, but what about "psal/napsal mi každý týden" as was mentioned above or "psal/napsal mi, že přijede v pět"? These couples express the same thing, and you wouldn't say "he was writing to me he'd arrive at five" when the message has reached you already, would you?

In English it is possible to use the simple past for habitual actions: He was writing to me every Friday (better "He used to write to me…")= He wrote to me every Friday.

I thought this would have negative meaning ... "he was writing to me every Friday" = "I was not interested in reading it and found it irritating". Or is this used as a neutral piece of information as well?

[Koko]

…But he might have

I thought this would have negative meaning ... "he was writing to me every Friday" = "I was not interested in reading it and found it irritating". Or is this used as a neutral piece of information as well?

I've never know such a rule . I would interpret it as something "he" (whoever it is) was doing before something happened. Perhaps there is a negative connotation to it, but I would suspect it be dependent on context or intonation.

[hreru]

…But he might have

Sorry. I don't know what made me think so but for some reason I was sure you're female.

I must admit I'm not good at English tenses and I haven't noticed how past continuous is used to describe repetitive actions in reality but I've been taught such a usage is rare and it's rather a past version of "you are always doing (something that annoys me)", that's why I though so.