grammar sentences

[kman1]

I made the sentences below to get a feel of how different English tenses are expressed in Polish. Please check what I've written for accuracy and please explain the ones I got wrong or didn't know.

1. I speak Spanish.
2. I used to play video games.
3. I ate a cookie 5 min. ago.
4. Last year he was ill.
5. When his parents built the house, he was ill.
6. At the beginning of this year he has been ill, now he is fine again.
7. He had broken a leg, therefore he couldn't come to school.
8. I’m reading a book now.
9. I was working while she was studying.
10. I was eating there (- let's say lunch) until I got to know that there were cockroaches in the kitchen. Then I left (immediately).

11. I had been lying there for 3 hrs. before I fell asleep.
12. You will have been eating for 10 min. when I finish.
13. He wants me to go home now.
14. I would buy more food but I’m full now.
15. You are baptized now. ‘passive’
16. You were baptized for 5 min. ‘passive’
17. The city was destroyed by the fire ‘passive’
18. I had been baptized 3 times by 2001.
19. I will have been baptized 6 times by 2002.
20. If he paid me more, I would stay. (2 possibilities for ‘if he paid me more’)*
21. We would have built the house, if we had had the money.*


In my Polish translation, I mainly translated just the verb portions of the sentences. (for the most part anyway) that's the only part I'm concerned with really. So remember when correcting what I wrote that I only need the verbs NOT the whole sentence. (unless you feel translating the entire sentence would be better for everyone viewing the post)

- ja Polski mówię
- ja videogames grałem
- ja cookie jemłem
- on chory był
- kiedy jego rodzica dom budowaly, on był chory
- on chory był ale on teraz dobry jest
- on noga się zlamał, nie mógł szkole iść
- ja teraz księgę czytam
- ja pracowałem chwilka ona studiował
- ja tam jemłem, aż ja dowiedziełem w kuchne karaluche byłi, ja wychodziłem
- ja tam leżełem, przed ja zasypiałem
- ty będziesz jemł, kiedy kończę
- on chce ja idę
- ja więcej żuwność kupowałbym ale ja teraz pełny jestem
- ty teraz jesteś chrzciony
- ty był chrzciony
- miasto zostani niszczone ogienem
- ja byłem chrzciony
- ja będę chrzciony
- gdyby on mnie płacił, ja zostawałbym
- gdy my pieniądze mały, my dom zbudowałbyly

Thanks!

[Quetzalcoatl]

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker either, but let me try to translate the whole sentences (just to have a practice). I will even underline the verbs for you.

At the native speakers: This time I'm not using a dictionary or a grammar book, so that you and I can see where exactly I still have problems. Italic words mean that I'm not sure about these parts of the translation.


1. I speak Spanish.

Mówię po hiszpańsku.

2. I used to play video games.

Często bawiłem się z zabawami.

3. I ate a cookie 5 min. ago.

Zjadłem ciasteczko przed pięć minut.

4. Last year he was ill.

W przeszłym roku był chory.

5. When his parents built the house, he was ill.

Kiedy jego rodzice zabudowali dom, był chory.

6. At the beginning of this year he has been ill, now he is fine again.

Na początku tego roku był chory, teraz znów jest zdrowy.

7. He had broken a leg, therefore he couldn't come to school.

??? nogę, dlatego nie mógł przychodzić do szkoły.

8. I’m reading a book now.

Teraz czytam książkę.

9. I was working while she was studying.

Pracowałem, kiedy studiowała.

10. I was eating there (- let's say lunch) until I got to know that there were cockroaches in the kitchen. Then I left (immediately).

Zjadłem obiad tam aż wiedziałem że jest ??? w kuchnii. Potem wyszedłem (szybko).

11. I had been lying there for 3 hrs. before I fell asleep.

Leżyłem tam za trzy godzin ???

12. You will have been eating for 10 min. when I finish.

Będziesz jadł za dziesięć minut, kiedy skończę.

13. He wants me to go home now.

Chce, żebym teraz szedł do domu.

14. I would buy more food but I’m full now.

Kupowałbym więcej jedzenia, ale teraz już jestem ???

15 - 19 no idea

20. If he paid me more, I would stay. (2 possibilities for ‘if he paid me more’)*

Gdy płaciłby mi więcej, zostałbym.

21. We would have built the house, if we had had the money.*

Zabudowalibyśmy dom, jeśli mielibyśmy pieniędzy.




Please keep in mind that I couldn't sleep the whole night, therefor I have a little lack of concentration

[axaxaxasz mlö]

Let me have a try

15. You are baptized now. ‘passive’
Teraz jesteś ochrzczony.
16. You were baptized for 5 min. ‘passive’
Jesteś ochrzczony od 5 minut.
17. The city was destroyed by the fire ‘passive’
Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ognia.
18. I had been baptized 3 times by 2001.
Zostałem ochrzczony trzy razy do 2001.
19. I will have been baptized 6 times by 2002.
Zostanę ochrzczony 6 razów do 2002.

[Kuba]

Well, I'd say everything would be understood, Gruszka. And for me it's late, too, so I won't be perfect, either...

2. I used to play video games.

Często bawiłem się z zabawami.

I'd say something like "Grałem w gry komputerowe" - but I'm just a heritage speaker, so natives could object... "zabawa" is rather "fun, amusement, play", although it can mean "game" in certain contexts.

3. I ate a cookie 5 min. ago.

Zjadłem ciasteczko przed pięć minut.

"przed pięcioma minutami"

5. When his parents built the house, he was ill.

Kiedy jego rodzice zabudowali dom, był chory.

I'd use only "budowali" here, since I think the sentence above is supposed to denote synchronicity. But I'm not sure.

7. He had broken a leg, therefore he couldn't come to school.

??? nogę, dlatego nie mógł przychodzić do szkoły.

"Miał złamaną nogę, ..."

10. I was eating there (- let's say lunch) until I got to know that there were cockroaches in the kitchen. Then I left (immediately).

Zjadłem obiad tam aż wiedziałem że jest ??? w kuchnii. Potem wyszedłem (szybko).

"Jadłem tam obiad, aż/kiedy się dowiedziałem, że w kuchni są karaluchy. Od razu wyszedłem." In this context "aż" sounds a bit weird, I don't know why...

11. I had been lying there for 3 hrs. before I fell asleep.

Leżyłem tam za trzy godzin ???

"Leżałem tam przez trzy godziny, zanim zasnąłem."

I don't want to finish anymore, it's too late, maybe tomorrow...

15. You are baptized now. ‘passive’
Teraz jesteś ochrzczony.
16. You were baptized for 5 min. ‘passive’
Jesteś ochrzczony od 5 minut.
17. The city was destroyed by the fire ‘passive’
Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ognia.
18. I had been baptized 3 times by 2001.
Zostałem ochrzczony trzy razy do 2001.
19. I will have been baptized 6 times by 2002.
Zostanę ochrzczony 6 razów do 2002.

Good, but 16. would rather be "Byłeś chrzczony przez pięć minut.", 17. "[...] przez ogień / ogniem.", 18. "[...] do roku 2001 / do 2001 roku." (since you can't simply drop "year" in Polish), 19. "sześć razy" ("raz" is not counted the same way as other nouns, don't ask me why).

[BezierCurve]

Kuba, you know you get it right, must be just your modesty

Od razu wyszedłem." In this context "aż" sounds a bit weird, I don't know why...

With "aż" I'd rather use "jadałem", which in this context would indicate the custom of eating there, until I found out about the cockroaches. "Jadłem" indicates a specific event, the one WHEN I learned about the insects in the kitchen. So:

Jadałem tam obiad(/y), aż dowiedziałem się, że w kuchni są karaluchy. (then I changed my custom)

or

Jadłem tam obiad, kiedy dowiedziałem się, że w kuchni są karaluchy. (that's when I learned about them, then left.).

The sequence depends on what you want to emphasize: the fact of eating, or the place.

In case of the original sentence, I'd use the second option: it was a specific event, during which he got to know about the cockroaches. Eventhough the person left and never returned again, I'd say it's still "kiedy".

[axaxaxasz mlö]

15. You are baptized now. ‘passive’
Teraz jesteś ochrzczony.
16. You were baptized for 5 min. ‘passive’
Jesteś ochrzczony od 5 minut.
17. The city was destroyed by the fire ‘passive’
Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ognia.
18. I had been baptized 3 times by 2001.
Zostałem ochrzczony trzy razy do 2001.
19. I will have been baptized 6 times by 2002.
Zostanę ochrzczony 6 razów do 2002.

Good, but 16. would rather be "Byłeś chrzczony przez pięć minut.", 17. "[...] przez ogień / ogniem.", 18. "[...] do roku 2001 / do 2001 roku." (since you can't simply drop "year" in Polish), 19. "sześć razy" ("raz" is not counted the same way as other nouns, don't ask me why).

Dziękuję bardzo!
Więc poprawnie:

15. You are baptized now. ‘passive’
Teraz jesteś ochrzczony.
16. You were baptized for 5 min. ‘passive’
Byłeś chrzczony przez pięć minut.
17. The city was destroyed by the fire ‘passive’
Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ognień.
18. I had been baptized 3 times by 2001.
Zostałem ochrzczony trzy razy do roku 2001.
19. I will have been baptized 6 times by 2002.
Zostanę ochrzczony 6 razy do 2002 roku.

[Kuba]

Dziękuję bardzo!
Więc poprawnie:

15. You are baptized now. ‘passive’
Teraz jesteś ochrzczony.
16. You were baptized for 5 min. ‘passive’
Byłeś chrzczony przez pięć minut.
17. The city was destroyed by the fire ‘passive’
Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ognień.
18. I had been baptized 3 times by 2001.
Zostałem ochrzczony trzy razy do roku 2001.
19. I will have been baptized 6 times by 2002.
Zostanę ochrzczony 6 razy do 2002 roku.

It occurs to me now that all the sentences are a bit "too English" to reflect all the possible constructions of Polish - but nevermind...
Correct, except ognień - should be ogień, but that's a typo, right?
If 15. is "You are baptised now." indeed, and not "You are being baptised now." In the latter case it would be more or less "Jesteś właśnie chrzczony." Although I habe to say clearly that Polish doesn't like the passive voice much - all the abovementioned sentences would be rather put in active voice by most Polish speakers, like 16: "Ochrzczono cię w ciągu pięciu minut / Chrzczono cię przez pięć minut." ([they / one] got you baptised during 5 minutes / [they / one] baptised you for 5 minutes), 17: "Ogień zniszczył miasto." (The fire destroyed the city), and so on...

[axaxaxasz mlö]

It occurs to me now that all the sentences are a bit "too English"

I've never used the passive structure in Polish before, and I promise I won't use it very often in the future. Thank you for the comments.

[Kuba]

I've never used the passive structure in Polish before, and I promise I won't use it very often in the future. Thank you for the comments.

You are welcome...
Now that I read my post again, I think that "Ogień zniszczył miasto" is not the best option, better would be "pożar zniszczył miasto".

[Quetzalcoatl]

Thank you, Kuba!

[kman1]

It occurs to me now that all the sentences are a bit "too English" to reflect all the possible constructions of Polish - but nevermind...

Darn it! That was main reason I did these sentences. (to get a good feel of all the possible COMMONLY USED verb constructions in Polish) Oh well, I'll have to construct better sentences next time. thanks for the corrections though!

[kman1]

@kuba & Gruszka - Hi! I went over the corrections you all posted and I have some questions about them:

Mówię po hiszpańsku.

1. a. ‘hiszpański’ is a masculine adjective, right? so, where does the ‘-u’ on the end come from? (the adj. dative case ending ‘hiszpańskiemu’ I think) b. ‘po’ means ‘in’ right?

Grałem w gry komputerowe

2. a. what does ‘w’ mean here? b. ‘gry’ means ‘play’ (singular noun), right? Shouldn’t ‘gry’ be in the plural case? c. ‘komputerowe’ is the plural genitive case, right? why is there an ‘-e’ at the end of ‘komputerow’?

Zjadłem ciasteczko przed pięcioma minutami

3. a. I know ‘pięc’ means ‘five’ but what is ‘-ioma’? b. ‘minutami’ is this the plural instrumental case?

W przeszłym roku był chory.

4. a. ‘przeszłym’ is masculine adjective locative case and ‘roku’ is masculine noun locative case, correct?

5. Kiedy jego rodzice budowali dom, był chory.

‘rodzice’ is masculine plural nominative, right?

6. Na początku tego roku był chory, teraz znów jest zdrowy.

a. how did you derive ‘początku’ from ‘początek’? AND ‘początku’ is masculine singular genitive, right? b. ‘tego’ is genitive case since it modifies ‘roku’, correct?

7. Miał złamaną nogę, dlatego nie mógł przychodzić do szkoły.

a. ‘złamaną’ is feminine adjective accusative and ‘nogę’ is feminine noun accusative, right? Why is the accusative case used with ‘mieć’ ? b. why is ‘szkoły’ genitive case here?

10. Jadłem tam obiad, aż/kiedy się dowiedziałem, że w kuchni są karaluchy. Od razu wyszedłem.

a. why is ‘kuchni’ genitive here? b. ‘karaluchy’ is masculine plural genitive, correct? (so in ‘there is/are’ constructions, the focus is in the genitive case, then?) c. ‘od razu’ means ‘immediately’ right?

11. Leżałem tam przez trzy godziny, zanim zasnąłem.

a. so ‘leżeć’ is an irregular verb, right? b. why is ‘godziny’ genitive case?

12. Będziesz jadł za dziesięć minut, kiedy skończę.

a. isn’t ‘za’ supposed to be ‘przez’ like in #11? b. isn’t ‘minut’ supposed to be ‘minutami’ like in #3 ? c. isn’t ‘dziesięć’ supposed to be ‘dziesięćioma’ like in #3 ?

13. Chce, żebym teraz szedł do domu.

a. what is ‘żebym’? b. why is ‘szedł’ in the past tense here? c. why is ‘domu’ genitive?

14. Kupowałbym więcej jedzenia, ale teraz już jestem pełny

why is ‘jedzenia’ genitive here?

17. Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ogień / ogniem.

how would you get ‘ogniem’ out of ‘ogień’ ?

20. Gdy płaciłby mi więcej, zostałbym.

why is dative ‘mi’ used here?

21. Zabudowalibyśmy dom, jeśli mielibyśmy pieniędzy.

how does ‘pieniądze’ change into ‘pieniędzy’

Most of my confusion seems to stem from the cases, I think. Thanks a bunch!

[Kuba]

Mówię po hiszpańsku.

1. a. ‘hiszpański’ is a masculine adjective, right? so, where does the ‘-u’ on the end come from? (the adj. dative case ending ‘hiszpańskiemu’ I think) b. ‘po’ means ‘in’ right?

ad 1.a. I am not sure, but I think that "hiszpański" is not so much an adjective, but a masculine noun (nominalised adjective) - and thus it takes the normal nominal locative ending. On the other hand, the genitive of it is the usual adjectival one - "hiszpańskiego". So - I don't know. But I think others here may know the answer...
ad 1.b. "po" does mean 'at, on, after, over' rather than 'in', although sometimes it has the latter meaning.

Grałem w gry komputerowe

2. a. what does ‘w’ mean here? b. ‘gry’ means ‘play’ (singular noun), right? Shouldn’t ‘gry’ be in the plural case? c. ‘komputerowe’ is the plural genitive case, right? why is there an ‘-e’ at the end of ‘komputerow’?

ad 2.a. "grać", "bawić się" 'to play [a game]' requires the use of the preposition "w" + ACC: "grać w karty" 'to play cards', "bawić się w chowanego" 'to play hide and seek' are examples of this usage.
ad 2.b. "gra" means 'play, game' - "gry" is it's plural (both NOM and ACC case).
ad 2.c. "komputerowe" is (in this case) the female plural accusative form of the adjective "komputerowa". The -e on the end of "komputerowe" is part of the ending of the adjective "komputerowy/komputerowa/komputerowe" 'related to computers', formed by the noun "komputer" and the deviational adjective suffix -ow-y/a/e.

Zjadłem ciasteczko przed pięcioma minutami

3. a. I know ‘pięc’ means ‘five’ but what is ‘-ioma’? b. ‘minutami’ is this the plural instrumental case?

ad 3.a. "pięcioma" is the INS case of "pięć" (in Polish, numbers have to agree in case and sometimes gender with the nouns they determine.
ad 3.b. Correct.

W przeszłym roku był chory.

4. a. ‘przeszłym’ is masculine adjective locative case and ‘roku’ is masculine noun locative case, correct?

ad 4. Correct.

5. Kiedy jego rodzice budowali dom, był chory.

‘rodzice’ is masculine plural nominative, right?

ad 5. Correct.

6. Na początku tego roku był chory, teraz znów jest zdrowy.

a. how did you derive ‘początku’ from ‘początek’? AND ‘początku’ is masculine singular genitive, right? b. ‘tego’ is genitive case since it modifies ‘roku’, correct?

ad 6.a. The vowel e in the suffix -ek is deleted when an ending is added (one could also say that an e is inserted in NOM case to make pronounciation easier: *początk would violate Polish phonology, I think)... "początku" may be both masculine inanimate singular GEN or LOC or VOC.
ad 6.b. Correct.

7. Miał złamaną nogę, dlatego nie mógł przychodzić do szkoły.

a. ‘złamaną’ is feminine adjective accusative and ‘nogę’ is feminine noun accusative, right? Why is the accusative case used with ‘mieć’ ? b. why is ‘szkoły’ genitive case here?

ad 7.a. Correct. The use of ACC with 'to have' is not unusual, the same use takes place in German "Ich habe einen Freund." or English.
ad 7.b. Because the preposition "do" governs the GEN: do kogo, do czego? Prepositional government is something you have to learn by heart in most European languages.

10. Jadłem tam obiad, aż/kiedy się dowiedziałem, że w kuchni są karaluchy. Od razu wyszedłem.

a. why is ‘kuchni’ genitive here? b. ‘karaluchy’ is masculine plural genitive, correct? (so in ‘there is/are’ constructions, the focus is in the genitive case, then?) c. ‘od razu’ means ‘immediately’ right?

ad 10.a. "kuchni" is not only the GEN, but also the DAT and LOC form of "kuchnia" - in this case it is LOC.
ad 10.b. No, "karaluchy" is masculine impersonal plural NOM and ACC. So in 'there is'-constructions you have to use NOM (except if they are negated, in such cases you use GEN: "Nie było żadnych karaluchów.").
ad 10.c. Correct.

11. Leżałem tam przez trzy godziny, zanim zasnąłem.

a. so ‘leżeć’ is an irregular verb, right? b. why is ‘godziny’ genitive case?

ad 11.a. Why irregular?
ad 11.b. It's not GEN singular, it's ACC plural feminine (could be NOM PL too, they all happen to look the same). Actually, it is even more complicated, if you take a look at the history of Slavic languages, but let's agree that we won't.

12. Będziesz jadł za dziesięć minut, kiedy skończę.

a. isn’t ‘za’ supposed to be ‘przez’ like in #11? b. isn’t ‘minut’ supposed to be ‘minutami’ like in #3 ? c. isn’t ‘dziesięć’ supposed to be ‘dziesięćioma’ like in #3 ?

ad 12.a. What do you mean?
ad 12.b. If "za" would govern the INS, yes, but it doesn't (I think it's GEN), so: no.
ad 12.b. No, because it's in another case.

13. Chce, żebym teraz szedł do domu.

a. what is ‘żebym’? b. why is ‘szedł’ in the past tense here? c. why is ‘domu’ genitive?

ad 13.a. That's a bit complicated from the English point of view: "żebym" is że+by+m 'that+subjunctive particle+1SG' so it means more or less 'that I would/should'.
ad 13.b. Because subjunctive constructions (with "by") are always built with the past forms.
ad 13.c. As in nr. 7: "do" governs GEN.

14. Kupowałbym więcej jedzenia, ale teraz już jestem pełny

why is ‘jedzenia’ genitive here?

ad 14. Because it is coupled with "więcej" 'more', which requires GEN (similarly in English you can say "more of them"). Literally you say 'I want more of the bread' or 'I need a bit of the butter' in Polish. Kind of genitivus partitivus.

17. Miasto zostało zniszczone przez ogień / ogniem.

how would you get ‘ogniem’ out of ‘ogień’ ?

ad 17. It is the same deletion rule like in the case of "początek" in nr. 6. *ogń in NOM is hard to pronounce, so an "e" is inserted, alternatively one could say that "e" is a weak vowel and thus dropped when endings are added: *ogieniu, *ogieniem gets ogniu, ogniem etc.

20. Gdy płaciłby mi więcej, zostałbym.

why is dative ‘mi’ used here?

ad 20. Why not? DAT is often used as the case for denoting the "recieving end" of an action. The same is done in German: "Wenn er mir mehr zahlen würde / zahlte [...]", Latin " "Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie; et dimitte nobis debita nostra, Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris" etc.

21. Zabudowalibyśmy dom, jeśli mielibyśmy pieniędzy.

how does ‘pieniądze’ change into ‘pieniędzy’

ad 21. Well, I'd say "Zbudowalibyśmy dom, jeżelibyśmy mieli pieniądze." So no change - but such change may occur in the declension of "pieniądz". There are alternations between ę and ą in stems because of language history: the nasal vowels from Slavic collapsed into one with a short and a long pronounciation, and these developed further into ą (from the long nasal) and ę (from the short nasal). So you get alternations like "ząb" 'tooth' - "zęby" 'teeth' or "miesiąc" 'month' - "miesięczny" 'monthly'. It is a moderately regular irregularity...

Most of my confusion seems to stem from the cases, I think. Thanks a bunch!

Yes, most of it was cases... Any more questions? Just ask!

[BezierCurve]

Now that all the hard work is done, I just wanted to notice, that you'd rather hear "w zeszłym roku" (ad. 4).

[Kuba]

Now that all the hard work is done, I just wanted to notice, that you'd rather hear "w zeszłym roku" (ad. 4).

You're right, it does sound more natural...
All the other stuff was correct? Phew!

[pittmirg]

I am not sure, but I think that "hiszpański" is not so much an adjective, but a masculine noun (nominalised adjective) - and thus it takes the normal nominal locative ending. On the other hand, the genitive of it is the usual adjectival one - "hiszpańskiego". So - I don't know. But I think others here may know the answer...

It's a relic of ye olde "short" declension of adjectives, which was quite similar to the declension of nouns. Later the anaphoric pronoun *jь (gen. *jego, dat. *jemu) was suffixed to adjectives, giving birth to the contemporary paradigm. Cf. "bez mała", "od nowa", "na nowo" (like bez wiadra, od kolana, na czoło)... Well, even the adverbial endings -o and -e are descended from neuter accusative and locative terminations.

[Kuba]

It's a relic of ye olde "short" declension of adjectives, which was quite similar to the declension of nouns. Later the anaphoric pronoun *jь (gen. *jego, dat. *jemu) was suffixed to adjectives, giving birth to the contemporary paradigm. Cf. "bez mała", "od nowa", "na nowo" (like bez wiadra, od kolana, na czoło)... Well, even the adverbial endings -o and -e are descended from neuter accusative and locative terminations.

Thanks, Pittmirg! I already wondered where the short adjectives were in Polish... Another secret of Old Slavic influences unveiled!

[kman1]

1, It's a relic of ye olde "short" declension of adjectives, which was quite similar to the declension of nouns.

so how do you conjugate it then or is “hiszpański” an irregular adjective? If so, then I just have to memorize it’s conjugation by heart, correct?

2. formed by the noun "komputer" and the deviational adjective suffix -ow-y/a/e.

so to change a noun into an adjective you add “-ow-y/a/e”, right? are there any rules that regulate when to add ‘-ow’ or ‘-y’ for masculine adjectives?

ad 11.a. Why irregular?

because the ‘e’ of ‘leżeć’ changes to ‘a’ (Leżałem) in the past tense. according to my Polish grammar text, the past tense for verbs ending in a vowel + ‘c’ is:

For verbs having infinitives in vowel plus ć, the 3rd person past tense is formed by dropping -ć and adding -ł, (masculine) -ła (feminine) -ło (neuter), -li (masculine plural), or -ły (other plural).

so, is ‘leżeć’ irregular then?

ad 13.a. That's a bit complicated from the English point of view: "żebym" is że+by+m 'that+subjunctive particle+1SG' so it means more or less 'that I would/should'.

I didn’t know that Polish had a subjunctive mood but after doing a search on Google this was the only thing that I found:

This Mood is formed by the participial form in I (byf),
before which is used the conjunction zeby ; to which the
letters and combinations m, s, smy, scie are added, as zebym
byl, 1st person, zebys byla (feminine). There is no present,
and the pluperfect is omitted here as being so little used.

does that pretty much sum it up or is there more I need to know? I think the above text forgot to mention that you have to use the past tense of the verb together with the subjunctive mood but other than that it seems ok.

ad 13.b. Because subjunctive constructions (with "by") are always built with the past forms.

why did you write (with "by") ? there is no other subjunctive construction, right? the only one is with ‘by’….

ad 21. It is a moderately regular irregularity

so ‘pieniądze’ is an irregular noun then?

thanks

[BezierCurve]

1) Since that short form is indeed a relic, you don't really see much of it anymore. In fact, I can't think of many other examples at the moment than adjectives describing nationalities/languages used with "po", which could be roughly translated as "in a manner", "in a way" or "in language X" (the only ones I can think of now: po ludzku, po chłopsku, po męsku).

In this context hiszpański is no exception, as you have plenty of other similar forms (mówić po niemiecku, tekst napisany po chińsku, kawa po turecku czy całować po francusku).

2) The suffix -owy/-owa/-owe (ref. to genders: m./f./n.) is one of a few suffixes used for forming adjectives out of nouns. Other examples: -ski/-ska/-skie (murarski, węgierski), -ny/-na/-ne (kościelny, kawiarniany) -czy/-cza/-cze (wyborczy, nadzorcza) etc. The rules are not always clear and I'm afraid you have to learn that by heart, also to avoid confusion when there are more than one form (like: wyborowy / wyborczy). Besides, in many cases the stem may change when forming an adjective (grafika/graficzny, nadzór/nadzorczy).

11a) No, "leżeć" is not irregular. You only need to add another condition to that rule: if infinitive ends with -eć, after dropping "ć" you additionaly change "e" into "a", so: wiedzieć -> wiedział, słyszeć -> słyszał etc.

13a) Looks like you got the hang of it. However: "żeby" is not the only conjunction possible (aby, oby, iżby, gdyby, jeśliby...). Besides, -by can be moved around:

Jeślibym miał gitarę / Jeśli miałbym gitarę,
to bym na niej grał / to grałbym na niej.

(If I had a guitar, I would play it.).

(*Byf is a typo)

13b) He wrote "(with 'by')" to make it clear what he was writing about

21) Due to the numerous different declensions of Polish nouns it is sometimes hard to tell whether something is already an exception, or is it still a separate category. In this case the rule ą -> ę seems to work fine for most cases (there are however nouns that do not follow it, like "wielbłąd").

[kman1]

thanks i think everything is clear