Lizbona jest przepiękna. Uwielbiam całym sercem.
Było ciepło, słonecznie. Idealna odskocznia w środku zimy.
Kot był bardzo-bardzo socjalny, poznał sporo ciekawych ludzi, spędził miło czas.
Wypił więcej piwa niż przez cały ostatni rok. Piwa z colą. Po jednym wieczorze barmani w hostelu wiedzieli dokładnie, co sprawia mi radość. ^^
Life goes on. Chyba się poddałam w związku ze studiami. Czuję ulgę.
Pojadę na sesję, ale potraktuję to raczej jako dodatkowe wakacje w Łodzi. Nie wiem jeszcze, co można robić w Łodzi, ale w czwartek się dowiem. Pójdę na egzaminy, ale nie mam ochoty jakoś specjalnie się do nich przygotowywać. Zdam, to zdam. Nie zdam... to nawet lepiej.
Zawsze "hejciłam" ludzi, którzy próbują nagiąć system wyłudzając świadczenia. Chodzą do szkoły tylko po to, by dostawać rentę rodzinną czy inne profity. A sama teraz czuję, że robię dokładnie to samo unikając odpowiedzialności za moje studia. W sumie to nie oszukujmy się. Papierek z tego pseudo-uniwerku nie jest warty nakładu pracy, jakiego wymaga jego zdobycie. Na dziennych studiach było pod tym względem o niebo łatwiej...
A tymczasem trochę zdjęć z Lizbony! : )
How did it end with V.? Oh, what a cliffhanger :)
OdpowiedzUsuńIt didn't end, still lasts. : )
OdpowiedzUsuńMy feelings are ambivalent, if you can say so. I don't really know what do I want out of my life and relationships. This time I decided to have more fun and worry less.
Dziwny szyk... Ja bym napisał w takiej samej kolejności w obu składnikach spójnika, "more fun and less worry"... I tu i tu rzeczownik...
OdpowiedzUsuń"worry" jest tutaj jako czasownik od "to worry", a ty go umieszczasz jako rzeczownik. W twojej wersji bys musial dac liczbe mnoga rzeczownika. "more fun and less worries".
UsuńAle tu jest: I have more fun. I worry less = I have more fun and (I) worry less.
Wiec szyk nie dziwny, calkowicie poprawny ;) Brawo Marta!
Tak, w angielskim, w którym są czasowniki, nie przymierzając, "to book", "to shelf", "to sleep" (przechodni!), i "to cat", "worry" jest rzeczownikiem. Werbalizacja czasowników i nominalizacja rzeczowników zdaje się w angielskim częstsza, produktywniejsza, niż w polskim. Tyle że "worry" jest także niepoliczalny, podobnie jak "care" (choć tutaj akurat jest np. "without a care").
Usuńhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/worry (pierwsza definicja rzeczownikowa)
(A że Kot język zna i bynajmniej nie jest on chropawy, to fakt inny.)
(*Na odwrót, nom. czasowników i wer. rzeczowników.)
UsuńCiekawa teoria, ale każdy Anglik/Amerykanin powie Ci, że to jest zła, dziwnie brzmiąca konstrukcja.
UsuńTo prawda, lecz baffling natives with orders and syntaxes unorthodox but valid should, well, be done as much as possible. Some people push the bounaries of art; pushing the boundaries of grammar is the same thing. It educates. So let's enjoy our for-there-to-have-beens and and hardly-to've-dones.
UsuńNot really. As a native (Dutch) speaker it's quite difficult to understand foreigners that try to "improvise", especially in languages like English and Dutch, where the order of words defines the meaning, instead of declension like in Polish.
UsuńAlso, that order isn't unorthodox, it's just plain wrong.
Would you call a foreigner that says "Jak dużo kosztować ksiązką?" , pushing the boundaries of Polish grammar? Or is he just wrong?
One more friendly poke at your direction: As long as no-one corrects your errors, there is no education. And with minor errors like that one above, hardly anyone will. Trying it as much as possible won't baffle the natives, but annoy them.
PS. Sorry for my bad English, just my 4th language :)
>that order isn't unorthodox, it's just plain wrong
UsuńNo it's not.
>Would you call a foreigner that says "Jak dużo kosztować ksiązką?" , pushing the boundaries of Polish grammar? Or is he just wrong?
Good question actually. Case patterns fall in and out of use. For instance, I remember from one 19th century Polish novel ("The Pharaoh") that the modern accusative case* used to be realized by the modern instrumental case*. "[Daj] na świątynią matki Izydy" ("donate to the temple of the mother Isis") as opposed to "na świątynię". So as soon as archaic stylization is being agreed on between the speakers and understood, it is okay. Language is a game of assuming that a violation of a grammatical rule will not result in an 'ERROR: invalid grammar, comprehension terminated' reaction, but in correctly guessing the meaning one had intended ("'kosztować książką'? what does that mean? well, one *could* bend the verb 'kosztować' to mean 'exact a financial toll on'... so 'kosztować książką' could mean that possession of the book was costly to him/her... clever.").
Same way with affixes. We have "wytłumaczyć" and "przetłumaczyć", but nothing's stopping you from establishing *"roztłumaczyć", combining, being the average of, the above, plus the semantics of "rozbić", "rozłaczyć", and so on.
*Case names are misleading, by the way; I am constantly being annoyed that the morphological formation of the accusative case, "tę książkę", the -ę suffix, in for instance "czytam tę książkę", has nothing e.g. to do with semantic accusation strictly speaking; in reality, behind every morphological case there is a number of distinct semantic categories, e.g. "mam tę książkę" indicates possession, "widzę tę książkę" indicates being an object of an action, and so on... Case names are just arbitrary selections of a name that have nothing to do with the meaning behind.
>my 4th language
No wonder. :) I only know two. I've never met a Dutchman whose English wasn't perfect.
Also holy I'm being verbose. That comment should've been twice shorter. Apologies, Cat.
Usuń(Also: it would be nice if the case names, biernik etc., derived from the meanings their affixes originally carried back in the proto-languages thousands of years ago, but experience shows they are probably just translations of names arbitrarily chosen, or rather guessed, by some Latin grammarian back in 200 BC or something. Misnomers tend to stick; that's why, for an example I manage to remember, there is no patriarchy strictly speaking, but andrarchy.)
Usuń>there is no patriarchy strictly speaking, but andrarchy
UsuńIn short, beware of creeping metonymy. (Such as of metonymically equating a male with a father.) Being accepting of metonymy is the worst enemy of clarifying your thoughts, = your knowledge. As soon as we say 'the Sun shines', the metonymy of it keeps us from explicitating that it's not the sun, it's the photons or whatever. Metonymy is a necessary evil, but it's an evil still.
I won't give up easily. I presented both sentences to various American and English friends. Their responses:
UsuńPerson A. 1 is correct 2 seems off
Person B. 2 should be This time I decided to have more fun and to have fewer worries
Person C. Yeah #2 is wrong.
Person D. An adverb going first sounds more natural.
Person E. 1 jsut sounds more normal, 2 actually has better parallel structure
Person F. She used an adverb to add more emphasis on worrying less... it's the correct form of grammar.
Person G. "I was just saying that for the first sentence, both are correct but the girl who chimed in to correct really needs to shut up lol"
Sorry about the Person G, but as you can see even natives prefer #1, but you are right, both are grammatically correct but no-one preferred your sentence compared to the first one. So is English your native language or the second?
Because if it's your second, I guess you might have get lost a bit between your understanding of Polish grammar, based on declension, and English, based on word order.
For example: " Language is a game of assuming that a violation of a grammatical rule will not result in an 'ERROR: invalid grammar, comprehension terminated' reaction, but in correctly guessing the meaning one had intended."
That's just not possible in most of the English sentences, as the order defines the meaning. Let's violate the basic grammar rule of standard word order: "John invites Mike" to "Mike invites John". So what would your guess be, without context? None. This is a great example how a very simple grammatical error results in a total different meaning. But one can't feel these subtle differences between being right, and being grammatically right, if you are not native in that language.
Same with "Same way with affixes". Perhaps in Polish, but a language like Dutch a different affix can give a totally different meaning to the verb behind it. For example the affix "uit" - off, out from something. Uitbetalen = pay out. Ok, here your theory works. But then: uitnodigen = to invite, uitrusten = to rest.
PS. I am not a Dutchman.
PS2. I am sorry, but you will have to use normal words when trying a conversation with me. Metonymy, misnomers, andrarchy etc. too difficult :P
>2 actually has better parallel structure
UsuńThat's what I was going for. Neat to see it appreciated.
>is English your native language or the second?
I'm Polish.
>"John invites Mike" to "Mike invites John"
I actually commit similar, granted, not identical, context-sensitive reorders from time to time. E.g. 'Mutilate he at times might; kill he does never.'. This is valid English, just making an emphasis. (Apologies for grisliness of the example; I've just watched the opening, battle scene from the original Star Wars.)
>Metonymy
A thing's aspect standing for that thing. E.g. 'The man said' vs 'the man's vocal cords said' = the synecdochal metonymy of the container (a body) standing for the thing actually doing the speaking (the cords). Or, 'this post is short' vs 'this post's short textual string on the blogspot.com web servers contains few characters' = the metonymy of the name of the action ('post', from 'posting') standing for that action's product, namely, the number of characters on a disk on a server. Metonymies are timesavers in communication, but they always obscure the reality of what's going on. Sadly, they're as necessary as they are universal. They must always be penetrated and privately discarded though.
>misnomers
This just means 'wrongly named'. For instance,
>andrarchy
is what patriarchical societies should be called, etymologically, unless they specifically make the point that only fathers can be rulers, not just males. Here, there isn't even the argument of spacesaving; it's just plain wrong. We must awake people's etymological sensitivities by discarding such terms vocally.
Kudos, friend. Nice talking to you.
Also tell G that neveryone ('not everyone', like 'never') who uses proper punctuation is a girl. That's a baseless assumption!!
UsuńNow, sincere apologies for Cat for probably breaking the number of comments blog record (17) through ramblings as inane as mine here. Sorry.
It was nice discussion, thank you.
UsuńOne last thing; The Stars Wars Example is Yoda talking ;) - Mutilate he at times might; kill he does never - but it's not really comparable to my example, as his sentence has only one noun "he". Let's add a name. "John mutilate Ben at times might, kill he does never". It's still the same structure, starting with the subject. You simply can't replace John with Ben in this sentence, without totally altering the meaning - Ben mutilate John at times might. - gibberish.
"I actually commit similar, granted, not identical, context-sensitive reorders from time to time." - Almost impossible in Dutch, each reorder changes the meaning. You can reorder some parts of sentences, like date, place, but even then, there are certain schemes for the correct order.
Have a nice evening. Sorry Cat for hijacking your blog.
Szyk dziwny, bo i ja cała dziwna.
OdpowiedzUsuńThis is what happens when you assume that someone speaks English.
Nie wiem, dlaczego, ale na tablecie nie mogę użyć opcji "odpowiedz".
OdpowiedzUsuńWygląda na to, że mój blog stał się miejscem dyskusji na tematy językowe. ^^ Bardzo mnie to cieszy.
Drodzy komentujący, bardzo proszę wziąć pod uwagę fakt, że Kot nigdy w szkole angielskiego nie miał i nie zna elementarnych zasad gramatyki. To smutna prawda, nie wynikająca nawet z wrodzonego kociego lenistwa, ale raczej z wadliwości ówczesnego systemu oświaty, który nie przewidział języka angielskiego w szkołach. Używam zatem języka czysto "na czuja". Przyjmuję wszelką krytykę z pochylonym czołem.
Zresztą problem już i tak nieaktualny - patrz nowy post.
Miłego dnia.