Re: Polish curiosities
- From: piotrpanek <piotrpanekQQQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:54:50 +0200
Wiktor S. napisał(a):
Interesting. So you would say <ci śmiali mężczyźni>, and not <ci śmieli mężczyźni>? (and the same thing for <biali> vs. <bieli>?)
Yes. But "onieśmieleni", and "wybieleni". <e> is preserved in verbs.
I find "ci śmieli mężczyźni" odd but possible in non-standard style (archaised, maybe as regional or personal "shade"). But "ci bieli mężczyźni" looks very, very strange. I can imagine it only in old, ie. older than from 19th cent., texts.
It's interesting, because when we learn Polish in the U.S., we are taught that only the variants with the <e> are correct for męskoosobowy, for those words with a historical *ě.
This is wrong. Every adjective I can think of at the moment uses <a> or <o>, eg. 'czerwoni', not 'czerwieni'. (but verb: "czerwieni się" - he blushes)
wesoły - wesołe - weseli
and of course - participles:
opuszczony - opuszczone - opuszczeni zmartwiony - zmartwione - zmartwieni etc.
Anyway, the rule Keith is taught is obsolete (for some centuries).
pzdr piotrek .
- Prev by Date: Re: Universality of Interjections?
- Next by Date: Re: how I pronounce "r" sounds: a velarized labiodental approximant?
- Previous by thread: Universality of Interjections?
- Next by thread: archetic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
