Difference between revisions of "English to Polish"

From Apertium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOCD}}
{{TOCD}}

==Roadmap==

===apertium-en-pl 0.1===

*'''Vocabulary''': The [http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-3686-W-SP-09.PDF GCSE Polish course specification] contains a dictionary of the most important words.
::<u>Current coverage</u>: Monodix (499/2855, 17%) &mdash; Bidix: (599/2855, 19%) <small>[14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)]</small>

Note: the categorized vocabulary list contains some spelling errors, e.g. gogzina (godzina) w pót di dziesiąteh (w pół do dziesiątej).


==Morphology==
==Morphology==


===Nouns===
===Nouns===
Polish is a highly inflected language; nouns (and adjectives describing them) are declined according to gender, number, and case. Traditionally, Polish is considered to have 3 genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), but the more modern view<ref>Jagodziński [http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/gram/przypdys.html Jak przedstawić obraz polskiej deklinacji? – How to present a view of the Polish declension?]</ref> is that is contains 5<ref>Though Willim mentions that it may contain as many as 9! - [http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/plm/files/Abstracts/PLM2007_Abstract_Willim.pdf On gender resolution in Polish]</ref>: masculine person (m1 in Apertium), masculine animate (m2), masculine inanimate (m3), feminine, and neuter. The masculine genders can be thought of as steps: in the absence of a particular rule for that case, the rule beneath applies -- a rule for m3 applies to m2 and m1, a rule for m2 applies to m1.

The cases are: nominative (subject), accusative (object), dative (indirect object), genitive (possessive, negative object, quantities), locative (used only with prepositions), instrumental (by means of something), and vocative (addressing something).


===Verbs===
===Verbs===
Line 20: Line 32:
The perfective denotes a completed action. According to Wikipedia, "The aspectual distinctions exist on the lexical level &mdash; there is no unique method to form a perfective verb from a given imperfective one."<ref>Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Aspect_in_Slavic_languages Grammatical aspect in Slavic languages]</ref>
The perfective denotes a completed action. According to Wikipedia, "The aspectual distinctions exist on the lexical level &mdash; there is no unique method to form a perfective verb from a given imperfective one."<ref>Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Aspect_in_Slavic_languages Grammatical aspect in Slavic languages]</ref>


The imperfective is used for the present tense ('Co robisz?': 'What are you doing?') and for negative commands ('Nie rób tego': 'don't (ever) do that', or to use Hiberno English 'don't be doing that'); the perfective for the simple future ('Czy zrobisz to?': 'Will you do it?') and for positive commands ('Zrób to szybciej': 'Do it faster')
;Apertium representation

<blockquote>
[I]n some verbs the perfective form (for example, napisać) is formed out of an underlying
imperfective form (pisać), via a prefixisation process that many linguists would argue
is a clear example of derivational morphology. On the other hand, in some verbs the
imperfective form (for example, kupować) is formed out of an underlying perfective
form (kupić), via a ‘suffixisational’ process that many linguists would argue is a clear
example of inflectional morphology. Furthermore, in yet other verbs (namely verbs
in suppletive pairs such as brać/wziąć) all linguists (as far as we are aware) would
agree that there is no morphological link whatsoever between the two verbs.
<ref name="pairing">Młynarczyk [http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0309-140804/inhoud.htm Aspectual Pairing in Polish]</ref>
</blockquote>

;Apertium notes


As this is lexicalised, there is only one way to deal with it, and that is in the dictionaries, each verb will have two entries in the bilingual dictionary, one for perfective and one for imperfective.
As this is lexicalised, there is only one way to deal with it, and that is in the dictionaries, each verb will have two entries in the bilingual dictionary, one for perfective and one for imperfective.

For example:

<pre>
<e><p><l>read<s n="vblex"/></l><r>czytać<s n="vblex"/><s n="imperf"/></r></p></e>
<e><p><l>read<s n="vblex"/></l><r>przeczytać<s n="vblex"/><s n="perf"/></r></p></e>
</pre>

==== Further complications ====

As well as perfective/imperfective pairs, there are also habitual verbs (''czytywałem'' - I used to read from time to time), and there are pairs which distinguish between non-determined and determined motion (''chodzić'' - to go, with no particular destination in mind vs. ''iść'' - to go, with a destination in mind).

Młynarczyk<ref name="pairing"/> argues that Polish aspect can be further divided, based on the addition of "empty" prefixes, the prefix ''po'', the infix ''ną'', or with a morphonological change, and provides this table:

{|class=wikitable
! !! ep !! po- !! -ną- !! mpc
|-
| class1 || yes || || ||
|-
| class2 || || yes || ||
|-
| class3 || yes || yes || ||
|-
| class4 || yes || yes || yes ||
|-
| class5 || || || || yes
|-
|}

Labenz <ref name="event">Labenz [http://staff.science.uva.nl/~michiell/docs/thesisPL.pdf Event-calculus semantics of Polish aspect]</ref> further refines this:

{|class=wikitable
! Class !! Aspect and formant !! Aktionsart !! Example
|-
|-
| 1s || impfv || state || wierzyć 'to be believing'
|-
| 1s || pfv, ep || inception of an ongoing state || uwierzyć 'to have started believing'
|-
| 1t || impfv || transition || grubnąć 'to be growing fat(ter)'
|-
| 1t || pfv, ep || completed transition || zgrubnąć 'to have grown fat'
|-
| 2 || impfv || activity || siedzieć 'to be sitting'
|-
| 2 || pfv, po- || terminated activity || posiedzieć 'to have been sitting a bit'
|-
| 3 || impfv || ongoing accomplishment || czytać 'to be reading'
|-
| 3 || pfv, ep || accomplishment || przeczytać 'to have read'
|-
| 3 || pfv, po- || terminated accomplishment || poczytać 'to have been reading a bit'
|-
| 4 || impfv || semelfactive activity || pukać 'to be knocking'
|-
| 4 || pfv, ep || completed semelfactive || zapukać 'to have knocked'
|-
| 4 || pfv, po- || non-minimal semelfactive || popukać 'to have been knocking a bit'
|-
| 4 || pfv, -ną- || minimal semelfactive || puknąć 'to have knocked once'
|-
| 5 || pfv, mp || achievement || kupić 'to have bought'
|-
| 5 || impfv || ongoing achievement || kupować 'to be buying'
|-
|}

In Apertium, these aspect differences can be handled in the Polish monodix.

<!--- Russian is similar: http://www.unc.edu/depts/slavdept/lajanda/clustersrewritefinal.doc --->


==Syntax==
==Syntax==
Line 28: Line 124:
===Articles===
===Articles===


Polish doesn't have articles, so translating English→Polish, we'll need to remove them, translating Polish→English, we'll need to add them.
Polish doesn't have articles, so translating English→Polish, we'll need to remove them, translating Polish→English, we'll need to add them. There are, however, some cases<ref>Bacz [http://www.fl.ulaval.ca/fgg/articles/prof/bacz/art_1.htm Do Cases Define? On Expressing the Definite/Indefinite Opposition in Polish]</ref> where we can add them.


<pre>
<pre>
Mam piwo
Mam zegar
mieć+p1.sg.pres
mieć+p1.sg.pres
have+I beer+nom
have+I clock+nom
`I have a beer'
`I have a clock'
</pre>
</pre>


;Apertium
;Apertium notes

There aren't really any rules to this, so the fallback will be "if we can't tell for sure, leave them out".


===Word order===
===Word order===


Basic English and Polish word order are the same, SVO, so not much should need to be done here.
Basic English and Polish word order are the same, SVO; however, as Polish morphology details the part of speech, Polish word order can vary to provide emphasis.

"Ja kocham Ciebie" = "I love you"

"Ciebie ja kocham" = "I love ''you''"

===Object dropping===

In answering questions, it is common in Polish to omit the object ("Czy kupiłeś piwo? - Kupiłem": "Did you buy beer? - I bought"). However, as Polish speakers of English commonly drop the object in English, perhaps it's acceptable for us to do so too.<ref>Kowaluk [http://www.rceal.cam.ac.uk/Publications/Working/Vol6/Kowaluk.pdf Null objects in Polish: Pronouns and determiners in Second Language Acquisition]</ref>

===się===

The Polish reflexive/distributive pronoun 'się' (and its forms) is rather difficult to handle<ref>Tabakowska [http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/4/tabakowska.pdf Those notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: a plea for Middle Voice]</ref> <ref>Rivero [http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~romlab/2PDF-JSL.pdf Impersonal SIĘ in Polish: A Simplex Expression Anaphor]</ref>. This may require separate dictionary entries for each form in some cases, but as it may be shared between verbs, or placed freely almost anywhere within a clause, it may be difficult to determine which form to use.

Examples:

On kocha się - he loves himself (reflexive)
Oni kochają się - they love each other (distributive)
[Oni kochają siebie - they love themselves (reflexive)]

On myje się - he washes himself (reflexive)
Oni myją się - they wash themselves (reflexive)
[Oni myją się nawzajem - they wash each other (distributive)]

==Resources==

===Polish-English texts under free licences===
{{see-also|Corpora}}
*[http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/index.html Free As In Freedom] - [http://stallman.helion.pl/ W obronie wolności] ("In the Defense of Freedom")
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/lchch10.txt Chess and Checkers: the Way to Mastership] - [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15201/15201-8.txt Szachy i Warcaby: Droga do mistrzostwa]
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_Romeo_and_Juliet The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet] - [http://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Romeo_i_Julia Romeo i Julia]
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Robinson_Crusoe Robinson Crusoe] - [http://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Robinson_Cruzoe Przypadki Robinsona Cruzoe]
**Wikisource has a mechanism where they ''try'' to present automatic bilingual editions of any works they have: see [http://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Robinson_Cruzoe?match=en Robinson Crusoe] for example. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, as different choices have been made in the laying out of different language editions. But it looks interesting.
*[http://languagetool.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/languagetool/JLanguageTool/src/rules/false-friends.xml False friends dictionary] Also contains French and German.
*[http://jv.gilead.org.il/pg/7jrny10.txt Journey to the Centre of the Earth] - [http://jv.gilead.org.il/zydorczak/terre-pl00.htm Podróż do środka Ziemi]
*The Outpost (contained in [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8pltl10.txt Selected Polish Tales]) - [http://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Plac%C3%B3wka Placówka]

===Polish texts under free licences===
*[http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/ Enriched Corpus of the Frequency Dictionary] - Monolingual corpus of Polish. Manually tagged. A [http://korpus.pl/download/frek.bin.tar.bz2 compiled version] for [http://poliqarp.sourceforge.net/ Poliqarp] is also available.

===Other Open Source translation software===

* [http://www.esperantilo.org Esperanto-Polish/Polish-Esperanto Translation software] - The software contains a [http://www.esperantilo.org/vortaro-eo-pl.txt.zip eo-pl dictionary] annotated with declination and grammar information. Nouns use Jagodziński's clasification.
* [http://morfologik.blogspot.com/ Morfologik] contains a polish tagger

===Polish grammar===
*[http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/gram/gram00.html A Grammar of the Polish Language] by Grzegorz Jagodziński
*[http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/grammar.pdf A Grammar of Contemporary Polish] by Oscar E. Swan

===Translation Guides===
*[http://www.piotr.kresak.pl/konwen222.htm Poradnik dla tłumaczących oprogramowanie firmy Lotus] Guide to translating software, originally written for Lotus


===Dictionaries===
*[http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/Knapski/Knapski_DjVu/ Słownik Knapskiego] '''(Thesaurus Polonolatinograecus seu Promptuarium linguae Latinae et Graecae)''' by Grzegorz Knapski -- public domain Polish-Greek-Latin/Latin-Polish dictionary from the 1600s.
*[http://books.google.ie/books?id=RnwDAAAAYAAJ A complete Dictionary English and Polish and Polish and English] by Erazm Rykarzewski -- public domain


==Notes==
==Notes==
<references/>
<references/>



[[Category:Discussions]]
[[Category:Discussions]]


[[Category:Polish and English|*]]

Latest revision as of 13:24, 10 December 2010

Roadmap[edit]

apertium-en-pl 0.1[edit]

Current coverage: Monodix (499/2855, 17%) — Bidix: (599/2855, 19%) [14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)]

Note: the categorized vocabulary list contains some spelling errors, e.g. gogzina (godzina) w pót di dziesiąteh (w pół do dziesiątej).

Morphology[edit]

Nouns[edit]

Polish is a highly inflected language; nouns (and adjectives describing them) are declined according to gender, number, and case. Traditionally, Polish is considered to have 3 genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), but the more modern view[1] is that is contains 5[2]: masculine person (m1 in Apertium), masculine animate (m2), masculine inanimate (m3), feminine, and neuter. The masculine genders can be thought of as steps: in the absence of a particular rule for that case, the rule beneath applies -- a rule for m3 applies to m2 and m1, a rule for m2 applies to m1.

The cases are: nominative (subject), accusative (object), dative (indirect object), genitive (possessive, negative object, quantities), locative (used only with prepositions), instrumental (by means of something), and vocative (addressing something).

Verbs[edit]

Polish has typically two forms for each verb, the perfective and the imperfective aspect. These usually come with a change in stem, for example:

Imperfective Perfective Gloss
widzieć zobaczyć to see
stawiać postawić to set up

The perfective denotes a completed action. According to Wikipedia, "The aspectual distinctions exist on the lexical level — there is no unique method to form a perfective verb from a given imperfective one."[3]

The imperfective is used for the present tense ('Co robisz?': 'What are you doing?') and for negative commands ('Nie rób tego': 'don't (ever) do that', or to use Hiberno English 'don't be doing that'); the perfective for the simple future ('Czy zrobisz to?': 'Will you do it?') and for positive commands ('Zrób to szybciej': 'Do it faster')

[I]n some verbs the perfective form (for example, napisać) is formed out of an underlying imperfective form (pisać), via a prefixisation process that many linguists would argue is a clear example of derivational morphology. On the other hand, in some verbs the imperfective form (for example, kupować) is formed out of an underlying perfective form (kupić), via a ‘suffixisational’ process that many linguists would argue is a clear example of inflectional morphology. Furthermore, in yet other verbs (namely verbs in suppletive pairs such as brać/wziąć) all linguists (as far as we are aware) would agree that there is no morphological link whatsoever between the two verbs. [4]

Apertium notes

As this is lexicalised, there is only one way to deal with it, and that is in the dictionaries, each verb will have two entries in the bilingual dictionary, one for perfective and one for imperfective.

For example:

    <e><p><l>read<s n="vblex"/></l><r>czytać<s n="vblex"/><s n="imperf"/></r></p></e>
    <e><p><l>read<s n="vblex"/></l><r>przeczytać<s n="vblex"/><s n="perf"/></r></p></e>

Further complications[edit]

As well as perfective/imperfective pairs, there are also habitual verbs (czytywałem - I used to read from time to time), and there are pairs which distinguish between non-determined and determined motion (chodzić - to go, with no particular destination in mind vs. iść - to go, with a destination in mind).

Młynarczyk[4] argues that Polish aspect can be further divided, based on the addition of "empty" prefixes, the prefix po, the infix , or with a morphonological change, and provides this table:

ep po- -ną- mpc
class1 yes
class2 yes
class3 yes yes
class4 yes yes yes
class5 yes

Labenz [5] further refines this:

Class Aspect and formant Aktionsart Example
1s impfv state wierzyć 'to be believing'
1s pfv, ep inception of an ongoing state uwierzyć 'to have started believing'
1t impfv transition grubnąć 'to be growing fat(ter)'
1t pfv, ep completed transition zgrubnąć 'to have grown fat'
2 impfv activity siedzieć 'to be sitting'
2 pfv, po- terminated activity posiedzieć 'to have been sitting a bit'
3 impfv ongoing accomplishment czytać 'to be reading'
3 pfv, ep accomplishment przeczytać 'to have read'
3 pfv, po- terminated accomplishment poczytać 'to have been reading a bit'
4 impfv semelfactive activity pukać 'to be knocking'
4 pfv, ep completed semelfactive zapukać 'to have knocked'
4 pfv, po- non-minimal semelfactive popukać 'to have been knocking a bit'
4 pfv, -ną- minimal semelfactive puknąć 'to have knocked once'
5 pfv, mp achievement kupić 'to have bought'
5 impfv ongoing achievement kupować 'to be buying'

In Apertium, these aspect differences can be handled in the Polish monodix.


Syntax[edit]

Articles[edit]

Polish doesn't have articles, so translating English→Polish, we'll need to remove them, translating Polish→English, we'll need to add them. There are, however, some cases[6] where we can add them.

   Mam               zegar
   mieć+p1.sg.pres 
   have+I            clock+nom
`I have a clock'
Apertium notes

There aren't really any rules to this, so the fallback will be "if we can't tell for sure, leave them out".

Word order[edit]

Basic English and Polish word order are the same, SVO; however, as Polish morphology details the part of speech, Polish word order can vary to provide emphasis.

"Ja kocham Ciebie" = "I love you"

"Ciebie ja kocham" = "I love you"

Object dropping[edit]

In answering questions, it is common in Polish to omit the object ("Czy kupiłeś piwo? - Kupiłem": "Did you buy beer? - I bought"). However, as Polish speakers of English commonly drop the object in English, perhaps it's acceptable for us to do so too.[7]

się[edit]

The Polish reflexive/distributive pronoun 'się' (and its forms) is rather difficult to handle[8] [9]. This may require separate dictionary entries for each form in some cases, but as it may be shared between verbs, or placed freely almost anywhere within a clause, it may be difficult to determine which form to use.

Examples:

On kocha się - he loves himself (reflexive)
Oni kochają się - they love each other (distributive)
[Oni kochają siebie - they love themselves (reflexive)]
On myje się - he washes himself (reflexive)
Oni myją się - they wash themselves (reflexive)
[Oni myją się nawzajem - they wash each other (distributive)]

Resources[edit]

Polish-English texts under free licences[edit]

See also: Corpora

Polish texts under free licences[edit]

Other Open Source translation software[edit]

Polish grammar[edit]

Translation Guides[edit]


Dictionaries[edit]

Notes[edit]