# Forum Other Languages Slavic languages Polish  Polskie chrzescijanstwo v piesni

## Pejko

[b]PANSL

----------


## kamka

I'm not really sure what you're exactly getting at.
I don't think I've ever heard this song. 
concerning the differences in translation, I wouldn't say it's a big of a difference, I should think it got translated that way because it suited the metre or rythm better. And semanticaly, it doesn't make a huge difference. I don't know the dates when the translation has been done, but supposedly, it appeared during the time when the church played a great role in Poland, hence it was safer to omit the name of pagan God. 
But still, I don't think I understand what's your point. You've presented the proofs, but no clear thesis, which makes it quite difficult to discuss over.  ::  
oh, and by the way, Mazurek Dąbrowskiego is still our anthem  ::

----------


## Pejko

> I'm not really sure what you're exactly getting at.

 I

----------


## kamka

> I would like to apologize if I offended You or Poland at all. It was not my aim.

 nah, it's ok, I didn't feel offended at all, I just wasn't sure what exactly did you mean.  ::    

> In all respect to You, I disagree. Yes, You can say that one god with exact name is the same as the another one called just as a God, but is Parom the same as Boh with capital letter in Poland? Do the people of Poland pray to Pierun, God of us? I do not think so. Comming out from last sentence, I supposse, Parom and "God" are not the same for me, as well as it could not be the same for Polish in the year of 1848.

 I wouldn't really know what kind of a position did Parom hold in Poland in the 19th century, as I'm not too familiar with pagan beliefs, I've never been really interested in that aspect, but perhaps you're right.
I don't really consider myself to be the right person to discuss the whole thing with you, as I, quite frankly speaking, have no knowledge whatsoever on that matter, and hence can only express my subjective opinion, assumptions and allegations.  ::    

> And, hmm, so, what can we discuss?  Maybe, we can imagine the space appeared there as the chance to discuss the future of Slavic reciprocity. Is there any chance, we get united in one language, in one state and in one church?  (we = Slavs) 
> I see, I feel, nobady in Europe can allow our unification under the one flag just because the fact, we are mighty in number, mighty in force.. If we had united, we would have strong vote in the EU yelling for our labour force.. for example.. I read, I have seen and therefore, now I know how the situation is in Slovakia and in Poland. Our people are just slaves in foreign countries, in western countries, e.g. in Ireland it is actuall.. What do you think about that?

 ai, ai, hold your horses! The vision you've presented about uniting all of the Slavs seems very utopian to me, and, honestly, not probable to happen. Even if, somehow, the heads of all of the countries would agree on who will have the power (which is highly impossible), it would still be like the USSR all over again, and that didn't work out very good, did it.
We're all Slavs, ok, that doesn't mean, though, we should create our own country  and turn our backs on the rest of Europe.
It's the same as if you told all od the Asians to unite and create a brand new country. That's never going to happen, and quite frankly, I wouldn't even want it to. We're all too different, way too different.
The theory sounds nice, but in practice, it wouldn't work. Ever. Sort of like communism.  ::  
Obviously, I'm not for  treating Poles, or any other nation for that matter, as a cheap labour force, but, the way I see it - we sort of let them do that. After all, it's not like we're forced to go to Irealnd and work there; it's the choice we make.

----------

