Decomposing groups, bunches, and
aggregates
16.11.2017, Leiden University, LUSH
Mojmír Dočekal & Marcin Wągiel
1/76
Introduction
2/76
Collective nouns
Collective nouns (Jespersen 1924):
(1) a. committee
b. group
c. deck
• group nouns (Barker 1992) or bunch nouns (Schwarzschild 1996)
• involve not only individuals, but also events and degrees
(2) a. group of objects
b. sequence of events
c. range of numbers
3/76
Collective nouns
Heterogeneous semantic nature: singular or plural?
• plural denotation (Munn 1998, Elbourne 1999)
• atomic denotation (Baker 1992, Schwarzschild 1996)
• group-formation (Landman 1989, 2000)
Standard assumption:
• collective nouns ⇒ uniform category
4/76
Collective nouns
Recent findings: distinct classes
• Pearson (2011): committee nouns vs. collection nouns
• Henderson (2017): group nouns vs. swarm nouns
Landman (2000):
• collective body formation ⇒ swarms
• collective action ⇒ groups/swarms
• collective responsibility ⇒ groups
5/76
Outline
Outline of the talk
1. distinct classes of collective nouns
2. derived collectives in Czech and Polish
3. experiment on 3 classes of derived collectives
6/76
Groups, collections, swarms
Based on Pearson (2011) and Henderson (2017):
property groups collections swarms
plural pseudopartitives
plural agreement in BE/CE × ×*
count Det heading partitives × ×*
ILPs and always ? × ×*
only large constituent pluralities × *
spatial existence entailments × *
support spatial predicates × *
* our judgments
? unclear/dubious data 7/76
Plural pseudopartitives
Standard syntactic test (Barker 1992):
• group noun + of-phrase with a plural complement ⇒
• group noun + of-phrase with a singular complement ⇒ *
(3) a. group of children/*child
b. collection of shirts/*shirt
c. set of chairs/*chair
d. pair of shoes/*shoe
e. herd of animals/*animal
8/76
Plural pseudopartitives
Problem:
• expressions referring to game (Ritchie 2013)
(4) a. pride of lion
b. flock of pheasant
However:
• English nouns referring to game can have a zero plural (Corbett
2000: 68, Acquaviva 2008: 30)
(5) The elephant are downwind of us. (Allan 1976)
9/76
Plural pseudopartitives
Nevertheless, the test is flawed anyway:
• incorrect predictions wrt object (fake/neat) mass nouns
(6) a. group of offspring
b. collection of clothing
c. set of furniture
d. pair of footwear
e. herd of livestock
Hypothesis:
• in pseudopartitive constructions group nouns require nominals
denoting pluralities
• ⇒ regular singular count nouns do not refer to pluralities 10/76
Plural agreement and count Det heads
Possible with groups in BE/CE (Pearson 2011):
(7) a. The committee has been arguing all morning.
b. The committee have been arguing all morning.
(8) a. The committee is old. ⇒ ambiguous
b. The committee are old. ⇒ only distributive
(9) a. Three of the committee came to the meeting.
b. Several of the family objected to her marriage.
c. Many of the present cabinet will have to resign.
11/76
Plural agreement and count Det heads
Impossible with collections:
(10) a. The deck of cards is on the table.
b. *The deck of cards are on the table.
(11) a. *Three of the bunch of flowers had died.
b. *Several of the deck of cards had gone missing.
c. *Many of the pile of dishes needed to be washed.
12/76
Plural agreement and count Det heads
Absolutely impossible in Slavic:
(12) a. Komitet
committee
kłócił
arguedsg
się
refl
przez
through
całe
whole
rano.
morning
‘The committee has been arguing all morning.’
b. *Komitet
committee
kłócili
arguedpl
się
refl
przez
through
całe
whole
rano.
morning
Indended: ‘The committee have been arguing all
morning.’
(13) *Trzech
three
spośród
among
komitetu
committee
przyszło
camesg
na
on
spotkanie.
meeting
Intended: ‘Three of the committee came to the meeting.’
13/76
ILPs and always
Pearson (2011) ⇒ intensional semantics for group nouns
• individual level predicates modified by always
(14) a. #John always has big feet. ⇒ object
b. Elephants always have big feet. ⇒ kind
(15) a. *That bunch of flowers is always tall.
b. The Pearson family always has big feet.
14/76
ILPs and always
Problem:
• it seems not all group nouns allow for that
(16) a. ??That group of students always has big feet.
b. ??That cast of actors always has big feet.
c. ??That cabinet always has big feet.
Hypothesis:
• some groups involve temporal component ⇒ generations of
members
15/76
Derived collectives in Czech and Polish
16/76
Different classes
• suffix -ice/-ka ⇒ numerals
(17) dva/dwa
two
⇒
⇒
dvojice/dwójka
twocoll
‘two’ ⇒ ‘group of two’
• suffix -stvo/-stwo ⇒ animate nouns (human)
(18) rytíř/rycerz
knight
⇒
⇒
rytířstvo/rycerstwo
knightcoll
‘knight’ ⇒ ‘group/totality of knights’
17/76
Different classes
• suffix -í/-e ⇒ inanimate nouns
(19) květ/kwiat
flower
⇒
⇒
kvítí/kwiecie
flowercoll
‘flower’ ⇒ ‘mass of flowers’
• there are more: -ž, -ina, -eria, -ela, -ba, -ota etc
18/76
Aggregates
Derived mass nouns ⇒ the suffix -í/-e
(20) a. Czech: list-í ‘foliage’, dřív-í ‘firewood’
b. Polish: pierz-e ‘feather stuffing’, włosi-e ‘bristle’
• derived from -ANIM nouns
• no plural forms
(21) a. s list-í-minstr.sg
b. *s list-í-miinstr.pl
19/76
Aggregates
• incompatible with cardinal numerals: *2 list-í, *2 dřív-í
– compatible with taxonomic and aggregate numerals
(22) a. *2 list-í/dřív-í
b. dvoj-í dříví
c. dvoj-e listí
• compatible with the singular universal quantifier všechno ‘all’
(23) všechno list-í/dřív-í
20/76
Aggregates
• obligatorily cumulative: list-í ⊕ list-í = list-í
• obligatorily divisive: parts of list-í are list-í (unlike list)
• topology plays a role
– particular leaves get separated ⇒ list-í ceases to exist
– listí ⇒ cluster = plurality of connected objects (Grimm &
Dočekal 2017)
21/76
Bunches
Group nouns derived from cardinal numerals ⇒ the suffix -ice/-ka
(24) a. Czech: tr-oj-ice námořníků ‘group-of-three sailors’
b. Polish: tr-ój-ka marynarzy ‘group-of-three sailors’
• count +ANIM nouns
– metaphorical use: troj-ice úkolů ‘group-of-three tasks’)
• both singular and plural forms
(25) a. s troj-icíinstr.sg námořníků
b. s troj-ice-miinstr.pl námořníků
22/76
Bunches
• compatible with cardinal numerals
(26) 2 troj-ice námořníků
• incompatible with the singular universal quantifier všechno ‘all’
(27) *všechna troj-ice námořníků
23/76
Bunches
• obligatorily non-cumulative: troj-ice ⊕ troj-ice = 2 troj-ice
• obligatorily non-divisive: parts of troj-ice are not troj-ice
• topology is not involved
– constituents get separated
(28) Trojice
threecoll
detektivů
detctives
se
refl
rozjela
dispersed
do
to
tří
three
různých
different
měst.
towns
‘A group of three detectives dispersed to three different
towns.’
24/76
Groups
Derived from role nouns (professions) ⇒ the suffix -stvo/-stwo
(29) a. Czech: rytíř-stvo ‘knights/chivalry’, duchovenstvo ‘clergy’
b. Polish: rycer-stwo ‘knights/chivalry’, duchowieństwo
‘clergy’
• mostly +ANIM (human)
– exception: loďstvo ‘marine/navy’
• only singular forms
(30) a. duchovenstvonom.sg
b. *duchovenstvanom.pl
25/76
Groups
• incompatible with cardinal numerals
– compatible with taxonomic numerals
(31) a. *2 duchovenstva
b. dvojí duchovenstvo
• compatible with the singular universal quantifier všechno ‘all’
(32) všechno rytířstvo
26/76
Groups
• cumulative: rytířstvo ⊕ rytířstvo = rytířstvo
• divisive to a threshold: parts of rytířstvo are still rytířstvo up to
atomic knights?
• topology is not involved
– constituents get separated
(33) Rytířstvo
knightcoll
se
refl
rozjelo
dispersed
do
to
tří
three
různých
different
měst.
towns
‘A group of knights dispersed to three different towns.’
27/76
Groups
• no topological commitments but some sort of
institutionalization
• somewhere between collectives and object mass nouns
– * with cardinal numerals
– with collective predicates like gather
(34) Rytířstvo
knightcoll
se
refl
shromáždilo
gather
před
before
hradem.
castle
‘(A group/totality of) Knights gathered in front o the castle.’
28/76
Groups
• somewhere between collectives and kind terms
– with kind-level predicates like be widespread
– regular kinds, e.g., bear, are more spatially dispersed
(35) Rytířstvo
knightcoll
bylo
was
rozšířené
widespread
ve
in
středověku.
middle-ages
‘(A group/totality of) Knights were widespread in the Middle
Ages.’
29/76
Data summary
property BUNCH GROUP AGGREGATE
derived from / modifies +ANIM N +ANIM N -ANIM N
count × ×
pseudopartitives × ×
cumulative reference ×
large const. plurality ×
generic predicates × ×
spatial existence ent. × ×
30/76
Another test
• more apt for experimental investigation
• builds on the known interaction between collectives and
reciprocal predicates
• reciprocity requires a plural argument ⇒ form of quantification
(Schwarzschild 1996, Lønning 2011)
31/76
Another test
• contradictory evidence but sometimes possible with plural VP
agreement (Pearson 2011)
(36) a. *The cricket team usually coaches each other.
b. The family can’t stand each other.
c. It is puzzling when medical staff disagree with each
other.
32/76
Different and same (DS)
• subcase/close to reciprocity
• anaphoric to a referent introduced in the previous discourse
(37) Yesterday I bought Plant’s last CD.
a. Today, Peter bought the same CD.
b. Today, Peter bought a different CD.
33/76
Different and same (DS)
• bound within a clause
• sentence internal reading (Carlson 1987)
– expresses covariation
– the contrast between different and same
(38) a. Each student bought the same CD. ⇒ no covariation
b. Each student bought a different CD. ⇒ covariation
34/76
Types of DS antecedents
• acceptability of DS depends on the type of their antecedents
(Carlson 1987)
– distributive vs. non-distributive antecedents
– contrast between singular and plural different
– no contrast with same
(39) a. All the men are from different towns/??a different town.
b. Each man is from a different town/??different towns.
c. All the men are/each man is from the same town.
35/76
DS strategies
Cross-linguistic investigations on DS:
• Beck (2000): sg and pl different in English ⇒ two distinct lexical
items in German: verschieden/ander
(40) a. Detmar
Detmar
und
and
Kordula
Kordula
wohnen
live
in
in
verschiedenen
different
Städten.
cities
b. Jedes
every
Mädchen
girl
hat
has
ein
a
anderes
different
Buch
book
gelesen.
read
36/76
DS strategies
• Brasoveanu (2008): study on DS lexical items, 11 languages
1. sentence internal reading under distributive quantifiers (plus
discourse-anaphoric reading)
– German ander, English sg different
2. only discourse-anaphoric reading
– English other/another
3. sentence-internal reading with non-distributive quantifiers ⇒
plural DP
– German verschiedene NPpl, English different NPpl
37/76
DS strategies
• Dotlačil (2012: ch. 5): experimental confirmation of
Brasoveanu’s claims
– Dutch data: experimental evidence
– Czech data: introspection and observation
38/76
DS strategies
• Czech DS
1. strategy 1 (distributive): jiný ‘differentsg’
2. strategy 2 (only discourse-anaphoric): ostatní ‘other’
3. strategy 3 (non-distributive quantifiers): různý both in sg. and pl.
(English ‘differentpl’)
(41) a. Každý
every
chlapec/???ti
boy/the
chlapci
boys
měl(i)
had
jiné
different
kolo.
bike
b.???Každý
every
chlapec/ti
body/the
chlapci
boys
měl(i)
had
různé(á)
different
kolo(a).
bike
39/76
DS strategies
• Czech stejný ‘same’ does not distinguish between distributive
and non-distributive antecedents
– follows the general cross-linguistic pattern for same
(42) Každý
every
chlapec/ti
boy/the
chlapci
boys
měl(i)
had
stejné
same
kolo.
bike
40/76
Formal treatment of DS
Dotlačil (2012):
• differentsg vs. differentpl
(43) a. differentpl = λPλx.#(x) ≥ 2(∀y, z < x)[y, z ∈
AT ∧ y = z → distinct(y, z)]
b. differentsg = λPλx.Px ∧ ¬x ◦ y
c. same = λPλx.Px ∧ x = y
41/76
Formal treatment of DS
• the observed dependence of sentence-internal reading for
differentsg
– distributivity not part of the semantics of different
• differentpl degraded with distributive antecedents
• excessive distributivity
(44) ???Each boy will each buy a ticket.
42/76
Parallel between DS and reciprocals
• reciprocals preferring distributive antecedents
• reciprocals preferring collective antecedents
– built-in distributivity
– pure distributive quantifiers ⇒ reciprocity lost or ungrammatical
(45) Každý
every
policista
policeman
podezírá
suspects
ostatní
other
policisty.
policemen
(46) a. Petr
Petr
a
and
Marie
Mary
se/jeden druhého
refl/each-other
pozdravili.
greeted
reciprocal reading ⇒
b. Každý
every
policista
policeman
se/*jeden druhého
refl/each-other
podezírá.
suspects
reciprocal reading ⇒ *, only reflexive reading 43/76
The experiment
44/76
Data
Reminder: 3 classes of derived collectives in Czech and Polish:
• GROUP nouns
– rytířcz / rycerzpl (‘knight’) ⇒ rytířstvocz / rycerstwopl
(‘group/totality of knights’)
• BUNCH numerals
– třicz / trzypl (‘three’) ⇒ trojicecz / trójkapl (‘group of three’)
• AGGREGATE nouns
– listcz / liśćpl (‘leaf’) ⇒ listícz / listowiepl (‘foliage’)
45/76
Motivation
• the essential questions:
– to what what extent (if any) one can access atomic members of
a group plurality to distribute a certain property?
– to what extent (if any) different modes of group-formation
relate to decomposability of particular collective nouns?
• interaction between collectives and so-called A-different
expressions
– Czech: jiný (‘different’)
– Polish: inny (‘different’)
46/76
Motivation
• without a distributive universal quantifier in subject position ⇒
only discourse anaphoric reading (Beck 2000, Dotlačil 2010)
(47) a. Každý muž pil jinou whisky. ⇒ covariation
‘Every man drank different whiskey.’
b. Ti muži pili jinou whisky. ⇒ no covariation ‘The men
drank different whiskey.’
47/76
Design
• parallel experiments on Czech and Polish
• Latin Square design, 9 items in each of the 3 classes (conditions)
⇒ 27 items plus 27 fillers
• the participants judged sentences in a context supporting a
strong co-variating scenario
• truth value judgment task
• 5-point Likert scale: 1=worst, 5=best
48/76
Design
• 3 conditions:
1. COL : the target involved GROUP, BUNCH, or AGGREGATE
2. BP : a bare plural NP
3. QUA : a universal distributive quantifier with a singular bare NP
• reference level: QUA
49/76
Items
(48) Context: All the knights of the kingdom gathered to fight the
final battle against the musketeers. A historian who
observed the battlefield realized that none of the knights
has the same armor as the others. He recorded the fact in a
chronicle:
a. Rytířstvo
knightcoll
má
has
jinou
different
zbroj.
armor
‘(A group/totality of) Knights have different armor.’
COL
b. Rytíři
knights
mají
have
jinou
different
zbroj.
armor
‘Knights have different armor.’ BP
c. Každý
every
rytíř
knight
má
has
jinou
different
zbroj.
armor 50/76
Items
(49) Context: In spring Tomek and Kasia went to the meadow to
watch blooming flowers. At a certain moment Tomek noticed
that in the whole meadow there no two flowers of the same
color. He was very surprised and uttered to Kasia:
a. Kwiecie
flowercoll
ma
has
inny
different
kolor.
color
‘(A mass of) flowers are of a different color.’ COL
b. Kwiaty
flowers
mają
have
inny
different
kolor.
color
‘Flowers are of a different color.’ BP
c. Każdy
every
kwiat
flower
ma
has
inny
different
kolor.
color
‘Every flower is of a different color.’ QUA
51/76
Research questions
• reference level: QUA (nearly total acceptability)
• expectation:
– COL and BP significantly worse than QUA
• research questions
1. differences between COL and BP?
2. differences between GROUP, BUNCH, and AGGREGATE?
52/76
Data collection and analysis
• both experiments: run online on Ibex farm
• participants: 51cz and 48pl
• all were successful with the fillers
• R package ORDINAL: the mixed-effects ordered probit
regression
• the model had 1 predictor: QUA
• the subject and item slope + intercept random effects
• results: mean acceptability of the 3 classes ⇒ whisker plot
53/76
Results
Figure 1: Results: Czech
54/76
Results
Figure 2: Results: Polish
55/76
Results
• the class BUNCH
– bare plurals: significantly worse results than quantifiers
βcz = −1.6289, zcz = −7.626, pcz < 0.001
βpl = −1.8408, zpl = −11.56, ppl < 0.001
– collectives: significantly worse results than quantifiers
βcz = −1.6819, zcz = −7.783, pcz < 0.001
βpl = −1.7601, zpl = −11.03, ppl < 0.001
– no statistical difference between collectives and bare plurals
βcz = 0.05298, zcz = 0.267, pcz = 0.789
βpl = −0.0807, zpl = −0.578, ppl = 0.563
56/76
Results
• the class GROUP
– bare plurals: significantly worse results than quantifiers
βcz = −2.1113, zcz = −10.70, pcz < 0.001
βpl = −2.2537, zpl = −11.15, ppl < 0.001
– collectives: significantly worse results than quantifiers
βcz = −2.8955, zcz = −13.56, pcz < 0.001
βpl = −2.6726, zpl = −12.45, ppl < 0.001
– collectives: significantly worse results than bare plurals
βcz = 0.7842, zcz = 4.831, pcz < 0.001
βpl = 0.4189, zpl = 2.486, ppl < 0.05
57/76
Results
• the class AGGREGATE
– bare plurals: significantly worse results than quantifiers
βcz = −1.9916, zcz = −8.166, pcz < 0.001
βpl = −2.3726, zpl = −13.58, ppl < 0.001
– collectives: significantly worse results than quantifiers
βcz = −2.7251, zcz = −10.731, pcz < 0.001
βpl = −2.7958, zpl = −15.02, ppl < 0.001
– collectives: significantly worse results than bare plurals
βcz = 0.7335, zcz = 3.45, pcz < 0.001
βpl = 0.4232, zpl = 3.054, ppl < 0.01
58/76
Discussion
• almost identical results in both Czech and Polish
– despite different frequency and productivity rates as well as
different derivational potentials of corresponding classes
– the ppl values tend to be higher than pcz
• BUNCH: easier to decompose than GROUP and AGGREGATE
collectives
– shared collective inferences
– asymmetry in the accessibility to the members of a denoted
plurality
59/76
Discussion
• scale of decomposability in West Slavic
(50) GROUP ≈ AGGREGATE < BUNCH ≈ bare plural NP < distr. QP
• possibility: GROUP and AGGREGATE are semantically more
complex ⇒ group-formation involves an additional mode
– GROUP ⇒ kind inferences
– AGGREGATE ⇒ topological relations
• BUNCH simply establish a membership relation
60/76
Towards explanation
61/76
Preliminary account
• very attractive framework of de Vries (2015)
• collective nouns denote sets (et)
– absence of plural morphology ⇒ shifted to impure atoms (e)
• based mostly on experimental data from British English
(51) The class are sleeping or drawing.
a. coll: (sleepet ∨ drawet)(↑ (classet)e)
b. distr: (∗(sleepet ∨ drawet)et,t)(classet)
(52) The class is sleeping or drawing.
a. only coll: ↑ (classet)e ∈ sleep ∪ draw
b. *distr: classet ∈ ∗(sleep ∪ draw)
62/76
Preliminary account
• prediction:
– if reciprocity and distributivity = quantification over atoms
(assumed by many) and
– if the connection between atom denotation and morphological
number (V) holds (de Vries 2015)
– ⇒ Czech BPs should be more acceptable as covariational
antecedents than collectives (sg agreement)
• empirically correct for AGGREGATE and GROUP
• but not for BUNCH collectives
63/76
Preliminary account
• possible explanation: the role of animacy (de Vries 2015
following Pearson 2011)
– partitives with animate collectives ⇒ distribution over atoms
– no distinction betweeen plurals and collectives: Dutch data
(53) a. Half of the committee had been painted yellow.
(i) distr: yellow(half of the members)
(ii) *coll/mass: yellow(half of the committee stuff)
b. Half of the girls are covered in mud.
(i) distr: mud(half of the girls)
(ii) *coll/mass: mud(half of the girls stuff)
64/76
Preliminary account
• inanimate collectives do not allow for distribution over atoms
– vague ⇒ mass denotation
(54) a. Half of the pile of exams has been graded.
(i) coll/mass: graded(half of the exam stuff)
(ii) ?(entailed) distr: graded(half of the members)
65/76
Preliminary account
• Czech and Polish BUNCH collectives are mostly animate
(55) a. trojice mužů ‘group of three men’
b. ??trojice oblaků ‘group of three clouds’
• animate BUNCH ⇒ more decomposable than inanimates
• but what about GROUP nouns? also animate: rytířstvo ‘chivalry’
• possibile account: social roles (Zobel 2016)
– abstract functions or capacities of individuals (r)
– social constructs independent of the individuals that bear them
– shifting mechanism relating roles and individuals
66/76
Summary and further investigation
• scale of decomposability in West Slavic
(56) GROUP ≈ AGGREGATE < BUNCH ≈ bare plural NP < distr. QP
• Factor 1: sg agreement
– sg agreement forces impure atom interpretation of Slavic
collectives ⇒ not totally acceptable as covariation antecedents
– to some extent yes ⇒ P-distributivity? (meaning postulates)
(57) The team ate a pizza.
• if yes, it would be easy to test ⇒ Experiment 2 67/76
Summary and further investigation
• Factor 2: animacy
– animate BUNCH nouns are acceptable as covariation
antecedents to the same extent as bare plurals
• again testable ⇒ Experiment 2
– -ANIM bunch nouns: trojice lodí/úloh/hvězd
68/76
Thanks!
69/76
Selected References
• Barker (1992) Group terms in English: Representing groups as atoms, JoS 9
• Beck (2000) The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational
adjective, L&P 23
• Dotlačil (2010) Anaphora and Distributivity, LOT.
• Grimm (2012) Number and Individuation
• Henderson (2017) Swarms: Spatiotemporal grouping across domains, NLLT 35
• Landman (1989) Groups, L&P 12
• Pearson (2011) A new semantics for group nouns, WCCFL 28
• Schwarzschild (1996) Pluralities
• De Vries (2015). Shifting sets, hidden atoms the semantics of distributivity,
plurality and animacy, Utrecht.
70/76
Appendix
71/76
Pseudopartitive constructions
The nominal root specifies constituents:
(58) a. dwójka
two.coll
chłopców
boys.gen
‘group of two boys’
b. *rycerstwo
knight.coll
jeźdźców
horsemen.gen
c. *wujostwo
uncle.coll
Austriaków
Austrians.gen
d. *brzezina
birch.coll
młodych
young
drzew
trees.gen
e. *kwiecie
flower.coll
niezpominajek
forget-me-nots.gen
72/76
Size of constituent pluralities
(59) a. dwójka (‘two.coll’) → cardinality = 2 (numeral root →
value)
b. rycerstwo (‘knight.coll’) → large cardinality
c. wujostwo (‘uncle.coll’) → cardinality = 2 (prototypically)
d. brzezina (‘birch.coll’) → large cardinality
e. kwiecie (‘flower.coll’) → large cardinality
73/76
Spatial existence entailments
If a group is dissolved, it ceases to exist (Henderson 2017):
• groups survive spatial separation
• swarms do not
(60) a. dwójka (‘two.coll’) → if separated
b. rycerstwo (‘knight.coll’) → if separated
c. wujostwo (‘uncle.coll’) → if separated
d. brzezina (birch.coll’) → if separated ×
e. kwiecie (‘flower.coll’) → if separated ×
74/76
Spatial predicates
(61) Context: particular individuals are arranged in such a way to
form a circle.
a. #Ta
this
dziesiątka
ten.coll
jest
is
okrągła.
circular
b. #To
this
rycerstwo
knight.coll
jest
is
okrągłe.
circular
c. #To
this
wujostwo
uncle.coll
jest
is
okrągłe.
circular
d. Ta
this
brzezina
birch.coll
jest
is
okrągła.
circular
‘This birch grove is circular.’
e. #To
this
kwiecie
flower.coll
jest
is
okrągłe.
circular 75/76
76/76