Learn Hardcore Polish: Idąc do lekarza, wolałbym nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy. - While going to the doctor, I would prefer not to listen to messages from work.

Idąc do lekarza, – introductory participle phrase (“While going to the doctor,”)
wolałbym nie słuchać… – main clause (“I’d rather not listen…”)

This comma is obligatory in standard Polish. Without it, the sentence is considered incorrect.

Who is actually “going to the doctor” here? Could it be someone other than “I”?

The subject of Idąc must be the same as the subject of the main verb wolałbym.

So the sentence means:

“When I am going to the doctor, I would rather not listen to news from work.”

You cannot interpret it as, e.g., “When my wife is going to the doctor, I would rather not listen…”. That would be wrong in Polish; the subject mismatch would be considered a dangling participle (wiszący imiesłów), which is a grammar/style error.

If you wanted to refer to someone else going to the doctor, you’d have to rephrase, for example:

Kiedy moja żona idzie do lekarza, wolałbym… – “When my wife goes to the doctor, I’d rather…”

Why is it do lekarza and not do lekarz or do lekarzu?

The preposition do (“to, into”) requires the genitive case.

The base noun is lekarz (nominative, “doctor”).
Genitive singular is lekarza.

So:

do kogo? czego? (to whom? of what?) → do lekarza

Forms like do lekarz or do lekarzu are simply incorrect with do.

Why is it wolałbym and not wolę? What’s the nuance?

Both come from the verb woleć (“to prefer”), but:

wolę = present tense, “I prefer”
wolałbym = conditional, “I would prefer / I would rather”

wolałbym is made from the past stem wolał- plus the conditional ending -bym (1st person singular).

Nuance:

Wolę nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy. – “I (simply) prefer not to listen to news from work.” (more direct, factual)
Wolałbym nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy. – “I would rather not listen to news from work.” (more polite, softer, more hypothetical)

So in the original sentence, wolałbym sounds more like a polite preference than a blunt statement.

How would the sentence change if the speaker were a woman?

A female speaker uses the feminine past/conditional form:

Idąc do lekarza, wolałabym nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy.

Difference:

wolałbym – “I (male) would prefer…”
wolałabym – “I (female) would prefer…”

Everything else in the sentence stays the same.

Why do we say nie słuchać (infinitive) and not nie słucham or nie słuchałbym?

In Polish, after verbs like woleć (“to prefer”), you usually use the infinitive to express what you prefer (not) to do.

Pattern:

wolałbym + (nie) + infinitive

So:

wolałbym nie słuchać – “I would rather not listen”
exactly parallel to English “I would rather not listen” (not “I would rather I don’t listen”)

Alternatives would change the meaning:

nie słucham – “I’m not listening / I don’t listen” (statement of fact, present)
nie słuchałbym – “I wouldn’t listen” (full conditional verb, not governed by wolałbym)

The original focuses on preference, so wolałbym nie słuchać is the natural form.

What case is wiadomości here, and why does słuchać use that case?

słuchać normally takes the genitive case.

The noun is wiadomość (“message, a piece of news”):

nominative singular: wiadomość
genitive singular: wiadomości
nominative plural: wiadomości
accusative plural: wiadomości

In this sentence, grammatically wiadomości is genitive plural, because:

słuchać kogo? czego? (listen to whom? to what?) → genitive
słuchać wiadomości (z pracy) – “to listen to news (from work)”

It’s a bit confusing because wiadomości has the same form for several cases, but with słuchać you should always expect genitive.

Why is wiadomości in the plural? Could you say wiadomość z pracy instead?

wiadomości is plural because it refers to news / messages / updates in general, not just one item.

wiadomość – a single message / one piece of news
wiadomości – several messages, or “the news” as a collection

So:

nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy ≈ “not listen to news/updates from work”

You could say nie słuchać jednej wiadomości z pracy (“not listen to one message from work”), but that would mean specifically one message. The neutral, natural way to talk about “news from work” in general is the plural wiadomości.

What exactly does z pracy mean here? How is it different from o pracy?

The preposition z with the genitive often means “from” (source, origin).

z pracy = “from work” (from my workplace / from my job)

So wiadomości z pracy are “news/messages from work” – e.g. emails, calls, or updates coming from your workplace.

Contrast:

wiadomości o pracy – “news about work” (the topic is work, but the source could be anywhere, e.g. a TV program about the labour market)

In your sentence, z pracy is more natural, because it’s about news coming from your own job.

Can I change the word order, for example to Wolałbym nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy, idąc do lekarza?

Yes, Polish word order is fairly flexible, and this version is grammatically possible:

Wolałbym nie słuchać wiadomości z pracy, idąc do lekarza.

The key rule is: keep Idąc do lekarza close to its subject (I → wolałbym). In your version, it still clearly refers to the same “I”, so it’s acceptable.

However, many speakers prefer the original order:

Idąc do lekarza, wolałbym…

because the time/circumstance (Idąc do lekarza) naturally sets the scene at the beginning.

Why is it Idąc (from iść) and not a form from chodzić?

Polish has two basic verbs for “to go (on foot)”:

iść – to be going now, in one specific direction/occasion (one trip)
chodzić – to go habitually / repeatedly / in general

In Idąc do lekarza, we’re talking about one specific instance of going to the doctor (e.g. “when I’m on my way to the doctor”), so iść is appropriate.

If you used chodzić, you’d talk about a habit:

Kiedy chodzę do lekarza, wolę… – “When I (generally) go to the doctor, I prefer…”

But the participle from chodzić (chodząc do lekarza…) would sound more like “while attending the doctor’s (regularly)”, which is not the usual meaning here. Hence Idąc from iść is the natural choice.