Learn Hardcore Polish: On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg, bo znów jest korek. - He will probably not make it to the train because there is a traffic jam again.

nie zdążyć na pociąg = not manage to get to the train in time / not make it to the train (i.e. you will miss it)
It’s stronger than just “to be late”.

Compare:

spóźnić się na pociąg – to be late for the train (you may or may not still catch it)
nie zdążyć na pociąg – you fail to make it on time; you basically miss the train.

So On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg suggests he will probably miss the train completely.

Why is it nie zdąży and not something like nie zdąża?

Because of aspect and future tense.

zdążyć is a perfective verb (it describes a completed, one-time result: “to manage in time once”).
Perfective verbs in Polish do not have a present tense with present meaning. Their “present” forms actually refer to the future.

So:

(on) zdąży = he will manage (in time)
(on) nie zdąży = he will not manage (in time)

There is an imperfective partner: zdążać.

(on) zdąża would mean something like he is (in general) managing to be on time / he tends to make it, but it’s rare and sounds a bit odd in this context.

In this sentence we’re talking about this one specific train in the future, so we need the perfective future: nie zdąży.

What case is pociąg in, and why is it na pociąg?

Pociąg is in the accusative singular here.

The structure is:

zdążyć na + accusative = to manage to get (in time) to / for something

Examples:

zdążyć na pociąg – to make it to the train
zdążyć na autobus – to make it to the bus
zdążyć na spotkanie – to make it to the meeting

With motion towards a goal, na usually takes accusative:

iść na koncert – go to a concert
biec na uczelnię – run to the university

So na pociąg is literally “onto/for the train”, and pociąg is accusative.

Can you change the word order in On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, you can change the word order; the meaning stays basically the same, but the focus shifts slightly.

All of these are grammatically correct:

On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg. (neutral, most natural)
Prawdopodobnie on nie zdąży na pociąg. (slight emphasis on he in contrast to someone else)
On nie zdąży prawdopodobnie na pociąg. (emphasis drifts toward the adverb; sounds a bit less neutral)

In everyday speech the first one (On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg) is the most typical neutral version.

Why is prawdopodobnie placed before nie zdąży and not after the verb?

Adverbs like prawdopodobnie (probably) usually go before the verb phrase they modify and often before nie:

On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży… – He will probably not make it…

Other natural variants:

Prawdopodobnie on nie zdąży…
On raczej nie zdąży… (raczej = rather / most likely)

Putting it after the verb (On nie zdąży prawdopodobnie…) is still understandable but a bit less neutral and can sound slightly “tag-like”, almost as if you added probably at the end as an afterthought.

What’s the difference between prawdopodobnie and chyba?

Both can translate as “probably”, but they feel a bit different:

prawdopodobnie – more neutral/formal, sounds a bit more objective:
- On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg. – He will probably not make it to the train.
chyba – very common in speech, slightly more subjective/hesitant:
- On chyba nie zdąży na pociąg. – I think he won’t make it / He probably won’t make it.

You’ll hear chyba a lot more in casual conversation; prawdopodobnie fits both spoken and written language and feels a bit more “bookish” or careful.

Can On be dropped? Is Prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg correct?

Yes, On can be omitted, and Prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg is perfectly correct.

Polish is a pro-drop language: the subject pronoun can be left out when it’s clear from context and verb ending.

(On) nie zdąży. – He won’t make it.
The form zdąży is third person singular, so if we know who we’re talking about, on is optional.

You usually keep on if you want to emphasize or contrast:

On nie zdąży, ale ona zdąży. – He won’t make it, but she will.

What does znów mean, and how is it different from znowu?

Znów and znowu both mean “again” and in most contexts they are interchangeable.

bo znów jest korek = because there is a traffic jam again
bo znowu jest korek – means the same

Subtle tendencies:

znów is sometimes felt as a bit shorter, slightly more neutral or literary
znowu is extremely common in everyday speech

In this sentence, using either znów or znowu would sound normal.

What does korek mean here, and why doesn’t it mean “cork”?

Korek has several meanings in Polish, including:

traffic jam – this is the meaning in the sentence
- Jest korek. – There’s a traffic jam.
cork (from a bottle)
- korek od wina – wine cork
plug / stopper (for a sink, bath, etc.)

So bo znów jest korek means “because there is a traffic jam again”, not “because there is a cork again”. Context tells you which meaning is intended.

Why is it jest korek instead of something like “there is a traffic jam”? How does this structure work?

Polish often expresses “there is/there are” simply as “is/are + noun” without a separate word for “there”:

Jest korek. – There is a traffic jam.
Są problemy. – There are problems.
Była awaria. – There was a breakdown.

So:

bo znów jest korek literally: because again is [a] traffic jam
natural English: because there is a traffic jam again

Polish doesn’t use a dummy subject like “there” in these sentences.

Why is the verb jest in the present tense if we’re talking about something that affects the future?

The traffic jam is understood as happening now (or in the very near present), and its current existence is the reason why he will probably miss the train in the near future.

So:

On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg – future result
bo znów jest korek – present cause (the traffic jam is happening now / at this moment of speaking / on this route)

English often does the same:

He’ll probably miss the train *because there’s a traffic jam again.*

Present for the cause, future for the consequence.

Could you also say ponieważ instead of bo? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say ponieważ instead of bo; both mean “because”.

On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg, bo znów jest korek.
On prawdopodobnie nie zdąży na pociąg, ponieważ znów jest korek.

Differences:

bo – very common, neutral, slightly more colloquial
ponieważ – more formal/bookish, often preferred in written language (essays, news articles, etc.)

In everyday speech, bo is completely natural and more frequent.

How do you pronounce zdąży, and what is that little hook under the ą?

Zdąży is pronounced approximately like [zdon-zhi] (rough guide for an English speaker):

z – like z in zoo
d – like d in dog
ą – a nasal vowel; before ż it sounds roughly like a nasal “on/om”
ż – like the “s” in measure or “zh” in vision
y – a vowel that doesn’t exist in English; something between i in bit and uh, but further back in the mouth

So zdąży is something like “zdon-zhih” (said quickly as one word).

The little hook under ą is ogonek, and ą is a nasal vowel, somewhat like French “on” / “om” depending on the following consonant.

Is there any difference between “nie zdąży na pociąg” and saying “spóźni się na pociąg”?

Yes, the nuance is different:

nie zdąży na pociąg
- focus on failing to make it in time
- strongly implies he will miss the train
spóźni się na pociąg
- focus on being late
- could still mean he may just catch it very late or miss it, but the idea is “he’ll be late” rather than “he definitely won’t make it”

In your sentence, nie zdąży na pociąg more clearly suggests that, due to the traffic jam, he won’t catch the train.