Czy miałeś kupić morele i awokado, czy ja miałam to zrobić po pracy?

At the start of the sentence, czy is a question particle. It usually does not have a direct one-word translation in English; it simply marks the sentence as a question.

So:

• Czy miałeś kupić...? = Were you supposed to buy...?

Without czy, the sentence could still be a question in speech, but czy makes that function explicit.

The second czy means or in an alternative question.

So the pattern here is:

• Czy X, czy Y? = Was it X, or was it Y?

In this sentence:

• Czy miałeś kupić morele i awokado, czy ja miałam to zrobić po pracy?
• Were you supposed to buy the apricots and avocado, or was I supposed to do it after work?

So the first czy introduces the question, and the second one links the two alternatives.

Miałeś kupić means you were supposed to buy or you were to buy.

This is a common Polish pattern:

• mieć in the past + infinitive

It often expresses:

• an expectation
• a plan
• an instruction
• something that was supposed to happen

So:

• miałeś kupić = you were supposed to buy
• miałam to zrobić = I was supposed to do it

It does not mean that the buying definitely happened. It refers to what was expected or planned.

Because Polish past-tense forms show person, number, and gender.

Here:

• miałeś = you had / you were supposed to — addressed to one male
• miałam = I had / I was supposed to — said by a female speaker

So this sentence tells us:

• the person being addressed is male
• the speaker is female

If the speaker were male, it would be:

• czy ja miałem to zrobić...

If the person addressed were female, it would be:

• czy miałaś kupić...

That is true: Polish often omits subject pronouns because the verb ending already shows who the subject is.

But pronouns are often included for contrast or emphasis.

Here:

• czy ja miałam to zrobić = or was I supposed to do it?

The ja is there to emphasize the contrast between:

• you
• I

So it sounds like:

• Were you supposed to buy it, or was I?

Without ja, the sentence would still be grammatical, but the contrast would be a little weaker.

Because kupić and zrobić are perfective infinitives, and here the speaker is referring to single completed actions.

• kupić = to buy, as a completed act
• zrobić = to do, to get done, as a completed act

That fits the context well: the speaker is asking who was supposed to complete the task.

If you used imperfective forms like kupować or robić, the meaning would shift more toward:

• ongoing action
• repeated action
• process rather than completion

In this sentence, the focus is on finishing the task, so perfective is the natural choice.

They are the direct objects of kupić, so they are in the accusative case.

• morele is accusative plural
• awokado has the same form here as its basic dictionary form

A useful detail:

• for many non-masculine-personal plural nouns, nominative plural and accusative plural look the same
• that is why morele looks unchanged

With awokado, the form also stays the same here.

So:

• kupić morele i awokado = to buy apricots and avocado

Here to means it/that and refers back to the whole action mentioned earlier.

So:

• ja miałam to zrobić = I was supposed to do it

And it here means something like:

• buy the apricots and avocado

Polish often uses to this way to refer to an action or situation already mentioned.

Because the preposition po takes the locative case when it means after.

The noun:

• praca = work

changes to:

• pracy = locative singular

So:

• po pracy = after work

This is a very common phrase in Polish.

Yes. Polish word order is more flexible than English word order, because grammatical endings carry a lot of information.

The given sentence is natural and clear:

• Czy miałeś kupić morele i awokado, czy ja miałam to zrobić po pracy?

But some parts could move for emphasis. For example, ja is placed where it strongly contrasts with miałeś.

So the current word order highlights the choice:

• Was it you, or was it me after work?

In Polish, changing the word order often changes the focus or emphasis, not the core meaning.

Not necessarily. The sentence is mainly about who was supposed to do it, not whether it was done.

That is the important nuance of:

• miałeś kupić
• miałam to zrobić

These forms refer to an arrangement, expectation, or plan in the past.

So the speaker is asking:

• Whose responsibility was it?

The sentence does not by itself confirm that anyone actually bought anything.