Na stole brakowało jednego noża, więc poprosiliśmy o dodatkowe sztućce i zostawiliśmy mały napiwek.

Because na can take different cases depending on meaning.

• na stole uses the locative and means on the table as a location
• na stół uses the accusative and means onto the table as movement toward it

Here the sentence is describing where something was missing, not movement, so na stole is correct.

This comes from the verb brakować, which is often used in an impersonal pattern meaning to be lacking / to be missing.

So brakowało jednego noża is a very natural Polish way to say that one knife was missing. In this pattern, Polish usually uses brakowało in the past rather than making nóż the grammatical subject the way English does.

A rough literal sense is closer to:

• There was a lack of one knife

rather than:

• One knife was missing

Because brakować normally takes the genitive case:

• brakować czegoś = to lack / to be missing something

So jeden nóż changes to jednego noża.

Also notice that both words change:

• jeden → jednego
• nóż → noża

That is because they both have to match the genitive singular masculine form.

That is just part of the noun’s declension.

• nominative: nóż
• genitive: noża

The vowel changes from ó to o, which is a common alternation in Polish word forms. So this is something you mainly need to learn as part of the noun’s pattern.

For a normal, neutral sentence like this, no. The natural Polish phrasing is:

• brakowało jednego noża

You could also say:

• Nie było jednego noża = There wasn’t one knife

But brakował jeden nóż would sound unnatural or nonstandard to most learners aiming for standard Polish.

The verb phrase is:

• prosić / poprosić o + accusative = to ask for

So:

• poprosiliśmy o dodatkowe sztućce = we asked for extra cutlery

After o, you need the accusative case here.

If you wanted to be more specific, you could say:

• poprosiliśmy o dodatkowy nóż = we asked for an extra knife

Here sztućce is plural. It means cutlery / silverware / utensils.

There is also a singular noun:

• sztuciec = one piece of cutlery

But in everyday speech, people often use sztućce collectively when talking about table utensils in general.

So in this sentence, dodatkowe sztućce sounds like extra cutlery, not necessarily a precise count of individual items.

They are both 1st person plural past tense forms, meaning we asked and we left.

The ending -liśmy tells you the subject is we in the past:

• poprosiliśmy = we asked
• zostawiliśmy = we left

This is a very common Polish past-tense pattern.

Because the sentence describes completed actions in a sequence:

1. one knife was missing
2. we asked for extra cutlery
3. we left a small tip

Perfective verbs are the natural choice for single completed events in narration.

Compare:

• poprosiliśmy = we asked once, successfully/completely
• zostawiliśmy = we left once

If you used imperfective forms like prosiliśmy or zostawialiśmy, it could sound more like repeated, habitual, or ongoing action.

Because zostawić takes a direct object, and here that object is in the accusative case:

• zostawić co? = to leave what?
• mały napiwek

Since napiwek is a masculine inanimate noun, its accusative singular looks the same as its nominative singular. So:

• nominative: mały napiwek
• accusative: mały napiwek

Even though the form looks the same, the function in the sentence is accusative.

Więc means so / therefore. It introduces the result of the first clause:

• one knife was missing, so we asked for extra cutlery and left a small tip

The comma is normal because więc is connecting clauses in a sentence like this.

No, Polish word order is fairly flexible, but the version here is very natural.

The sentence is organized like this:

• Na stole — sets the scene
• brakowało jednego noża — states the problem
• więc... — gives the consequence

You can move elements around for emphasis, but some versions sound less natural than others. The original order is a good, idiomatic one for storytelling.