An Italian lesson

I am opening this new topic to discuss the syntax of our language and perhaps, in a very small world, it might prove useful to some foreign forum members who chew on [study] Italian.

And since I find it very pleasant to read posts in the forum that are easily understandable because they are grammatically and orthographically well-curated, etc. … I am even putting this in the spotlight

I am certain that some long-time friends will be happy to keep the topic populated, good Italian to everyone

At this point, I would like to add a consideration regarding a way of doing things that has (so to speak) become part of the custom in the Italian language, both spoken and written,

it concerns the term "niente" [nothing] placed after typical phrases like "io non ho visto niente" [I haven't seen anything], and the term "nessuno" [nobody], "tu non sei nessuno" [you are nobody] (a typical response from someone who feels

they are at a certain level, especially understood as power, decision-making power, acquired power, etc..

In both cases (for me) it is wrong to phrase a sentence this way, because for example the adverb of manner "non" [not] already by itself gives the sentence the meaning intended, so it would be correct to say and write "ho visto niente" [I saw nothing], and "per me tu sei nessuno" [to me you are nobody], or "per me tu non sei qualcuno" [to me you are not someone] (in a certain field), in short, the way of speaking has now adopted this "modality," which I consider wrong.

To say "non sei nessuno" [you are not nobody] is like saying you are someone; the term "nessuno" automatically removes the meaning from the "non".

Double negation, in Italian, does not always affirm.

Let us always remember that, as in music, there is no strict logic underlying the rules of usage in language either. It is not logic that decides how I am structuring these sentences; it is usage. And usage layers itself over centuries, creating complexities that are sometimes illogical, although meaningful.

Unless one is faced with errors like the one indicated by Carlos, or purely grammatical errors, the evaluation of a sentence's correctness should occur according to criteria of usage. Questions such as "would the Italian-speaking population understand this sentence?", or "is there a traceable tradition in Italian literature?". In Italian, one does not say "la mia madre" or "il mio padre". Why? Because of usage. I could elaborate on the descriptive role of the definite article, which clashes with the possessive value of the adjective. But then why is "la mia madre" no and "la mia mamma" yes? Because of usage. Period.

Another one of Carlos's staples

Accelerare, Accellerare. Why?

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1694-accelerare-accellerare-perche

you are right Thallo: in language as in music, there is no strict logic. it is usage, sometimes wrong originally, that establishes certain ways.

i would like to point out these two funny examples (at least for me) regarding the use of words.

Smog (a contraction of Smoke and fog) today is used only to indicate poisonous fumes (which, being warm, now here in Milan prevent the formation of a healthy fog )

And then the "daughters" of Tangentopoli (these other cases are even funnier because they were born from the work of language professionals)

Tangentopoli is fine having a negative connotation: 'the city of bribes', and bribes are a bad thing.

But what do you say about calciopoli and vallettopoli (with negative connotations) that we have heard in years past!?... football and showgirls - in themselves - are not a bad thing!

and there would be others to laugh at

language is like this . . . whoever wants to be indignant is indignant, whoever wants to laugh about it laughs about it . . . .

Goodness Carlos!

Thanks to Kappa's link, I went to read your post on 'accellerare' and 'accelerare'. Compliments!

At this point I would like (I say this with a little healthy "malice") to see your face . . . when you read all the messages that contain k instead of c and ch

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Gosh Carlos!

Thanks to Kappa's link, I went to read your post on 'accellerare' and 'accelerare'. Compliments!

At this point I would like (I'm telling you this with a bit of healthy "meanness") to see your face . . . when you read all the messages that contain k instead of c and ch

Hehehe, I'll tell you that I try not to use them, but that is more part of short messaging language and, even if it bothers me, I tolerate it (whereas I don't tolerate it when I read a message on a forum, because there, since there is no character limit, it is totally unjustified). I never use "nn" for non, "ke" for che, or "tt" for tutto/tutti etc. etc., but I make exceptions for "cmq" for comunque and "qlc" for qualcosa, especially if they are "service" messages as I call them. I prefer to abbreviate words by cutting them off, like "domatt" for domattina or things like that (I know, it's still horrible, but "xké" gives me hives and "domatt" doesn't). It is nonetheless an orthographic matter and not a grammatical one, so it is different from centra/c'entra.

However, since you have playfully provoked me, I would like to point out once more how we are slaves to US usage (excuse the pun, by the way, intended): if an American writes "how R U?" they are obviously abbreviating "how are you", but it's not the same thing as if an Italian writes "cm stai?", because an American pronounces "R U" in the exact same way they would pronounce "are you". The case of "U2", which we used to call "U Due" but which actually stood for "you too", meaning "anche tu", is very famous. The pronunciation is the same, and therefore the American abbreviation system is different compared to our sloppy imitation "anke tu" (you know what an abbreviation that is!).

I read everything, Carlos.

We are on the same page. And then... it's true: 'k' is part of a certain kind of messaging (I thought about it after I had written my message).

i am a bit of a fanatic about correct writing, mostly out of love for 'mamma' (Language!).

I never use abbreviations, except for those regulated by centuries of typography (e.g.: p. for page, cfr for compare...)

Writing things out in full, even in an SMS, in times when everyone is increasingly in a hurry, seems to me a way of saying to the other person "I am dedicating time to you". And it is never time wasted.

It was not my intention to state something "definitive," but since when speaking and writing, the clearer one is, the better, I thought that in certain cases logic—understood as

the meaning one intends to give to a statement (since it is 101% negation, could someone say the opposite?), is more than essential.

I repeat, reasoning about the intended meaning, knowing it because it is common usage (but beware, not because of this it is correct, and even if an illustrious professor of the Italian language said it, I wouldn't take it for granted, because if it is common usage, to me it remains wrong), to a phrase like "there is no one?", what is it if not "there is someone?". So, using logic and reasoning, wouldn't it be more correct (to be understandable, not because I want people to tell me "it's like that, at least you're happy") to say "is there someone?". No one who? Nothingness? Can I look for someone who doesn't exist? It doesn't seem so, at least in reality; that is why I made this example. Then, I know there are cases like "il bicchiere" and not "lo bicchiere", or "la mia mamma" and not "la mia madre", but these are precisely consolidated "forms" of aesthetics, especially regarding pronunciation. So why not proceed with a, let's call it even a "correction," or would it be better to say a modification of the form for better understanding (which right now would sound strange because "the other one" has since become consolidated)? I know the answer: no.

However, I wanted to say this, which is a consideration I have been making for some time, precisely starting from the premise that when speaking and writing one must be understandable, so let's try to be 100% understandable and not take a certain way of doing things for granted.

Regarding phone messages, the only truly rational motivation that could be given for the use of abbreviations (in some cases absurd ones, because even if you understand what they are writing to you, you almost struggle more to read a short message) is saving money; on some cell phones, every SMS triggers at 160 characters, including spaces,

so for this reason perhaps one can abbreviate a word, but I agree with the fact that if this is always the practice, for some people it could become the norm even when writing

by hand or with software like Word etc..

Petty, I wouldn't want to be mean... but your messages overflow with spelling errors, lexical and syntactic inaccuracies. You aren't exactly setting an example, that's all.

Piccinesco wrote:

It was not my intention to make a "definitive" statement, but since the clearer one is when speaking and writing, the better, I thought that in certain cases logic, understood as

the meaning one wants to give to an assertion (since it is at 101% negation, could someone say the opposite?), is more than essential.

I repeat, reasoning, the meaning one wants to give, knowing it, because of common usage (but attention, not because of this it is correct, and even if an illustrious professor of the Italian language said it, I wouldn't take it for granted, because if it is common usage, for me it continues to be wrong), to a sentence like "non c'è nessuno?" [is there no one?], what is it if not "c'è qualcuno?" [is there someone?], then using logic, reasoning, wouldn't it be more correct (to be understandable, not because I want people to tell me "it's like that, at least you're happy") to say "c'è qualcuno?" [is there someone?], no one who is, nothingness? Can I look for someone who doesn't exist? It doesn't seem so to me, at least in reality; that is why I made this example. Then, I know there are cases like "il bicchiere" and not "lo bicchiere", like "la mia mamma" and not "la mia madre", but precisely these are consolidated "forms" of aesthetics, especially regarding pronunciation; so why not proceed with one, let's even call it a "correction", or would it be better to say a modification of the form for better understanding (which right now would sound strange because "the other one" has since become consolidated)? I know the answer: no.

But I wanted to say this, which is a consideration I have been making for some time, precisely starting from the premise that when speaking and writing one must be understandable, so let's try to be 100% understandable and not take a certain way of doing things for granted.

The interrogative form you propose above "non c'è nessuno?" is actually not used, whereas "c'è nessuno?" is used; therefore, the term "nessuno" [no one], consistently with the affirmative form, is interchangeable with "qualcuno/persona" [someone/person]. In this regard, I would like to remind you of the many similarities between our language and French: in French "non è venuto nessuno" is said "il n'est venu personne". "Personne", in French, means both "no one" and "someone" and, I repeat, even in Italian the two terms are interchangeable; just think of the sentence "c'è nessuno qui che sappia la strada?" [is there no one here who knows the way?], identical to "c'è qualcuno qui che sappia..." [is there someone here who knows...].

Let us also say that, if that weren't enough, according to the Accademia della Crusca, the true and only guardian of our beloved Italian language, in certain cases usage makes the rule. For extreme (and also somewhat old-fashioned) correctness, one should say "qui non c'è alcuno" (or "qui c'è nessuno", naturally), but the form "qui non c'è nessuno" has entered common usage and has been sanctioned even in literature, so it is established.

But your message "inspires" me with a further consideration regarding the use of spacing, line breaks, etc., when typing.

Line breaking is an art and it makes no sense to go to a new line

as I am doing right now, for example. One goes to a new line at the end of a paragraph (and perhaps leaves a space), or one goes to a new line to isolate a sentence, but one does not go to a new line in the middle of a sentence, unless one has to write, for example, that on the poster for the La Scala opera season it was written, in capital letters

WAGNER - DER RING DES NIBELUNGEN - BARENBOIM

to say.

Another thing that often causes difficulty for reading programs and automatic text formatting is spacing.

The rule is very simple: one must leave a space only between one word and another and only after punctuation marks. Stop! But one must.

Whereas one must NEVER (this too, for example, is a repetition that has entered common usage: it would be sufficient to say "mai si deve" [never should one]), I was saying, one must never leave a space:

- between the (parenthesis) and the word it contains, as is often seen, ( like this ) for example;

- between the "quotation marks" and the word they contain, as is very often seen, " like this ";

- between the apostrophe and the word that follows it, like l' apostrophe;

- between a word and a punctuation mark (this is seen constantly!), so , for example ;

These spaces, precisely because they are incorrect, are recognized by programs (including Word) as different words, therefore as possible "line breaks," and it is not at all rare to see commas or parentheses, isolated, at the beginning of a new line of text, sent to a new line because they were erroneously spaced.

I have read everything, and look, regarding the spacing I agree, you are right Carlos; it often happens that as soon as I finish writing a text for a message here on the forum, once sent it is "presented" irregularly, so I must proceed with one or more corrections to remedy the inconvenience.

Besides this, when I write a sentence I often start a new line for space reasons; I mean that it is my intention to write a text that

to the eye (see, I am doing it right now) is as little "dilated" as possible, otherwise (it is something I think, but it's not certain that it corresponds to the truth, this is logical; on the contrary, it would be illogical for me to think that others get tired of reading for this reason) the reader might abandon the reading immediately.

(Here I should have written: ...I mean that it is my intention to write a text that to the eye is as little "dilated" as possible...)

While writing, I realize I am breaking up sentences.

The punctuation I use is then aimed at making what I want to say understood as if I were saying it in person, with even closely spaced pauses; I don't do it to have an anarchic attitude nor because I enjoy it, it comes naturally to me (but I am not saying that I am right, quite the contrary).

Thallo, be mean, I'm used to it, for better or for worse.

I forgot one thing, I normally tend to separate a word from parentheses to have a better sense of readability, I'm not joking.

Separating the parentheses and not keeping them attached to the adjacent word makes me perceive it in a clean, clear, and understandable way; instead, being attached makes me feel a sense of closure.

I know it's just my perception, but at least that's how the reasons are "revealed."

Piccinesco wrote:

I have read everything, regarding the spacing I agree, you are right Carlos, it often happens that as soon as I finish writing a text for a message here on the forum, once sent it is "presented" irregularly, so I must proceed with one or more corrections to overcome the inconvenience.

Besides this, when I write a sentence I often start a new line for space reasons; I mean that it is my intention to write a text that

to the eye (see, I am doing it right now) is as little "dilated" as possible, otherwise (it is something I think, but it is not certain that it corresponds to the truth, this is logical; on the contrary, it would be illogical for me to think that others get tired of reading for this reason) whoever reads might abandon the reading immediately.

(Here I should have written: ...I mean that it is my intention to write a text that to the eye is as little "dilated" as possible...)

While writing, I realize I am breaking up sentences.

The punctuation I use is aimed at making what I want to say understood as if I were saying it in person, with pauses even close together; I don't do it to have an anarchic attitude nor because I enjoy it, it comes naturally to me (but I am not saying that I am right, quite the contrary).

And thank goodness you agree! You would have caught one!!!

Piccinesco wrote:

is "presented" irregularly

Here there is a missing space between viene and "presentato" and between "presentato" and in;

Piccinesco wrote:

the inconvenience

Here there is a space after the apostrophe;

Piccinesco wrote:

( see, I am doing it right now )

Here you have spaced the parentheses incorrectly (I read the explanation, but it doesn't matter: it is WRONG and if all the publishing houses in the world have decided that parentheses are not spaced, they are right and whoever spaces them is wrong );

and I stop, for mercy's sake...

You can justify it however you believe, but your messages are poorly written. Follow the rules and you will see that they will be understandable and perfectly readable: after all, there are billions of writers read all over the world who follow those three little rules, I wouldn't say they have readability problems... (if for you being readable means sticking words together head-to-head, like here:

Piccinesco wrote:

it comes naturally to me(but I am not saying

then go ahead...)

Sorry, Luca, I missed this one.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

But what do you say about calciopoli and vallettopoli (in a negative sense) that we have heard about in past years!?... football and showgirls - in themselves - are not a bad thing!

But perhaps it escaped you that the two terms to which you refer concern, regarding "calciopoli", for example, the illicit acts of various clubs (see for instance Gaucci, Fiorentina and so on) and, regarding "vallettopoli", the practice of asking for sex from young women aspiring to a position on television, as well as the widespread use by certain political figures of questionable moral stature of recommending starlets to network directors, starlets who naturally had made themselves widely well-liked by the aforementioned figures...

Petty, I know that coming from me it makes a bit of little sense, given my notorious stubbornness, but if you would just limit yourself to saying that Carlos is right and that you are preaching one thing but doing another, you would make a splendid impression. The last time I said you were wrong, and calmly tried to explain to you that you were wrong, I received in response a very stinging private message from you. The idea of you that I formed then is confirmed today by this discussion.

The difference, which I think is quite significant, lies precisely in this detail:

personally, I have started to take to heart (as they say) what was told (written) to me today, exactly as I did a few years ago for a similar situation.

It is something positive that improves me (even though I am almost always pissed off, or are we scandalized by the fact that I use this term?).

I consider myself a person who does not live uprightly, but at the same time is searching for improvement, who does not put their virtues on display first and foremost (as absurd as it may seem), but on the contrary their defects (usually it's the opposite, isn't it? otherwise you know, people would avoid us; well, avoidance is daily bread for many people), and finally, a person devoid of serenity.

You have your whole life to find the difference; in this case, I didn't have to study (I am speaking without irony).

Bye

Simone, when and if you want, the previous message can also be deleted; I didn't have time to modify it.

Thank you.