An Italian lesson

Carlos wrote:

Sorry, Luca, I missed this one.

But perhaps you missed that (...)

No Carlos. Nothing of what you point out and that I did not quote in full has escaped me.

I simply wanted to point out - I thought it was clear - that Tangentopoli, a rightfully negative word since a bribe (tangente) is a bad thing, "generated" (!) those other two words in the journalistic field which, strictly speaking, should not have a bad meaning since football and TV assistants are not deplorable things like bribes. And do we want to then give the role of a negative element to the suffix -poli? (which in itself only means 'city').

Come now: the intrinsic illogicality of the coinage of 'calciopoli' and 'allettopoli' is quite clear!

The same ridiculous dynamic occurred after the Watergate Scandal, which was defined as such because the wiretaps that started the scandal were carried out in the Watergate Hotel (literally: 'water gate').

But what about Iran-gate and Sex-gate!? :o . . . Gate certainly doesn't mean 'scandal'

Besides, I tell you that all this illogicality of languages pleases and amuses me.

It seems to me the revenge of nonsense in a world where what does not have the ISO-9001 label seems to have no value.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Then I tell you that all this illogicality of languages pleases and amuses me.

It seems to me the revenge of nonsense in a world where what does not have the ISO-9001 label seems to have no value.

Ah, if it's okay with you! You were the one who raised the issue with me; “calciopoli” has always seemed crystal clear, and it is known that in a language neologisms are “correct” regardless of whether they are immediately understood. I believe that no one (before you) had ever worried about the exegesis of the term “calciopoli,” nor that of “sexgate.” They are clear in themselves, so even if they are illogical, it doesn't matter...

I believe Luca's post was simply born to detect how much the meaning of a word can change compared to its original meaning.

I also find it interesting....

Apropos of words, I remember Erri de Luca, speaking about immigration, emphasizing how the word "wave" is often used instead of "flow". A wave must be contained or even worse repelled with barriers, whereas a flow implies a path of passage, less "invasive".

Mmh, "sinora" or "sin ora". They seem equivalent to me, but perhaps "sin ora" is more archaic. What do you think?

So far with univarbation is used in modern usage. Sin ora in archaic usage. Certainly not sin'ora!

in a sentence:

l’esperienza beethoveniana

o

l’esperienza Beethoveniana

?

Thanks in advance

Beethoveniana is an adjective and therefore should be lowercase if in the middle of a sentence.

Umberto Eco - 40 rules for speaking Italian well

http://www.italianalingua.it/index.php?page=umberto-eco-40-regole-per-parlare-bene-l-italiano

Genius!

Italian words that we no longer use and that we should start using again

https://www.helloworld.it/benessere/parole-italiano-desuete

http://robertocotroneo.me/2014/03/28/il-trapassato-remoto-che-non-usa-piu-nessuno/

Beautiful disquisition on the use and evolution of our language. I don't know why, but I believe that Italians do not deserve thoughts of this kind, which only a very few can deeply understand. Italians deserve their "petaloso"... But go f...

Difference between "Ah Ah" and "Ha Ha"

In the first, we are in the field of laughter/exclamations; in the second case, we are using a verbal conjugation.

A word to the wise is enough

Very much appreciated list of things to.....not do...since I also don't handle things very well.

Not to defend Piccinesco but for the sake of truth, even I, if I write on poorly visible supports, tend to wander more than necessary; this does not take anything away from what you have said.

Thank you for the reprimands, I took them in good spirit.

Piccinesco wrote:

At this point, I would like to add a consideration regarding a way of doing things that has now (let's say) 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/no one], "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 in itself gives the sentence the meaning one wishes to convey, 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" is like saying you are someone; the term "nessuno" automatically removes the meaning from the "non".

I'll take a stand...

I used to believe the double negation was illogical too (and I also believed the half-lie that it doesn't exist in English). Then I discovered that it exists in Polish, and I thought it was too strange a coincidence.

In Polish, it is actually used more systematically than in Italian, where if I am not mistaken we only use it when the sentence begins with "non". In Polish they say, for example, both "NOBODY IS perfect" (NIKT NIE jest doskonały) and "IS NOT perfect NOBODY" (although the habitual form is the first one).

At that point I began to wonder about the practical reason that pushed two languages to arrive at this solution (or maintain it after inheriting it from a common ancestor), and it only took reflecting in reverse for a few minutes (that is, starting from the moment when the supposed need to have a double negation arose).

Why in Italian only when it starts with "non"? Simple, to minimize misunderstandings. Language is first and foremost a practical tool; if someone were to say: "Ho nessuna mela" [I have no apple]; the listener might misunderstand because they hear that at the beginning of the sentence it is affirmative, but that person has no apples.

If instead they say "non ho mele" [I don't have apples], from the very opening of the sentence it is understood to be a negation.

Centuries of questions:

Stefanus wrote:

Italians are quite fond of their "petaloso"... But go f...

This whole story about "petaloso" is an example of journalistic misinformation, and even I believed it. It was passed off as a neologism invented by a child and even approved by the Crusca.

In reality, this is how things stand: a child composed the term. He didn't invent anything; he logically applied the existing adjectival suffix "-oso" to the noun "petalo" (petal); result: "petaloso". He could have written adiposo, silenzioso, rabbioso, or less logical things like barboso, or even horrible but very Italian things like "postare, quotare".

The teacher asked the Crusca if the term is correct, and they politely replied: it is formed logically but is not a term in use, so it is better not to use it; however, if it were to spread among speakers, then it would be a usable term like any other. Nothing could be clearer than how I wrote it, but the response was a little less direct, longer, and nonetheless showed sympathy for the logical sense demonstrated by a child, which I also feel.

Good heavens, journalists spreading the news as if it were something extraordinary... people dividing themselves between those who elevate the child to the rank of Dante Alighieri and those who use him as an example of ignorance... things that are unbelievable.

Curiously, this all connects with what I wrote about negation: since the Crusca's response was apparently positive at the beginning (understandably, because that child demonstrated he knows how to use Italian suffixes better than many adults), then the response was passed off as approval from the renowned Academy, overlooking the detail that they gave a very clear constraint: the word must be used by speakers in order to officially enter the language's vocabulary.

The official response: http://www.accademiadellacrusca.it/it/laccademia/notizie-dallaccademia/parola-petaloso-possibilit-entrare-vocabolari

Some excerpts (or citations or "quotes"): «A new word does not enter the vocabulary when someone invents it, even if it is a “beautiful” and useful word (...) it is necessary that the new word is not known and used only by the person who invented it, but that many people use it and many people understand it (...)"