# non parlo l'italiano vs. non parlo italiano



## sempre imparando

In my reading of phrases in italian, I have been unable to determine why the the definite article is used sometimes but not others, as in the example above.

Any insight?


----------



## DDT

Quite hard to explain, I'm afraid I'm not able to   
This case I'd suggest not to use the article, it's more a matter of style than a real rule to me.
But consider this: you normally won't hear an Italianman say "Parlo l'inglese", but simply "Parlo inglese"

Hope it helps,

DDT


----------



## Monkling

DDT said:
			
		

> it's more a matter of style than a real rule to me


Aha! So even with Italian grammar, you can go by sound. Okay, I know not as a general rule and I also know that, to me, I certainly can't go by how something sounds but it's nice to know that. 

My grandmother always said Italian was the most beautiful sounding language (which has nothing to do with grammar). Or course if she had taught her sons how to speak it, I might have known this first hand & wouldn't be struggling to learn it now.


----------



## mabelina

I think of it as "I speak the English" (parlo l'inglese) vs. "I speak English" (parlo inglese), and so would simply say "parlo inglese."


----------



## shaula

DDT said:
			
		

> But consider this: you normally won't hear an Italianman say "Parlo l'inglese", but simply "Parlo inglese"


I cant' think of a rule either.
I would definitely say "Parlo inglese", but I also could say "Parlo l'inglese abbastanza bene e capisco poco il tedesco", probably with a stress on the single language 

Ciao
Lucia


----------



## Alfry

sempre imparando said:
			
		

> In my reading of phrases in italian, I have been unable to determine why the the definite article is used sometimes but not others, as in the example above.
> 
> Any insight?


 
you could say both, imho.
it depends on the context.
if you ask me: "Quale è la tua lingua madre?" "what's your mother tongue"
I answer      : "io parlo italiano" or simply "l'italiano" or Italiano"

in general if you whanto to specify further information you should use an article, that is

"l'italiano che parlano in Svizzera e leggermente differente da quello che si parla in italia" "Swiss Italian is slightly different from the Italian that people speak in Italy"

the rule is the same for all languages:
I can say 
"è più facile capire l'inglese parlato dagli americani dell'inglese parlato dai britannici." (it's only an example, do not get offended)  "it's easier to comprehend American English than British English" 

in this case I use the article because I am making a distinction, I'm providing further information.

Hope this is clear enough


----------



## Silvia

But capisco l'inglese!   (not much, but I try )

I'm afraid there is no rule for that, as DDT said. Some deeper search would be required... Leo? You've been so helpful lately


----------



## miri

The key to the problem seems to be related to the verbs we use. This is what I found out:

"the" is usually put before names of languages, even though it is *frequently* omitted before the following verbs: *parlare*, i*nsegnare*, *studiare* and after 
*in*. Therefore: parlo italiano, insegno francese, studio inglese; scriviamo *in *tedesco. 
All the other verbs do require the definite article, as in Silvia's example: capisco l'inglese. Other examples: sto imparando il russo, conosco il francese, mi piace il tedesco, and so forth, even though no further modifiers follow.

That was a tough challenge, sempre imparando! Congratulations!


----------



## Leopold

Miri ti ha già risposto, Silvia. 
Penso che quella sia la regola che seguite generalmente. 

Leo


----------



## sempre imparando

Once again, thank you all for helping me get a better understanding of la lingua italiana. And, yes, I did use the definite article on purpose.


----------



## Artrella

Allora, se voglio dire "sono imparando l'italiano" o "sono imparando italiano".
So far I've understood that it is "imparando italiano" solamente.  E questo così?  Grazie!


----------



## Leopold

No, si direbbe: "sto imparando l'italiano", ma anche potresti dire "sto imparando italiano".
Comunque: to be doing something -> STARE facENDO qualcosa (non essere).

Forse "l'taliano" è un po' come "la lingua italiana", mentre che "italiano" sarebbe come dire "cose della lingua italiana". 

Leo


----------



## Alfry

Leopold said:
			
		

> No, si direbbe: "sto imparando l'italiano", ma anche potresti dire "sto imparando italiano".
> Comunque: to be doing something -> STARE facENDO qualcosa (non essere).
> 
> Forse "l'taliano" è un po' come "la lingua italiana", mentre che "italiano" sarebbe come dire "cose della lingua italiana".
> 
> Leo


 
"sto imparando italiano"... sounds weird to me...
definitely better "sto imparando l'italiano" 
la lingua is understood in this case.


----------



## Leopold

alfry said:
			
		

> "sto imparando italiano"... sounds weird to me...
> definitely better "sto imparando l'italiano"
> la lingua is understood in this case.



Ma tipo... se io ti chiedo: 

- Cosa stai facendo adesso?
- Tu risponderesti solo: "Sto imparando l'italiano"??

Grazie,
Leo


----------



## Alfry

Leopold said:
			
		

> Ma tipo... se io ti chiedo:
> 
> - Cosa stai facendo adesso?
> - Tu risponderesti solo: "Sto imparando l'italiano"??
> 
> Grazie,
> Leo


esattamente

"sto imparando italiano" sembrerebbe 
"sto imparando, italiano" come se stessi appellandolo il mio interlocutore come "italiano"


----------



## Mike Gardener

sempre imparando said:
			
		

> In my reading of phrases in italian, I have been unable to determine why the the definite article is used sometimes but not others, as in the example above.
> 
> Any insight?



Ciao, sempre imparando.

Puo' darsi che io possa aiutarti, pero' mi rimetto alla scienza degli italiani qui.
It may be that I can help you, however I defer to the knowledge of the Italians here.

The names of languages usually take the definite article, except when preceded by the verb _parlare:_ 
Ho incominciato a studiare l'italiano.  Parlo inglese. (I began to study Italian. I speak English.)

The article is omitted after the preposition _in_:
 Leggo una storia di Alberto Moravia in italiano.  (I am reading a story by Alberto Moravia in Italian.)

Ho imparato anche che con _parlare_ l'articolo e' omesso quando il senso e' _parlare *nel* linguaggio_ ed l'articolo e' presente se si vuol dire _poter(e) parlare.
_Tutta la famiglia parla il russo anche se di solito parliamo inglese.*
 I learned also that, with _parlare_, the article is omitted when the sense is _to speak *in* the language_ and the article is present if one means _to be able to speak.
_All my family can speak Russian even though we usually speak (in) English.

Mike


----------



## Silvia

alfry said:
			
		

> "sto imparando italiano"... sounds weird to me...


 But this is not weird: sto imparando russo e giapponese 
sto imparando inglese e francese...


----------



## TiffanyC

Silvia said:
			
		

> But this is not weird: sto imparando russo e giapponese
> sto imparando inglese e francese...


 
Quindi... se dici due lingue non richiedono l'articolo dopo imparare, ma se dici solo una lingua lo rechieda?  (È "richiedere a"?)


----------



## Silvia

TiffanyC said:
			
		

> Quindi... se dici due lingue*,* l'articolo dopo imparare *non è richiesto*, ma se dici solo una lingua lo r*i*chied*e*?  (È "richiedere a"?)


 Il verbo richiedere è transitivo, come require. La tua frase è un po' contorta, ma ho cercato di correggerla.

Per il senso, credo proprio che sia così


----------



## SinVerguenza

Leopold said:
			
		

> Miri ti ha già risposto, Silvia.
> Penso che quella sia la regola che seguite generalmente.
> 
> Leo


Not that this is the most profound question for my first post, but does this mean, "(___) you have guide(d) response, Silvia. I think that she _(is/has) the rule that is generally followed." I realize I am in very deep water, but I joined this forum for the Spanish component and was intrigued by the Italian thread... I've always wanted to learn Italian...


----------



## alahay

My guess is that both of them are correct and the definite article is used to make a reference or stress the uniqueness of the Italian language. e.g. *Parla italiano?* (Do you speak (any) italian? with "any" being very faint) to which the answer would be, *Si parlo (l')italiano* (Yes, I do speak italian (this italian that you just mentioned) )


----------



## DAH

sempre imparando said:
			
		

> In my reading of phrases in italian, I have been unable to determine why the the definite article is used sometimes but not others, as in the example above.
> 
> Any insight?


 
A couple of rules from _Italian Grammar_, 2nd Edition by J. Germano, Ph.D. and C. Schmitt and _Ciao!, _Fifth Edition, by C. Federici and C. Riga

The definite article is also required with: 
a) nouns used in a general or an abstract sense, whereas in English it is often omitted; and
b) names of languages, except when immediately preceded by the verb *parlare *or with the preposition *di *or *in.*

A few examples: 

Parliamo molto bene l'italiano.
Parlo italiano.
Le lettere sono in spagnolo.
Conosco il tedesco.
Ho un libro di francese.

Best regards!


----------



## Kaiserina

By the way, you can use both "non parlo italiano" or "non parlo l'italiano": they are both equally correct.

There is a different however, and the difference is thus: 

In the former you are saying "I don't speak Italian"; and in the latter, the implication is "I don't speak the Italian (language)", only "language" is implied through the use of the article.

Does that make sense to you?

This does not mean that in all cases where you say "italiano", it is saying the same as "l'italiano". It depends on the phrase and/or clause, and whether the adjective "italiano" is directly related or not to a noun.

cià cià cià
katy


----------



## moodywop

Kaiserina said:
			
		

> By the way, you can use both "non parlo italiano" or "non parlo l'italiano": they are both equally correct.
> 
> There is a different however, and the difference is thus:
> 
> In the former you are saying "I don't speak Italian"; and in the latter, the implication is "I don't speak the Italian (language)", only "language" is implied through the use of the article.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> This does not mean that in all cases where you say "italiano", it is saying the same as "l'italiano". It depends on the phrase and/or clause, and whether the adjective "italiano" is directly related or not to a noun.
> 
> cià cià cià
> katy


 
I don't agree. 

"Parlo italiano" e "parlo l'italiano" both mean "I can speak Italian". 

If, on the other hand, I'm not speaking about the ability to speak a language, but about a specific situation, I normally drop the article. For example, if my wife were English and someone asked me which language we speak at home, I would say "In genere parliamo italiano".

A similar case: if I couldn't make out whether the people at the next table were speaking Dutch or German I would say "Ma stanno parlando (in) olandese o (in) tedesco?

With "insegnare" you usually drop the article if you're talking about teaching as a profession: "Insegna inglese in una scuola/all'università". You use the article if you're teaching outside a school/academic context. "Sto insegnando l'inglese ai miei figli".

Carlo


----------



## Kaiserina

Of course, Carlo, I was only referring to this one specific example.

Perhaps if you would like to discuss the use of articles in general, you could start a different thread? I would be happy to contribute! Mi farebbe piacere, non ho spesso l'opportunità di discutere le minuterie della lingua italiana, ed essendo una studentessa mi è ben necessario! 

cià cià cià
K


----------



## utente

It's always difficult for me to know when to use the definite article.  In my Italian classes, we learned always to use the article with languages, with these two exceptions:

in ---    ho scritto in italiano

and

parlare--- parli italiano?

I thought that imparare required the definite article:

imparo l'italiano

Non è giusto?

--Steven


----------



## DiFossa

Here are some rules that I've come across in textbooks:

1.  An article is often used before each item in a list, but this is not mandatory.

2.  Nouns following a few verbs; e.g., studiare, parlare, etc., often are paired with the article, but again, this isn't entirely necessary.  Gli studenti parlano l'italiano abastanza bene.


3.  Articles must be coupled with titles that include a last name or when mentioning someone in the third person.  Il Signor Baroni verra` dopodomani.

4.  Seasons

5.  Dates

6.  Time

7.  Possessive adjectives, excluding families.

8.  Countries

9.  Natural bodies; i.e., rivers, lakes, mountains, oceans, etc.

10. Days of the week to indicate habitual actions.

11.  Articles can sometimes accompany foreign words introduced into Italian.   

I hope this is helpful.  I am not an expert on Italian grammar by any means, but I found these rules in two books that I have and thought I'd include them in the discussion.  Ciao!


----------



## C_Langford

Alfry said:
			
		

> that's been said in another thread!
> 
> to be ...ing is always translated as
> sto ....ndo.
> 
> sto studiando
> sto mangiando
> sto dormendo
> sto spiegando come usare la forma "to be ...ing"



This is not quite true. The opposite (i.e., that 'sto (stai...) ...ndo' is translated as 'am (are...) ...ing') pretty much is, though.
The progressive form is less common in Italian than in English.


----------



## giacinta

Avevo pensato che non si ussase l'articolo definitivo dopo "parlare" in questo caso.
E che lo si usasse dopo (per esempio) imparare (Sto imparando l'italiano). 

Oppure forse sia il caso che si puo' usarlo o no dopo "parlare (una lingua)" tranquillamente?

giacinta


----------



## MonsieurAquilone

Io ho detto "parlo italiano" ogni volti.

Correct me if my Italian is wrong.  I only am teaching myself at the moment.


----------



## Jana337

MonsieurAquilone said:
			
		

> Io ho detto "parlo italiano" ogni volta.


 I would say it like this: Io dico sempre "parlo italiano". Why the past tense?

Jana


----------



## giacinta

Thank you Jana for both posts.  I wavered about the use of the subjunctive and changed my mind several times.  In the end the word "forse" made it seem OK to use it.

as to the main point, thanks for the thread.  It confirms what I thought.  But I have just started revising Italian Grammar with a new (to me) Text Book, "Ultimate Advanced Italian" by "Living Language" and the first dialogue in the first chapter involves an American asking an Italian girl in the Alitalia office --"Parla l'italiano" and she replies "Si' parlo l'italiano e l'inglese".  Just wanted to check.  Thanks.


----------



## euthymos

MonsieurAquilone said:
			
		

> Io ho detto "parlo italiano" ogni volt*a*.



Now it's correct but quite strange. You better say: "Io ho sempre detto 'parlo italiano' "


----------



## lidia1201

giacinta said:
			
		

> Avevo pensato che non si ussase l'articolo definitivo dopo "parlare" in questo caso.
> E che lo si usasse dopo (per esempio) imparare (Sto imparando l'italiano).
> 
> Oppure forse sia il caso che si puo' usarlo o no dopo "parlare (una lingua)" tranquillamente?
> 
> giacinta



Si dice "parlo italiano" ma "parlo bene l'italiano". Quindi, se ci fosse un aggettivo tra "parlare" e "italiano" si usa l'articolo determinativo.
E' meglio dire "studiare una lingua" invece di "imparare".


----------



## moodywop

lidia1201 said:
			
		

> Si dice "parlo italiano" ma "parlo bene l'italiano". Quindi, se ci fosse un aggettivo tra "parlare" e "italiano" si usa l'articolo determinativo.


 
If I have some spare time later I will try and put together all the various tips/guidelines/"rules" in the previous thread on this topic.

The "rule" Lidia mentions can indeed be found in some grammars but it does not reflect current usage. Here are some quotes from reliable sources:

Per chi non parla bene italiano (tuttostranieri.it)

Parla bene italiano 
(La Stampa/forum di letteratura/capital.it/soldionline.it/regionetoscana.it/provinciaparma.it/repubblica/comunebologna.it/dibattito camera deputati ecc ecc)


----------



## utente

giacinta said:
			
		

> Thank you Jana for both posts. I wavered about the use of the subjunctive and changed my mind several times. In the end the word "forse" made it seem OK to use it.
> 
> as to the main point, thanks for the thread. It confirms what I thought. But I have just started revising Italian Grammar with a new (to me) Text Book, "Ultimate Advanced Italian" by "Living Language" and the first dialogue in the first chapter involves an American asking an Italian girl in the Alitalia office --"Parla l'italiano" and she replies "Si' parlo l'italiano e l'inglese". Just wanted to check. Thanks.


 
It doesn't sound good that "Ultimate Advanced Italian" should make such a basic (certainly not ultimate advanced) error in the first dialogue of the first chapter.  Have you checked the rest of the book?


----------



## moodywop

From _A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian:_

"After _parlare _the article *tends *to be omitted where the sense is closer to "speak _in _the language", whereas it is present if the sense is "be able to speak/"know the language":

_Tutta la mia famiglia parla il russo anche se di solito parliamo inglese _"

So Ultimate Italian follows the "rule". However notice how careful the authors are: *tends to*... My earlier examples from the press and a parliamentary debate show how this is not a fixed rule.


----------



## utente

moodywop said:
			
		

> From _A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian:_
> 
> "After _parlare _the article *tends *to be omitted where the sense is closer to "speak _in _the language", whereas it is present if the sense is "be able to speak/"know the language":
> 
> _Tutta la mia famiglia parla il russo anche se di solito parliamo inglese _"
> 
> So Ultimate Italian follows the "rule". However notice how careful the authors are: *tends to*... My earlier examples from the press and a parliamentary debate show how this is not a fixed rule.


 
Ciao moody-

Ancora, c'è una regola diversa che quello che sono imparato.  Sono sempre detto che non si usa l'articolo dopo "parlare".  Adesso, la devo controllare in _A Reference Grammar ._

_--Steven_


----------



## moodywop

utente said:
			
		

> Ciao moody-
> 
> Ancora, c'è una regola diversa che quello che sono imparato. Sono sempre detto che non si usa l'articolo dopo "parlare". Adesso, la devo controllare in _A Reference Grammar ._


 
Ciao Steven

Actually I was thinking that I don't agree completely with the rule in _A Reference Grammar._ In my personal use and in what I hear from others the article is *always* omitted when describing what language someone is speaking at a particular moment. (I would also often use "parlare *in *italiano" in this sense).
It's only when speaking about "knowing"/"being able to speak" a language that the article may be omitted (as proved by my quotes).
So the "tends to" should go with the "whereas" clause").

Carlo


----------



## Rob Mircen

DDT said:


> Quite hard to explain, I'm afraid I'm not able to
> This case I'd suggest not to use the article, it's more a matter of style than a real rule to me.
> But consider this: you normally won't hear an Italianman say "Parlo l'inglese", but simply "Parlo inglese"
> 
> Hope it helps,
> 
> DDT


You would use "parlo ltaliano" when indicating your knowledge of Italian. However you would use " l´Italiano" in the context of learning Italian, ie "sto imparando l´Italiano", I am learning Italian.


----------

