# I mean



## dylanG3893

Come si dice 'I mean...' come "si dice qualcosa che non `e corretto, 
e dice un'altra cosa farlo meglio.

How does one say 'I mean...' as "one says something that is not correct, 
and says another thing to make it better.

EX: Scusa, ma ti amo! | CHE!? | *'I mean...'* mi piaci come un amico (friend)| Oh, anch'io (anche io) |


----------



## moodywop

I would say _voglio (_or _volevo) dire che...._

PS It should be _guidarl*a*_ in your signature


----------



## Donatella

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> EX: Scusa, ma ti amo! | CHE!? | *'I mean...'* mi piaci come un amico (friend)| Oh, anch'io (anche io) |


 
Hello,
you can go with "intendo dire che..."

Ciao


----------



## dylanG3893

Posso dire 'Vorrei dire...'?
Anche, era mia primo messaggio corretto?
E grazie.


----------



## Donatella

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> Posso dire 'Vorrei dire...'?


 
Yep, the other person will surely understand the meaning - although the most used tense is the present instead of the conditional.

Ciao


----------



## Tatzingo

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> Posso dire 'Vorrei dire...'?
> Anche, era mia primo messaggio corretto?
> E grazie.



Dylang,

I don't think so as the tense is inappropriate.  You've already said something which you now want to correct or clarify... bith Moodywop and Donatella's suggestions are either in past tense or present: ie: Volevo dire/voglio/intendo dire.

I just don't think that a conditional would be the best choice here in light of what has already been said.

Tatz.


----------



## lsp

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> Posso dire 'Vorrei dire...'?


Why? Even in English the conditional would be weird. In your example "I mean" is in the present tense.


----------



## moodywop

One more thing - if your example were a conversation between two Italians then _ti voglio bene _would make more sense as it can indeed be ambiguous. _Ti voglio bene_ can be addressed to a friend, a relative or a lover, _ti amo _only to a lover.

On the other hand, the guy (or girl) saying _ti amo _could well be a foreigner who doesn't know the difference between _ti amo _and _ti voglio bene._


----------



## Tatzingo

lsp said:
			
		

> Why? Even in English the conditional would be weird. In your example "I mean" is in the present tense.



Hi,

I'm having second thoughts about this...

Can we not say in English... "Actually, what I'd like to say is....."

Anyway, i still think that the use of the present tense would be far more common!

Tatz.


----------



## Donatella

I was just wondering about the use of "vorrei dire" in different contexts.
Dylang, if I can give a tip: try and avoid using the conditional when you're expressing a personal opinion, it's a matter of how much you would sound self confident (I hope it's understandable).

"Vorrei dire" can be a polite way to catch the audience in a conversation.
Example: "Vorrei dire due parole in merito all'argomento" (= I'd like to say something about the subject).
Hope this is not confusing.


----------



## lsp

Tatzingo said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I'm having second thoughts about this...
> 
> Can we not say in English... "Actually, what I'd like to say is....."
> 
> Anyway, i still think that the use of the present tense would be far more common!
> 
> Tatz.


Yes, it can absolutely be said. This particular context, the way the question was posed, isn't optimal for it, I think.


----------



## dylanG3893

*EDIT:* I see that another user had posted another reply, and this message would not pertain to it. This message is in response to Donatella's message. Thanks.

Non, non `e.
Ma, grazie tutti!
Ma!, era il mio secondo messaggio corretto?
Vorrei sapere, per piacere.

Grazie.


----------



## Tatzingo

lsp said:
			
		

> Yes, it can absolutely be said. This particular context, the way the question was posed, isn't optimal for it, I think.



Hmm.. I'm inclined to agree.

Tatz.


----------



## dylanG3893

Ok,
Comprendo.
Grazie per il vostro consiglio!


----------



## Donatella

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> *EDIT:* I see that another user had posted another reply, and this message would not pertain to it. This message is in response to Donatella's message. Thanks.
> 
> Non No, non `e.
> Ma, grazie a tutti!
> Ma!, era il mio secondo messaggio era corretto?
> Vorrei sapere, per piacere.
> 
> Grazie.


 
Dylang,
I hope you'll accept the corrections I put (see above).
When you open a statement, you can use "in ogni caso" or "comunque" instead of "ma" as well.
What was the second message? I'm reading back the thread but can't find.


----------



## dylanG3893

Oh, Im sorry,
'non' was a stupid mistake that I knew was wrong.
And, I meant the first message I wrote, was it correct?
I know, I should of said 'il mio primo messaggio'. 
So, is it?


----------



## Donatella

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> Come si dice 'I mean...' come "si dice qualcosa che non `e corretto,
> e dice un'altra cosa farlo meglio.
> Come si dice "I mean" quando, dopo aver detto qualcosa che non è (del tutto) corretto, si vuole aggiungere una spiegazione per chiarire/correggere?
> 
> How does one say 'I mean...' as "one says something that is not correct,
> and says another thing to make it better.
> 
> EX: Scusa, ma ti amo! | CHE!? | *'I mean...'* mi piaci come un amico (friend) ti voglio bene come ad un amico (someone has already told about the difference between feelings)| Oh, anch'io (anche io) (it's fairly good. also: provo lo stesso anche io) |


 
Well, I hope the 1st or the 2nd message was one of these phrases.

Ciao


----------



## lsp

> Oh, I*'*m sorry,
> 'non' was a stupid mistake that I knew was wrong.
> And, I meant the first message I wrote, was it correct?
> I know, I should of *have *said 'il mio primo messaggio'.
> So, is it?


A couple of typos, dylang.


----------



## TimLA

I'm still mildly confused. We had THIS thread some time ago about "filler words", and the "I mean" could be a normal statement, or a "filler phrase".
Two examples:
The bus stops at the Piazza del Popolo, no, I mean the Piazza Venezia.
The bus stops at the Piazza del Popolo, wait, no, I mean, ah...I forgot.

The upper phrase is the "normal" use of "I mean", the lower is just a "filler" phrase.

L'autobus ferma alla Piazza del Popolo, no, sbaglio, *volvevo dire* la Piazza Venezia.
L'autobus ferma alla Piazza del Popolo, no, ecco, XXXX, ah...ho dimenticato.

What would you use for the XXXX that might be close to "I mean"?

Tim


----------



## Elisa68

TimLA said:
			
		

> I'm still mildly confused. We had THIS thread some time ago about "filler words", and the "I mean" could be a normal statement, or a "filler phrase".
> Two examples:
> The bus stops at the Piazza del Popolo, no, I mean the Piazza Venezia.
> The bus stops at the Piazza del Popolo, wait, no, I mean, ah...I forgot.
> 
> The upper phrase is the "normal" use of "I mean", the lower is just a "filler" phrase.
> 
> L'autobus ferma alla Piazza del Popolo, no, sbaglio, *volvevo dire* la Piazza Venezia.
> L'autobus ferma alla Piazza del Popolo, no, ecco, XXXX, ah...ho mi sono dimenticato.
> 
> What would you use for the XXXX that might be close to "I mean"?
> 
> Tim


_Cioè, be', niente, tipo_ (I hate it!) .

(Ti ho corretto prima che arrivi Necsus il Castigatore! )


----------



## TimLA

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> _Cioè, be', niente, tipo_ (I hate it!) .
> 
> (Ti ho corretto prima che arrivi Necsus il Castigatore! )


 
E grazie mille a tutte e due voi!!! 

You both have taught me more Italian than I could learn from 100 books.  

Thank you
Tim

PS "tipo" - come "kind of" un'altra "filler word" in inglese?


----------



## Elisa68

TimLA said:
			
		

> PS "tipo" - come "kind of" un'altra "filler word" in inglese?


Esatto, ma adesso è diventato un intercalare molto frequente proprio come _I mean_ or _you know._


----------



## dylanG3893

lsp said:
			
		

> A couple of typos, dylang.


 
Excuse me, but I'm a native to english, and while I did forget to put the
" ' " in the I'm, I know that should of is correct. Should have *is* a mistake, but is still acceptable in the english language. However, you may have ment this is  a mistake in spelling (or whatever I'd call it) not in acceptability in the english langauge.


----------



## lsp

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but I'm a native to english, and while I did forget to put the
> " ' " in the I'm, I know that should of is correct. Should have *is* a mistake, but is still acceptable in the english language. However, you may have me*a*nt this is  a mistake in spelling (or whatever I'd call it) not in acceptability in the *E*nglish langauge.


I'm sorry, dylang. "Should of" is _completely_ wrong and _unacceptable_ English. "Have" is an auxiliary in the verb form. "Of" is only a preposition. Here is someone else's explanation, even explaining why the mistake is so common. Another is found here. There are many others.


----------



## dylanG3893

lsp said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, dylang. "Should of" is _completely_ wrong and _unacceptable_ English. "Have" is an auxiliary in the verb form. "Of" is only a preposition. Here is someone else's explanation, even explaining why the mistake is so common. Another is found here. There are many others.


 
I  see, but you admit - if I were to say that in the English language it would be understood nationally (I have used it all my life) - Although it is, yes, wrong.


----------



## lsp

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> I  see, but you admit - if I were to say that in the English language it would be understood nationally (I have used it all my life) - Although it is, yes, wrong.


It is understood by virtue of the similarity of its pronunciation (as explained in the first link), but not as a matter of grammatical correctness or acceptability, and I would _strongly_ caution English language leaners that such a mistake should be vigorously avoided.


----------



## Moogey

I'm with lsp all the way. It is more important here than on other web forum to use proper grammar because there will be foreigners learning from our usage of the language, and we don't want that to be an incorrect usage 

Just to get back to the subject, I think what was causing a lot of confusion here is this:

- Voglio dire = I *mean* (to say)
- Volevo dire = I *meant* (to say)
- Vorrei dire = I'd like to say

Unless this has already been clarified and I missed it  Carry on!

-M


----------



## Camillo

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> _Cioè, be', niente, tipo_ (I hate it!) .
> 
> (Ti ho corretto prima che arrivi Necsus il Castigatore! )



About your correction...

You corrected: *"I forgot" *from *"Ho dimenticato" *to *"Mi sono dimenticato"*.

Just a little confused because I always thought the first one was correct.

And if I am wrong, when you use "Mi sono dimenticato", then the verb dimenticare has to agree in gender and number right?


----------



## moodywop

Camillo said:
			
		

> About your correction...
> 
> You corrected: *"I forgot" *from *"Ho dimenticato" *to *"Mi sono dimenticato"*.
> 
> Just a little confused because I always thought the first one was correct.


 
It was Elisa's correction but while waiting for her to weigh in when she wakes up I'll try and clear your doubts.

In most cases _dimenticare/dimenticarsi, ricordare/ricordarsi, scordare/scordarsi_ are interchangeable (if you do a search you'll find several previous threads on the subject). In an old post I listed a few cases where I think there is a difference.

I think I know why Elisa opted for _mi sono dimenticato. _It sounds more natural than _ho dimenticato _in that context if used *on its own*, without a following _di + infinitive _(of course it may be a matter of personal preference and other native speakers may disagree - I agree with Elisa).




> when you use "Mi sono dimenticato", then the verb dimenticare has to agree in gender and number right?


 
Yes, you are right


----------



## adrianok

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> _Cioè, be', niente, tipo_ (I hate it!) .
> 
> (Ti ho corretto prima che arrivi Necsus il Castigatore! )


Non doveva essere *"Ti ho corretto prima che arrivasse Necsus il Castigatore!*"?


----------



## moodywop

adrianok said:
			
		

> Non doveva essere *"Ti ho corretto prima che arrivasse Necsus il Castigatore!*"?


 
Ci ho dovuto pensare un po' Secondo me c'è una differenza(ma non sono sicuro e sono curioso di sentire anche gli altri):

Se il possibile "arrivo" di Necsus è riferito al futuro(come nella frase di Elisa), allora va bene "arrivi". Se invece è riferito al passato va bene "andasse". Ad esempio,se Necsus intervenisse in questo thread più tardi, Elisa potrebbe dire: "Ho corretto la frase prima che arrivasse Necsus".


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ugh Elisa!
You're confusing me..

I thought there was a conclusion in another thread where we talked about dimanticare and dimenticarsi ... and that "ho dimenticato" was correct just like "mi sono dimenticato".


----------



## Elisa68

Moodywop you read my mind! (Anche perché altrimenti dovrei ammettere di aver sbagliato due volte! )

_Mi sono dimenticato_ mi sembrava più naturale in questo contesto, e siccome so che Tim è interessato alle sfumature, mi sembrava giusto farglielo notare. 

Per quanto riguarda _arrivi_, sì sapevo che Necsus sarebbe arrivato di lì a poco (a proposito dove sei? ) quindi mi riferivo al futuro.

Alex, I am sorry, it was not my intention to confuse you.


----------



## Necsus

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> (Ti ho corretto prima che arrivi Necsus il Castigatore!  )





			
				adrianok said:
			
		

> Non doveva essere "Ti ho corretto prima che arrivasse Necsus il Castigatore!"?


E alla fine è arrivato! (grazie per il simpatico appellativo, Elisa...  ) Mi fischiavano le orecchie!
Ho aperto un'altra discussione sul 'prima che'...


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok, but how about an answer?! lol

Are they both correct?


----------



## Elisa68

There you go.


----------



## Tatzingo

dylang3893 said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but I'm a native to english, and while I did forget to put the
> " ' " in the I'm, I know that should of is correct. Should have *is* a mistake, but is still acceptable in the english language. However, you may have ment this is a mistake in spelling (or whatever I'd call it) not in acceptability in the english langauge.


I am just plain... shocked. I hate to break it to you but you're wrong on this one. "Should of" is a 'corrupted' form of "should've" (sounds like shud-uf or shud-av") which in turn is a contraction of "should have." This is actually one of the most common mistakes i have seen in the current school-going generation, (along with "would of" in place of "would have") - my own brother occasionally makes that mistake, and he is also native. "Should have" is the only correct form for all speakers, whether native to English or not. 



			
				dylang3893 said:
			
		

> I  see, but you admit - if I were to say that in the English language it would be understood nationally (I have used it all my life) - Although it is, yes, wrong.


Being understood in English and speaking correct English are two entirely different things. I'm not from the US so i can't say whether  you'd be understood nationally or not. However, what i can say is that although  you might be able to get  someone to understand you, it doesn't neccessarily make  what you are saying correct.  I have a friend who  despite numerous corrections,  always refers to leaves as "foilage" and not  "foliage,"  people understand her but that doesn't make her use of the word  "correct."  I would contend that even if the speaker's chief concern is merely achieving communication/mutual understanding and nothing but, there should still be some attempt at using correct forms of language, otherwise...

Wel, I fink we kan all c wat cud hapen.

Tatz.

Edit. Obviously, allowances to be made for text messages/other situations in which abbreviations are common.


----------



## lenabrasil

*W*hat about the expression '*anzi*'???


----------



## dylanG3893

lenabrasil said:


> what about the expression '*anzi*'???



It means 'rather/to the contrary' but you should make another thread for that!


----------



## Benvindo

Sono rimasto ancora in dubbio, però, per quanto riguarda il "I mean" originale. Se devo scrivere una lettera, diciamo (a machina, come si faceva prima dell'arrivo dei word processor ) e sbaglio, come faccio per correggerla? Posso mettere "_voglio dire_" e andare avanti? Esempio: "Roberto II, *voglio dire*, Umberto II, detto il Re di Maggio, è stato l'ultimo re d'Italia..." Ci sono pure altre possibilità? Posso utilizzare anche "_mi correggo_" o "_meglio dicendo_" al posto di "_voglio dire_"? Grazie!


----------



## Zenof

Benvindo said:


> Sono rimasto ancora in dubbio, però. Se devo scrivere (a machina, come si faceva prima dell'arrivo dei word processor ) qualcosa un po' più formale e sbaglio, come faccio per correggerla? Posso mettere "_voglio dire_" e andare avanti? Esempio: "Roberto II, *voglio dire*, Umberto II, detto il Re di Maggio, è stato l'ultimo re d'Italia..." Ci sono pure altre possibilità? Posso utilizzare anche "_mi correggo_" o "_meglio dicendo_" al posto di "_voglio dire_"? Grazie!


 
Oppure, potresti scrivere _errata corrige,_ è latino e si usa per ammettere che si è sbagliato a scriver qualcosa. In genere si fa un elenco alla fine del testo con tutte le correzioni


----------



## Benvindo

Zenof said:


> Oppure, potresti scrivere _errata corrige,_ è latino e si usa per ammettere che si è sbagliato a scriver qualcosa. In genere si fa un elenco alla fine del testo con tutte le correzioni



Grazie della risposta Zenof; solo un chiarimento di più: ritengo allora che "voglio dire" va bene, anche?


----------



## Zenof

Benvindo said:


> Grazie della risposta Zenof; solo un chiarimento di più: ritengo allora che "voglio dire" va bene, anche?


 
Ciao,
scusa il ritardo. A mio parere non va bene, perchè "voglio dire" intende che stai facendo una precisazione su quello che stai dicendo/scrivendo, mentre tu devi correggere un errore commesso.


----------

