# si passivante



## minhsane

Ciao a tutti!

My question is how is "si passivante" used? There aren't any posts I could find adressing this question. I see "si" used as reflexives 
in impersonal constructions but I'm not sure how you would translate the "si passavante" construction. Also how would you discern it from the impersonal since they both are si + 3rd prsn, right?

Thanks to all.


----------



## victoria luz

minhsane said:
			
		

> Ciao a tutti!
> 
> My question is how is "si passivante" used? There aren't any posts I could find adressing this question. I see "si" used as reflexives
> in impersonal constructions but I'm not sure how you would translate the "si passavante" construction. Also how would you discern it from the impersonal since they both are si + 3rd prsn, right?
> 
> Thanks to all.


 
Ciao,

*SI* con Valore Riflessivo
NOTA BENE:Reflexive constructions are NOT impersonal!
The action of the verb reverberates on the subject

Frasi riflessive
diretta Si lava   He washes himself (subject is also the direct object)
indiretta Si lava le mani He washes his hands (intending his = of him, 
                                subject is also the indirect object)
reciproca Si sono baciati They kissed each other/one another (plural 
                             subject, action reverberating on both/all of them)


Then *Si* is used, as you said, to conjugate a verb in *impersonal constructions*, where the subject = anybody, nobody, everybody, people
Non si fuma
Si ritiene che....
Si dice che....
In quel ristorante si mangia bene

_*Si *Passivante_
When the impersonal verb is followed by a direct object that can be considered the subject of a passive sentence with the same meaning.
Nota Bene: the verb is 3rd s., with singular object, 3rd pl. with plural object.
A giugno si miete il grano (wheat is reaped))
Su questo forum si imparano molte cose (many things are learnt)
Questo libro si legge con piacere (this book is read)
La carne bianca si mangia sempre meno (poultry is eaten).

I hope this helps you to see the difference.
(BTW,There are other uses of SI, but I don't want to confuse you any further.  )


----------



## minhsane

Thanks Victoria Luz!
That wasn't so bad at all. It seems to me that "si" and "ci" are the bane of stranieri learning Italian  but your post really helped. I'll go on to google or something now and find more sentences with "si passivante" to allow this construction to soak into my head.

"si" you later. (I know it's corny  )

Thanks again


----------



## minhsane

I went onto this site to get more info on "si passivante", at  itech.dickinson. edu/blog/?p=2377. So I can see it's stylistically preferred to the passive construction in Italian but I don't understand why. The site emphasizes the difference between "si passivante" as  it doesn't denote who does the action. However, when the site gives examples comparing "si passivante" to the standard "essere + participio", the reader doesn't know who performs the action in the "essere + participio" either.

SO basically ... what is the difference between the two constructions that makes one preferred to the other?

Minhsane


----------



## swinginscot

Ciao a tutti,
  Sorry I know there are many posts on this topic.  I've looked through them and I thought I understood it pretty well but I've been working on these exercises and am a bit confused.  Any help would be appreciated.

Trasforma le frasi al passivo usando il si passivante:

San Marco viene proclamato nuovo patrono di Venezia. 
(St. Mark was proclaimed the new Patron Saint of Venice).

My answer:
Si e' proclamato San Marco il nuovo Patrono di Venezia.
(They proclaimed St. Mark the new Patron Saint of Venice)

BUT: It says the correct answer is:
Si proclama San Marco il nuovo Patrono di Venezia.
(They proclaim St. Mark the new Patron Saint of Venice)

I just looked up in my book and I see that it is just a different form, ie, changing from the passive voice form using venire + past participle to si passivante.  I understand that concept but doesn't it change the meaning of the sentence if you change from something that happened in the past tense to something in the present?

A clearer example to me is:
Questo vino viene prodotto in Veneto - this wine was produced in Veneto
(changing from passive voice to si passivante)-
Questo vino si produce in Veneto - They produce this wine in Veneto (I think this is what it means anyway)

Ok, I'm sure I sound like blithering idiot now.  Heheh think my brain is having a bit of a meltdown.  Sorry for the long rambling post.  

Grazie mille


----------



## Antis

Don't know how to say in english but I'll try...

In
"San Marco viene proclamato nuovo patrono di Venezia"

"Viene" is more or less like "è" and in this sentence 
sounds to be an "historical present" (?)
... that is to say you use the present tense to make the past vivid.

The correct answer is "si proclama", yes!

but... I have to say it should be added at least something like
Nel 1635 (I'm inventing) si proclama San Marco nuovo patrono di Venezia.
... otherwise it sounds a little weird.


----------



## Antis

swinginscot said:


> A clearer example to me is:
> Questo vino viene prodotto in Veneto - this wine was produced in Veneto
> (changing from passive voice to si passivante)-
> Questo vino si produce in Veneto - They produce this wine in Veneto (I think this is what it means anyway)



Actually a correct translation of
Questo vino viene prodotto in Veneto
is
this wine IS produced in Veneto


----------



## cscarfo

swinginscot said:


> Ciao a tutti,
> Sorry I know there are many posts on this topic. I've lookedthrough them and I thought I understood it pretty well but I've beenworking on these exercises and am a bit confused. Any help would beappreciated.
> 
> Trasforma le frasi al passivo usando il si passivante:
> 
> San Marco viene proclamato nuovo patrono di Venezia.
> (St. Mark was proclaimed the new Patron Saint of Venice).
> 
> My answer:
> Si e' proclamato San Marco il nuovo Patrono di Venezia.
> (They proclaimed St. Mark the new Patron Saint of Venice)
> 
> BUT: It says the correct answer is:
> Si proclama San Marco il nuovo Patrono di Venezia.
> (They proclaim St. Mark the new Patron Saint of Venice)
> 
> I just looked up in my book and I see that it is just a differentform, ie, changing from the passive voice form using venire + pastparticiple to si passivante. I understand that concept but doesn't itchange the meaning of the sentence if you change from something thathappened in the past tense to something in the present?
> 
> A clearer example to me is:
> Questo vino viene prodotto in Veneto - this wine was produced in Veneto
> (changing from passive voice to si passivante)-
> Questo vino si produce in Veneto - They produce this wine in Veneto (I think this is what it means anyway)
> 
> Ok, I'm sure I sound like blithering idiot now. Heheh think my brainis having a bit of a meltdown. Sorry for the long rambling post.
> 
> Grazie mille



"viene proclamato" is a present tense, so your textbook is correct.

The same goes for your example.
Past tenses are "si è prodotto", "si produceva", and so on.


"si passivante" is a weird term to me. This construct has an impersonalmeaning, not passive. Maybe because it is equivalent to "è prodotto",which looks like a passive, but actually has a purely impersonalmeaning.
Ciao


----------



## giacinta

swinginscot said:


> Ciao a tutti,
> San Marco viene proclamato nuovo patrono di Venezia.
> (St. Mark was proclaimed the new Patron Saint of Venice).
> 
> My answer:
> Si e' proclamato San Marco il nuovo Patrono di Venezia.
> (They proclaimed St. Mark the new Patron Saint of Venice)
> 
> BUT: It says the correct answer is:
> Si proclama San Marco il nuovo Patrono di Venezia.
> (They proclaim St. Mark the new Patron Saint of Venice)


 

_The book is right! " Viene" is the present tense. Therefore you must translate in the present tense._

_If it said "San Marco venne proclamato nuovo patrono di Venezia" the answer would be "Si proclamo' San Marco etc"_

_Giacinta_


----------



## swinginscot

Grazie mille a tutti per l'aiuto!!


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

Ciao a tutti, 

I've looked at several books and researched the internet.  Someone suggested this thread but I'd just like  to confirm some general rules.  This may be  the first post/thread of a few from me on this subject.   I'm hoping some of our native speaking  Italian friends will confirm or comment.  I've noticed that many Italian  language teaching books do not address the _Si Passivante_ and use the _Si Impersonale_ as a "catch-all" for both forms.  This  could lead to confusion or misuse by many of us trying to learn the  Italian language. 

*The Impersonal Si (Si Impersonale):* 

1) Is used when the action is  emphasized and the  performer of the action is not mentioned. 
2) _Si_ corresponds to the  English impersonal use of one/you/we/they/people. 
3) It is only used with the  third person singular form of the verb. 
4) It is used to express common knowledge with the expressions such as _si sa che_ (it's common knowledge  that), _si capisce che_ (it's  obvious that), and _si vede che_  (it's clear that). 

example - _A casa mia si mangia spesso  gli spaghetti._  (At my house we often eat spaghetti.) 

example - _Si dice che il presidente  sia miliardario._  (They say that the president is a millionaire.) 

*The Passive Si (Si Passivante):* 

1) It is frequently used instead of the passive voice (_la forma passiva_). 
2) The performer of the action is not mentioned. 
3) The subject is inanimate  and can be singular or plural. 
4) The verb agrees in number with the subject. 

example - _Non si parla inglese in  classe._ (English is not spoken in class.) 

example - _Non si leggono mai quei  libri._ (Those books are never read.) 

Grazie, 

PG


----------



## Necsus

Here is my attempt to translate an extract from the thread 'La particella si' in Solo Italiano: 
Any active verb can assume _impersonal_ value placing the _si_ particle before the third singular person. Instead the atonic pronoun 'si' is called _passivante _when it assigns a passive mean to the third singular or plural person of a transitive active verb in a simple tense (si loda la tua bravura = la tua bravura è lodata; si acquistano vestiti usati = i vestiti sono acquistati). It's not used with compound tenses and it doesn't change the construction from active to passive, but it gives a passive value to a verb that keeps the active construction (si vendono francobolli).


----------



## effeundici

minhsane said:


> Ciao a tutti!
> 
> Also how would you discern it from the impersonal since they both are si + 3rd prsn, right?
> 
> Thanks to all.


 
It's not easy for many Italians too. In Italian towns, for example, the correct sign _Vendonsi appartamenti_ has been replaced by _Vendesi appartamenti._

It's a clear proof, in my opinion, that most Italians make confusion between the impersonal _si vende appartamenti _and the "passivante" _si vendono appartamenti._

And if the objectis one the form is the same : _si vende carne. _I guess only the context can give the answer.

Am I right or am I confused too??


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

effeundici said:


> It's not easy for many Italians too. In Italian towns, for example, the correct sign _Vendonsi appartamenti_ has been replaced by _Vendesi appartamenti._
> 
> It's a clear proof, in my opinion, that most Italians make confusion are confused between the impersonal _si vende appartamenti _and the "passivante" _si vendono appartamenti._
> 
> And if the object is one there is one object the form is the same : _si vende carne. _I guess only the context can give the answer.
> 
> Am I right or am I confused too??



Effeundici,

I sympathize with you.  (In italiano "simpatizzo per te", vero?)

Grazie per la tua risposta,

PG


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

Necsus said:


> Here is my attempt to translate an extract from the thread 'La particella si' in Solo Italiano:
> Any active verb can assume _impersonal_ value placing the _si_ particle before the third singular person. Instead the atonic pronoun 'si' is called _passivante _when it assigns a passive mean to the third singular or plural person of a transitive active verb in a simple tense (si loda la tua bravura = la tua bravura è lodata; si acquistano vestiti usati = i vestiti sono acquistati). It's not used with compound tenses and it doesn't change the construction from active to passive, but it gives a passive value to a verb that keeps the active construction (si vendono francobolli).



Grazie amico mio, allora:

*The Passive Si (Si Passivante):* 

1) It is frequently used instead of the passive voice (_la forma  passiva_). 
2) The performer of the action is not mentioned. 
3) The subject is inanimate  and can be singular or plural. 
4) The verb can only be used in a simple tense and agrees in number with the subject. 
5) It doesn't change the construction from active to  passive, but it gives a passive value to a verb that keeps the active  construction.  Example - _La tua bravura *è lodata*._ = _*Si loda* la tua bravura._ (Your skill is lauded.)

There are more rules which I may submit for review.

Grazie di nuovo,

PG


----------



## Necsus

You're welcome, Pasqua'!


Pasquale Gatto said:


> 1) + 4) It is frequently used instead of the passive construction with _essere_ and past participle only with a transitive active verb in a simple tense and agrees in number with the subject.
> 
> 3) The subject is inanimate and can be singular or plural.


I can't agree on the #3, because in the passive construction the grammatical subject is who/what undergoes the action, so if you say for example "si cerca/cercasi commessa", I suppose you are looking for an alive and well shop-girl...! 
Another very important point: the _si_ can be _passivante_ only with a transitive verb with direct object expressed, because with intransitive verbs and transitive verbs with direct object not expressed it is _si impersonale_ (_s__i legge _= noi leggiamo; qualcuno legge).


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

Necsus said:


> You're welcome, Pasqua'!
> I can't agree on the #3, because in the passive construction the grammatical subject is who/what undergoes the action, so if you say for example "si cerca/cercasi commessa", I suppose you are looking for an alive and well shop-girl...!



LOL!!!    Amico mio certamente hai ragione.

Grazie di nuovo,

PG


----------



## Passante

Pasquale Gatto said:


> Effeundici,
> 
> I sympathize with you.  (In italiano "simpatizzo per te", vero?)



In Italiano dovrebbe essere 'propendo per la tua opinione' 'sono d'accordo con te' 'mi piace quel che hai detto' .
Simpatizzo si dice, ma sembra più che lo voteresti durante un'elezione 
in senso figurato si può usare, ma un italiano non credo lo userebbe così.


----------



## giovannino

Pasquale Gatto said:
			
		

> example - _A casa mia si mangia spesso gli spaghetti._ (At my house we often eat spaghetti.)


 
PG, I think this is a typical example of Tuscan usage. I myself would say _si mangiano. _Here's a quote from Serianni's _Grammatica:_



> Una frase come "alle nove si serve il caffè" può rappresentare sia "alle nove qualcuno serve il caffè", sia "alle nove il caffè viene servito". Fanno propendere per la seconda interpretazione due fatti: il verbo tende a passare alla 6a persona in caso di oggetto plurale ("si servono le bibite"; *ma nell'uso toscano e arcaico anche "si serve le bibite*"); nei tempi composti il participio ha desinenza femminile se l'oggetto è femminile ("si è servita una bibita").


----------



## Necsus

Passante said:


> In italiano dovrebbe essere 'propendo per la tua opinione' 'sono d'accordo con te', 'mi piace quel che hai detto'.


Credo che Pasquale volesse dire piuttosto "ti capisco", "sono solidale con te".


----------



## Passante

Necsus said:


> Credo che Pasquale volesse dire piuttosto "ti capisco", "sono solidale con te".


l'ha corretto con 'certamente hai ragione'


----------



## Necsus

Passante said:


> l'ha corretto con 'certamente hai ragione'


Ehm... non che abbia una particolare rilevanza, ma GP non ha fatto alcuna modifica. Rispetto al _certamente _a cui ti riferisci, il _sympathize_ in questione è tre post prima, nel #14!


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

Necsus said:


> Credo che Pasquale volesse dire piuttosto "ti capisco", "sono solidale con te".



Grazie Necsus.  Hai ragione .

E grazie a tutti per l'aiuto.

PG


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

giovannino said:


> PG, I think this is a typical example of Tuscan usage. I myself would say _si mangiano. _Here's a quote from Serianni's _Grammatica:_



Grazie Giovannino.  Hai ragione.  Dovrei aver scritto (I should have written) "_A casa mia si mangia spesso la pasta._ (At my house we often  eat pasta.)

PG


----------



## giacinta

Glad this has been cleared up.  I was quite worried about the use of the singular verb in the example given! 

I am not sure but I think " Avrei dovuto scrivere..." is the the way to say " I should have written or perhaps "Intendevo scrivere..."???

An interesting discussion.... thank you,
Giacinta


----------



## Necsus

giacinta said:


> I am not sure but I think " Avrei dovuto scrivere..." is the the way to say " I should have written or perhaps "Intendevo scrivere..."???
> 
> An interesting discussion.... thank you,
> Giacinta


You're welcome.


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

Ciao a tutti,

Sorry everyone but I'm still confused.  I want to present some examples  and more questions.

_A casa mia si mangiano spesso gli spaghetti._ - (_Si Passivante_)  At my house spaghetti is often eaten. *OR* "At my house *one/we*  oftern eat(s) spaghetti."  *Question* - Even though my second  English sentence is not passive is this interpretation correct?

_A casa mia li si mangia_ _spesso._ - (Si Impersonale) At my  house we often eat them.  - *Question* - is this correct?   Can _si impersonale_ be used with a plural object pronouns?

In my Italian book (Living Language - Ultimate Italian Advanced) it  states "To form the passive with _si_ in a compound tense, place _si_  before the appropriate form of the auxiliary _essere_.  The past  participle agrees in gender and number with the subject."
One example given is - _Ieri si sono comprate tre stampanti laser._  (Yesterday three laser printers were bought.) *Questions *- I  thought that _si passivante_ could not be used in compound tenses.   I assume my book is wrong, correct?  If the book is wrong then is the  example correct Italian?  It cannot be considered _si impersonale_  because the verb _essere_ is in the 3rd person plural.

I will also have some more questions about _si impersonale_ which I  will submit at a later time.

Grazie in anticipo,

PG


----------



## giovannino

Pasquale Gatto said:


> _A casa mia si mangiano spesso gli spaghetti._ - (_Si Passivante_) At my house spaghetti is often eaten. *OR* "At my house *one/we* oftern eat(s) spaghetti." *Question* - Even though my second English sentence is not passive is this interpretation correct?
> I think your interpretation is correct or, more precisely, since using the passive in English in this kind of sentence sounds unidiomatic "we often eat" is the best translation.
> 
> _A casa mia li si mangia_ _spesso._ - (Si Impersonale) At my house we often eat them. - *Question* - is this correct? Can _si impersonale_ be used with a plural object pronouns?
> It's perfectly correct. I'll quote from Lepschy's _The Italian Language: _"When an unstressed pronoun is used for the object in the impersonal _si _construction, _si compra una penna _gives _la si compra, si comprano due penne _gives _le si compra, si è comprata una penna _gives _la si è comprata, si sono comprate due penne _gives _le si è comprate.[...]_ In a sentence like _la si compra [...]_ _si compra _can only be interpreted as an impersonal and not as a passive form" because the object pronoun is used.
> 
> 
> In my Italian book (Living Language - Ultimate Italian Advanced) it states "To form the passive with _si_ in a compound tense, place _si_ before the appropriate form of the auxiliary _essere_. The past participle agrees in gender and number with the subject."
> One example given is - _Ieri si sono comprate tre stampanti laser._ (Yesterday three laser printers were bought.) *Questions *- I thought that _si passivante_ could not be used in compound tenses. I assume my book is wrong, correct? If the book is wrong then is the example correct Italian? It cannot be considered _si impersonale_ because the verb _essere_ is in the 3rd person plural.
> When you think about it it's not a compound tense form. "Sono comprate" is the passive form of the Present Simple. It's explained in Serianni's _Grammatica: _"Con un verbo già passivo avente l'ausiliare di tempo semplice, il _si _proietta l'azione al corrispondente tempo composto: 'non si è mai visto nulla di simile' (= nulla di simile è mai stato visto)."
> So: "Si vendono (sono vendute) molte auto" but "si sono vendute (=sono state vendute) molte auto".


 
My impression is that, apart from cases where only one interpretation is possible (e.g. in "si va" _si _can only be interpreted as impersonal, not as passive, since _andare _is intransitive), there is often an inherent ambiguity in these _si-_constructions. For example, although Lepschy says that "le si è comprate" cannot be interpreted as passive I see it as a bit of a hybrid: the object pronoun is used, which justifies interpreting it as "impersonal", but at the same time the past participle is feminine plural, as with "si passivante". The fact that there isn't unanimity among grammarians suggests that these _si _constructions sometimes defy clearcut classifications.


----------



## Pasquale Gatto

Giovaninno,

Grazie mille! Lo capisco completamente amico mio.

PG


----------



## Ragazza Australiana

Ciao tutti,

I have been reading through this thread trying to get my head around the different constructions for the *si impersonale* and *si passivante*. According to my old uni Italian _professore_ the rules for agreement with the past participle are as follows (obviously, the si impersonale/passivante both require _essere _in compound tenses):

Intransitive Verbs
- 'Normal' auxiliary = _essere_: *Plural (usually masculine) *Past Participle.            eg._ S__i era venut*i* con l'idea di divertirsi. _(People came with the idea of enjoying themselves.)
- 'Normal' auxiliary = _avere_: *Masculine Singular* Past Participle.                        eg. _Ieri si è lavorat*o* male. _(Yesterday people worked badly.)

Transitive Verbs
- No direct object: *Masculine Singular* Past Participle.                                    eg. _Sabato si è bevut*o*_ _troppo. _(Saturday people drank too much/too much was drunk?)
- Direct object pronoun: Past Participle a*grees with Direct Object*                    eg. (_la birra_)_ *La* si era bevut*a* anche prima._ (People had drunk it even before?)  
- Direct object noun (*Si Passivante*): Past Participle a*grees with Direct Object  *eg. _Sabato si __è bevut*a*_ _troppa birr*a*. _(Saturday too much beer was drunk/people drank too                      
                                                                                                                   much beer?)

Reflexive Verbs
- No direct object: *Plural (usually masculine) *Past Participle                          eg. _Ci si è guardat*i* allo specchio. _(People look at themselves in the mirror.)
- Direct object: *Plural (usually masculine) *OR *agrees with Direct Object*        eg. _Ci si è già lavat*i*_ (OR _lavat*a*_) _la facci*a*__. _(People have already washed their faces.)  

Where I have indicated '*usually masculine*' there is an acknowledgement that where the si refers to the first person plural (ie. noi/we - typical of Tuscan), the past participle agrees with the Indefinite Subject, which could be two or more women depending on the context: eg. _Si è andate a Roma. Ci si è lavate la faccia. 
_
Also, the *verbal person* for all these tenses is *usually third person singular*. The exception to this (as has already been stated) is the *si passivante*, which can also have the third person plural construction where the direct object is plural. eg. _In Italia si mangia molta pasta. In autunno si mangiano i funghi. _




I know I'm an English native-speaker, but I just wanted to check my translations of these sentences with some Italians. Do they sound right to you? I'm particularly unsure about the transitive verb sentences, where I seem to get confused about what the si is referring to - is it an impersonal or passive construction?? Or could it be either? 

Also, all the past participles are constructed with _essere _but what about in the case of a reflexive verb in an impersonal construction where there is a modal verb (_dovere_, _potere_, _volere_) present? Normally, the Reflexive Pronoun can go either before the verb (uses _essere _and agrees with Subject) or at the end of an infinite (use _avere_) where there is a modal verb present: eg. _Il bambino non ha voluto vestirsi. _OR _Il bambino non si è voluto vestire. _(The child refused to get dressed.) 

But if this is correct: _Non ci si è voluto vestire. _(People refused to get dressed.)  - Is it also possible to have: _Non ci si ha voluto vestire_OR _Non si è voluto vestirsi__? 
_
Grazie mille! I hope this helps others too 


EDIT: I wish I could have presented this neatly in a table so it would be easier to read!


----------



## giacinta

Sorry I'm only another Australian but as no Italians had answered, I thought I would have a go.
With si passivante the object of a transitive verb becomes its subject and the verb agrees in number and gender with that subject.  Nowadays the impersonal si behaves in the same way .  "Si vendono schede telefoniche "  can be translated "phone cards are sold" or "one sells phone cards".   According to my book, very occasionally the impersonal si is treated _as a subject_ but this construction is most commonly encountered in advertisements (Si noleggia biciclette).  In spoken Italian "it sounds archaic and is best avoided".  

Where there is an auxilliary verb (essere/avere)
IN the passive sense either both the auxilliary and past participle agree in gender/number (in the passive form) or the past participle is in masculine singular (impersonal form)  But the latter is capable of only one interpretation whereas the former is ambiguous. The example given in my text book is "Si e' tagliata la torta" can mean "The cake was cut" or "One cut the cake" but "si e' tagliato la torta" can *only* mean "one cut the cake".  

When the impersonal si is regarded _as the subject_ (as above-stated - very occasionally)  the past participle must agree in gender and number with the *direct object pronoun.*  Hence "la si e' tagliata".  "one has cut it (the cake)"
Le si vende = one sells them (cakes).  

Impersonal si -- INTRANSITIVE where there is an auxiliary verb (auxilary and past participle) and both are always in the masculine singular.  Si e' cantato.  - One sang.
If the predicate is an adjective the latter is always masculine plural. " Si e' contenti" One is happy.

The auxiliary verb with Si impersonale is ALWAYS essere but the *form* of the _past participle_ (gender and number) depends on whether that verb _usually takes "essere' or "avere"._ In the latter case, the past participle is singular masculine.  In former case, (usually a transitive verb) past participle is masculine plural.  

In your example which you refer to as Direct Object noun (si passivante) you go on to translate it in English as both si passivante and si impersonale. I think si passivante (too much beer was drunk) should be "sabato si e' bevuta troppa birra".  But si impersonale (one drank too much beer) should be "si e' bevuto troppa birra" (because "bere' takes 'avere").  

With the reflexive verb examples you give, I agree "ci si e' guardati allo specchio" is correct but I would translate it as "One looked at oneself in the mirror".  I would translate "people looked at themselves in the mirror" as 'tutti si sono guardati allo specchio". 

All this is very difficult I know  and it has been good for me to revise it.  I think over the years I eventually came to the conclusion that I would forget the si impersonale and use only the si passivante which, I think, in most cases you can (or you can find another way of getting across what "the people" do) .  It's so simple just to check out the direct object and then make the verb agree in number and gender as in "In Italia si mangiano gli spaghetti" which you can happily translate as "In Italy one eats spaghetti " if you want to and to simply remember the rules about past participles depending on whether the auxiliary is "essere" or "avere".  

It's amazing that nobody else has replied to your message.  I do hope this has been of some help and I am perfectly prepared (and indeed would welcome) any corrections to my analysis.

Cheers,
Giacinta


----------



## Ragazza Australiana

Hmm.. I've also come across another confusing example:

_Si è mangiato un pomodoro ogni giorno_. 

Would this construction be passive or impersonal? Or could it be either? 
A tomato is eaten every day. = Passive
One ate a tomato every day. = Impersonal

Grazie!


----------



## giacinta

Sorry I don't know what happened to the rest of my previous answer.  But re your latest.....

Si e' mangiato un pomodoro ogni giorno = a tomato _was_ eaten every day.

It's passive - like si mangiano spesso gli spaghetti--spaghetti is often eaten.

Giacinta


----------



## Ragazza Australiana

giacinta said:


> Sorry I don't know what happened to the rest of my previous answer.  But re your latest.....
> 
> Si e' mangiato un pomodoro ogni giorno = a tomato *was* eaten every day.
> 
> It's passive - like si mangiano spesso gli spaghetti--spaghetti is often eaten.
> 
> Giacinta



Oops! My mistake! But wouldn't it be _*has been *_rather than *was*? 
If the verb is meant to be in the same tense as the active verb (in the active sentence equivalent).
That is: 

_Maria *ha mangiato* un pomodoro ogni giorno. = _Maria ate (literally, *has eaten*) a tomato every day. ACTIVE 
_Si *è*__* mangiato *un pomodoro ogni giorno_. = A tomato *has been eaten *every day. SI PASSIVANTE

For the translation to be 'was eaten' wouldn't the original have to be: 
_Maria *mangiava *__un pomodoro ogni giorno. _= Maria used to eat (literally, *was eating*) a tomato every day. ACTIVE 
_Si *mangiava*__un pomodoro ogni giorno_. = A tomato used to be eaten (literally, *was eaten*)every day. SI PASSIVANTE

I'm confused! Also because in English the passive voice uses the same construction as the passive voice in Italian, so it doesn't translate nicely when using the si passivante.


----------



## giacinta

Hi,

I have just found my reply to your earlier post and sent it on -- it's above these posts.

I think you have to be careful not to translate the passato prossimo too literally.  It is the Italian conversational past tense  EG  l"ho fatto = I did it .  
No, sorry -can't agree about the imperfect.  "was eaten" is very different from " was eating".

Let's hope we get some help from our Italian friends!

G


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Did you have a look at this one as well?

si impersonale


----------



## Ragazza Australiana

giacinta said:


> Sorry I'm only another Australian but as no Italians had answered, I thought I would have a go.
> 
> With si passivante the object of a transitive verb becomes its subject and the verb agrees in number and gender with that subject.  Nowadays the impersonal si behaves in the same way .  "Si vendono schede telefoniche "  can be translated "phone cards are sold" or "one sells phone cards".   According to my book, very occasionally the impersonal si is treated _as a subject_ but this construction is most commonly encountered in advertisements (Si noleggia biciclette).  In spoken Italian "it sounds archaic and is best avoided".
> 
> Ok, that makes sense to me. But what about when the Impersonal si is formed with an intransitive verb such as _andare_? In this case there is no direct object to become the new subject. eg. _Sabato si è andati al mercato._ Saturday one goes to the market.
> Here wouldn't the si be the subject of the verb? Does this still sound 'archaic'? I'm not sure how else you could say this as the Impersonal is the only way to use si with an intransitive verb. Italiani, cosa ne pensate??
> 
> Where there is an auxilliary verb (essere/avere)
> IN the passive sense either both the auxilliary and past participle agree in gender/number (in the passive form) or the past participle is in masculine singular (impersonal form)  But the latter is capable of only one interpretation whereas the former is ambiguous. The example given in my text book is "Si e' tagliata la torta" can mean "The cake was cut" or "One cut the cake" but "si e' tagliato la torta" can *only* mean "one cut the cake".
> 
> But the past participle of an impersonal verb never ends in '-a' unless there is a feminine singular Direct Object Pronoun? So '_Si è tagliata la torta_'could only mean 'The cake was cut'.
> 
> I would have thought that as '_Si __è tagliato la torta' _is impersonal, and 'la torta' is clearly the Direct Object, the 'si' must be the Subject?
> 
> When the impersonal si is regarded _as the subject_ (as above-stated - very occasionally)  the past participle must agree in gender and number with the *direct object pronoun.*  Hence "la si e' tagliata".  "one has cut it (the cake)"
> Le si vende = one sells them (cakes).
> 
> I agree with you that '_la si __è tagliata__'_could only mean 'One cut it (the cake)' as 'la' = direct object pronoun. Therefore, '_la torta_' could not be replaced with 'la' in the passive sentence '_Si è tagliata la torta_' as '_la torta_' is the subject (patient) of the verb.
> 
> Impersonal si -- INTRANSITIVE where there is an auxiliary verb (auxilary and past participle) and both are always in the masculine singular.  Si e' cantato.  - One sang.
> If the predicate is an adjective the latter is always masculine plural. " Si e' contenti" One is happy.
> 
> But how can the si impersonale be intransitive if it is capable of taking a direct object?? (eg. _Si è tagliato la torta_)
> And you contradict yourself, because here you state that the past participle of the impersonal is always in the masculine singular and below you say the ending depends on whether the verb usually takes _essere _or _avere_.
> 
> The auxiliary verb with Si impersonale is ALWAYS essere (and I would add, third person singular) but the *form* of the _past participle_ (gender and number) depends on whether that verb _usually takes "essere' or "avere"._ In the latter case (usually a transitive verb), the past participle is singular masculine.  In former case, (usually always an intransitive verb) past participle is masculine plural.
> 
> I agree with you (mostly), but add some examples of intransitive verbs which usually take _avere_: _camminare, viaggiare, cenare, telefonare. _
> Also, could the past participle of a verb which usually takes _essere_ sometimes be feminine plural, ie. where women are specifically referred to? In the same way as nouns and adjectives referring to the subject can be feminine in certain contexts.
> eg. _L'anno scorso, si è andat*e* dal dottore solo quando si era incint*e*. _Last year, one went went to the doctor only when one was pregnant.
> 
> In your example which you refer to as Direct Object noun (si passivante) you go on to translate it in English as both si passivante and si impersonale. I think si passivante (too much beer was drunk) should be "sabato si e' bevuta troppa birra".  But si impersonale (one drank too much beer) should be "si e' bevuto troppa birra" (because "bere' takes 'avere").
> 
> Yep, you're right and I see where I was getting confused now! Thanks!
> 
> With the reflexive verb examples you give, I agree "ci si e' guardati allo specchio" is correct but I would translate it as "One looked at oneself in the mirror".  I would translate "people looked at themselves in the mirror" as 'tutti si sono guardati allo specchio".
> 
> Yep, I would agree with you here too, I think I just wrote 'people' for continuity  And although probably more grammatically correct, 'one' always sounds a little archaic in English to me.
> 
> All this is very difficult I know  and it has been good for me to revise it.  I think over the years I eventually came to the conclusion that I would forget the si impersonale and use only the si passivante which, I think, in most cases you can (or you can find another way of getting across what "the people" do) (except possibly for intransitive verbs where you can't use the passive?).  It's so simple just to check out the direct object and then make the verb agree in number and gender as in "In Italia si mangiano gli spaghetti" which you can happily translate as "In Italy one eats spaghetti " if you want to and to simply remember the rules about past participles depending on whether the auxiliary is "essere" or "avere".
> 
> It's amazing that nobody else has replied to your message.  I do hope this has been of some help and I am perfectly prepared (and indeed would welcome) any corrections to my analysis.
> 
> I hope so too! Thanks for your help!
> 
> Cheers,
> Giacinta


----------



## Ragazza Australiana

Paulfromitaly said:


> Did you have a look at this one as well?
> 
> si impersonale



Grazie mille!


----------



## turkjey5

Are these valid si passivante sentences?

Some (packages, books, whatever) are sent to him:
gliene si sono mandati 
gliene sono mandatisi 

Grazie mille!!


----------



## Necsus

Hi, Turkjey. No, your sentences are not correct, because as said in post #12:


> the atonic pronoun 'si' is called passivante when it assigns a passive meaning to the third singular or plural person of a transitive active verb in a simple tense (si loda la tua bravura = la tua bravura è lodata; si acquistano vestiti usati = i vestiti sono acquistati). It's not used with compound tenses and it doesn't change the construction from active to passive, but it gives a passive value to a verb that keeps the active construction (si vendono francobolli).


----------



## turkjey5

Grazie mille!!


----------

