# arrampicarsi sugli specchi



## robertot

*arrampicarsi sugli specchi*

Per caso esiste una forma idiomatica analoga in inglese?


----------



## vincenzochiaravalle

Forse "to grasp/clutch at straws"?
Aspetta un nativo... ...I'm clutching at straws...

V.


----------



## danalto

This is what I found on my dictionary

(‹fig›) *arrampicarsi sui vetri: *
1  to argue that black is white
2  (tentare l'impossibile) to strive after impossibilities
(‹fig›) *arrampicarsi sugli specchi: *
1  to argue that black is white
2  (tentare l'impossibile) to strive after impossibilities


----------



## vincenzochiaravalle

Troppo belle, entrambe!! 
Devi averla gia' citata, ma mi ripeteresti per cortesia la tua fonte?
Che dizionario è?

Grazie,
V


----------



## lsp

Dan, you nailed the definitions, but as far as an idiomatic equivalent goes, I think V has the "right" answer here with "clutching at straws."


----------



## danalto

So, lps, what about the definitions I found on my dictionary* *?
and which is the difference between them and the ones V. found?


thank you!


----------



## ElaineG

Ciao Dan,

Vincenzo ha ragione: Quando citi un dizionario, sarebbe gentile darci il nome del dizionario.

Vorrei suggerire un'altra possibilità:  "tilting at windmills."  Che ne dite?


----------



## lsp

danalto said:
			
		

> ...what about the definitions I found on  in my dictionary* *?
> and which is the difference between them and the ones V. found?


No difference, just that yours are definitions of the idiom's meaning, and his is a corrisponding idiom.

EG - Maybe the second definition of "tilt at windmills" ("Engage in conflict with an imagined opponent, pursue a vain goal" ( answers.com), comes closest to "clutch at straws" (when someone "tries anything ... even though their chances of success are probably nil."  usingenglish.com), but I always think of it as the first definition, maybe because I picture Don Quijote when I hear it!


----------



## danalto

> Vincenzo ha ragione: Quando citi un dizionario, sarebbe gentile darci il nome del dizionario.


Ciao, bellissima!
In realtà temevo non fosse permesso dal regolamento ...
Comunque, si chiama *Planet Gate Trio*, si trova da Buffetti (con un po' di difficoltà), interagisce con Word anche se con XP vengono a mancare alcune funzioni.
Io lo trovo molto valido, e soprattutto non è molto costoso e non sei costretto -come in tutti gli altri casi- ad acquistare anche il dizionario cartaceo!


----------



## ElaineG

Googling a bit, I see that most people say that "tilting at windmills" is used for the more "literal" meaning of "attacking imaginary enemies."  I think I use it a bit differently, more the way this person uses it:



> It is used to describe any attempt or planned attempt at something that is clearly unattainable, dubious, or just plain crazy.


 
http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=299 

But I see that this appears to be a minority usage, so perhaps no one should copy me!


----------



## Silvia

Indipendentemente dal primo significato di "tilting at windmills", anche il secondo non è convincente. L'espressione italiana si concentra sugli sforzi effettuati da una persona per perorare la propria causa, per sostenere la propria tesi. L'immagine di una persona che si arrampica su una superficie piana rende bene l'idea di non avere appigli, si dice anche "aggrapparsi a qualcosa", "non potersi aggrappare a niente", quindi concordo con lsp.

Ritengo comunque che l'espressione corretta sia "arrampicarsi sugli specchi", da cui poi è nata l'alternativa "arrampicarsi sui vetri" (ormai molto comune).


----------



## Daphne27

esiste la stessa espressione in inglese?

Grazie!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Si può dire _to argue that black is white._


----------



## f4bo

Daphne27 said:


> esiste la stessa espressione in inglese?
> 
> Grazie!



Cercando su google "climbing on mirrors" si trova parecchie ricorrenze quindi penso che abbia lo stesso significato anche in inglese.


----------



## Snowman75

I can't comment on how accurate the translation is because I don't know what the Italian phrase means.


----------



## Alberto77

The italian sentence means that somebody is trying to give impossible or imaginative excuses or explanations to something he has done, as impossible as trying to climb a mirror
ciao
alb


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Snowman75 said:


> I can't comment on how accurate the translation is because I don't know what the Italian phrase means.



When you're having a argument or a discussion with someone and you know you're wrong, but you still don't want to admit it even though you can't back up your words and you keep on insisting  that the rubbish you're talking is true.


----------



## cas29

Paulfromitaly said:


> When you're having a argument or a discussion with someone and you know you're wrong, but you still don't want to admit it even though you can't back up your words and you keep on insisting claiming that the rabbish  *rubbish *you're talking is true.


 
That's a clear explanation.  I've never heard this Italian expresion  before.


----------



## Snowman75

Paulfromitaly said:


> When you're having an argument or a discussion with someone and you know you're wrong, but you still don't want to admit it even though you can't back up your words and you keep on insisting, claiming that the raubbish you're talking is true.


Ok then, *"to argue that black is white"* would seem to be a good translation.

In this situation I might also say something like *"you're just arguing for the sake of arguing"*. The meaning here is a little different - it can be used whether or not the argument is a valid one. For example this would be a good phrase to use if someone continues to argue about a small insignificant point which is really not worth arguing about.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cas29 said:


> That's a clear explanation.  I've never heard this Italian expresion  before.



That's what happens when I don't check the rubbish I've just written before posting it..


----------



## Akire72

De Mauro says:

*arrampicarsi sugli specchi* loc.v. CO sostenere tesi prive di fondamento con argomenti speciosi | difendersi da accuse con deboli giustificazioni.

to grasp/clutch at straws is what a forero found in this thread

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=149623


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Snowman75 said:


> Ok then, *"to argue that black is white"* would seem to be a good translation.
> 
> In this situation I might also say something like *"you're just arguing for the sake of arguing"*. The meaning here is a little different - it can be used whether or not the argument is a valid one. For example this would be a good phrase to use if someone continues to argue about a small insignificant point which is really not worth arguing about.



The Italian saying has also this meaning, but we usually use it when someone is clearly wrong, but still they won't admit that they are and they go on blethering, trying to make a fool of yourself talking nonsense.


----------



## Henry63a

Snowman75 said:


> In this situation I might also say something like *"you're just arguing for the sake of arguing" .....* For example this would be a good phrase to use if someone continues to argue about a small insignificant point which is really not worth arguing about.


In this case we use another phrase: *"Disquisire sul sesso degli angeli"*


----------



## Dushnyoni

Dear ladies and gents,
Could anyone kindly tell me if "arrampicarsi sugli specchi" could be fairly translalated by "beating around bushes" please?
Thanks in advance


----------



## laurentius67

take a look at

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=149623


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Dushnyoni said:


> Dear ladies and gents,
> Could anyone kindly tell me if "arrampicarsi sugli specchi" could be fairly translalated by "beating around bushes" please?
> Thanks in advance



Nope..."beat around the bush" vuol dire tergiversare, non andare al punto.


----------



## Dushnyoni

Paulfromitaly said:


> Nope..."beat around the bush" vuol dire tergiversare, non andare al punto.


Thank you one, thank you all You are ................


----------



## Einstein

In another thread I said that the translation was "clutching at straws". Maybe it's not applicable in all cases.


----------



## GavinW

Einstein said:


> In another thread I said that the translation was "clutching at straws". Maybe it's not applicable in all cases.


 
Maybe not, but my feeling is that it's the best translation 8 times out of 10. In other words, it wins on frequency with regard to the main meaning of the Italian idiom.


----------



## Einstein

Thanks for the confirmation!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Akire72 said:


> De Mauro says:
> 
> *arrampicarsi sugli specchi* loc.v. CO sostenere tesi prive di fondamento con argomenti speciosi | difendersi da accuse con deboli giustificazioni.
> 
> to grasp/clutch at straws is what a forero found in this thread



That's what *arrampicarsi sugli specchi* means and it's rendered with " to argue that black is white" or "to argue for the sake of arguing", but not with "to clutch at straws" which means "to be              willing to              try anything to              improve a              difficult or              unsatisfactory              situation,              even if it has little              chance of              success" (fare tutto il possibile).


----------



## GavinW

Paulfromitaly said:


> ...which means "to be willing to try anything to improve a difficult or unsatisfactory situation, even if it has little chance of success" (fare tutto il possibile).



Actually, Paul, that's only one of the two meanings of the English expression/idiom. The other meaning is identical to the definition (a very clear and helpful one, by the way) which you gave twice (back in posts 17 and 22). 

To summarise:
to clutch/grasp at straws
1) to make desperate attempts (unlikely to succeed) to try to improve a difficult or unsatisfactory situation 
2) to make claims or give justifications for an untenable position, claims and justifications which are unlikely to be convincing because they are weak or extreme, or have no logical basis, in the course of a conversation or discussion  

In short: 1) corresponds to an action (something that one does); while 2) corresponds to something that one says, an argument that one tries to make to defend one's position in a debate of some kind.

NB: I can think of no situation in which "to argue that black is white" will work (for sense 2). Indeed, I'm not sure this expression even exists; I'm only familiar with "to argue that black is white, and white is black", but that means something slightly different: this happens in a different kind of verbal exchange, where the emphasis is on inconsistent logic, rather than an attempt to "win" a debate or "defend one's corner", as it were.


----------



## giovannino

Gavin, don't you think that in a way sense 2) follows naturally from sense 1), especially in the definition given in the _Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ ("resort in desperation to any utterly inadequate expedient, like a person drowning")? After all, someone who has clearly lost an argument but won't accept it will "resort in desperation to any utterly inadequate expedient", such as clutching at logical straws.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

GavinW said:


> Actually, Paul, that's only one of the two meanings of the English expression/idiom. The other meaning is identical to the definition (a very clear and helpful one, by the way) which you gave twice (back in posts 17 and 22).
> 
> To summarise:
> to clutch/grasp at straws
> 1) to make desperate attempts (unlikely to succeed) to try to improve a difficult or unsatisfactory situation
> 2) to make claims or give justifications for an untenable position, claims and justifications which are unlikely to be convincing because they are weak or extreme, or have no logical basis, in the course of a conversation or discussion
> 
> In short: 1) corresponds to an action (something that one does); while 2) corresponds to something that one says, an argument that one tries to make to defend one's position in a debate of some kind.
> 
> NB: I can think of no situation in which "to argue that black is white" will work (for sense 2). Indeed, I'm not sure this expression even exists; I'm only familiar with "to argue that black is white, and white is black", but that means something slightly different: this happens in a different kind of verbal exchange, where the emphasis is on inconsistent logic, rather than an attempt to "win" a debate or "defend one's corner", as it were.



I've looked it up in quite a few different monolingual dictionaries but I've only been able to find the first definition you have provided whereas "to clutch at straws" matches only the second definition in Italian.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/clutch-at-a-straw.html

If I were to try to give another explanation of what "arrampicarsi sugli specchi" means, I think I'd also say "to use inconsistent logic/a far-fetched line of reasoning to prove something that is clearly not true" which still matches only 2).


----------



## GavinW

giovannino said:


> don't you think that in a way sense 2) follows naturally from sense 1)...



Good point. Another way of asking the same question is: are you a "lumper" or a "splitter" (in terms of presenting definitions together or separately). ;-)
The answer is that one _can_, of course, "merge" the two definitions. (There is certainly an overlap.) In other words, we can find a "form of words" that will satisfy all the various scenarios. However, I take a "pragmatic" (practical) view: we have to look at the repercussions, _for our purposes_, of doing so. 
Here, I think splitting solves more problems than it creates. Specifically, it allows us to "see" a difference which potentially exists. This difference ultimately generates different translations (or is likely to, anyway; indeed, it is enough to say that it _could_ generate different translations, potentially). Because this is a bilingual forum, and we are ultimately (indeed only) interested  in workable translations, there is more than a strong case for splitting, I believe. If this was a monolingual discussion forum (like EO, say), or if we were working on a monolingual dictionary of some kind, we would probably see less need to split (also because splitting takes up more space, and you have to find example sentences to illustrate the difference, which means more work!).
Of course, this is my "philosophy", if you like. But it's grounded in actual practice.


----------



## ElisaAAA

Dear PaulFromItaly and GavinW,

Thank you A LOT for your posts. I have posted something similar under the thread "clutching at straws" (http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/clutch-at-straws.134980/ 
Thank you "Sorry66" for redirecting me here!).

Personally (but I might be wrong), I think you are both right - you have made the same points and answered my doubts.

However, could you please check the following out 

http://www.yorkshiretriathlon.com/
"You must be prepared to argue that black is white and refuse to accept you are wrong no matter how much evidence is produced to the contrary"

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-53746280/mental-agility-in-media-s-world-is-a-flexible-friend
"...ability to argue that black is white and all the way back again...."

http://mymumdom.com/worst-thing-children-growing/
"...She often believes that she knows everything and is quite willing to argue that black is white..."

Therefore, despite my initial ideas, I am now understanding that *GavinW might be totally right in* stating*: "...to argue that black is white, and white is black" means something slightly different: this happens in a different kind of verbal exchange, where the emphasis is on inconsistent logic, rather than an attempt to "win" a debate.. "*

Do you agree?
Thank you very much indeed to this wonderful community.

Regards


----------



## Sioux squaw

"Back pedaling"?


----------

