# Di loro si racconta



## Alxmrphi

There is a sentence in a piece of Italian I've been studying recently that I've just found and it had something highlighted, and I remembered not ever finding it out, the sentence is:

"Di loro si racconta infatti che quando erano ancora adolescenti giocavano a pallone"

It's mainly "di loro" that I don't understand, the rest I think is:

"tells us that infact, when they were still young they played football"

Not sure how "Di loro" translates as the beginning of a new sentence though.

Any help appriciated


----------



## confusion

Alex_Murphy said:


> There is a sentence in a piece of Italian I've been studying recently that I've just found and it had something highlighted, and I remembered not ever finding it out, the sentence is:
> 
> "Di loro si racconta infatti che quando erano ancora adolescenti giocavano a pallone"
> 
> It's mainly "di loro" that I don't understand, the rest I think is:
> 
> "tells us that infact, when they were still young they played football"
> 
> Not sure how "Di loro" translates as the beginning of a new sentence though.
> 
> Any help appriciated


 
My try:

"ABOUT THEM it's told in fact that, when they were still young they played football"


----------



## GavinW

confusion said:


> My try:
> 
> "ABOUT THEM it's told in fact that, when they were still young they played football"


 
Or:
"Of them it is said that..."/"It is said of them that..." ("There is a story about them which relates that...")

And yes, in other words, the "di" is a preposition, not part of the verb "dire". ;-)


----------



## Alxmrphi

Di isn't a form of dire in any conjugation though, right?
I think mixing the word order it sounds better, I can see now because of *raccontare*. to tell/narrate, I need something like "of them, it is told that..." but in a more 'normal' way.

I suppose just "It is said that infact when they were young", I don't think "di loro" needs to be translated here, anyone agree?


----------



## LGGirl

Alex_Murphy said:


> Di isn't a form of dire in any conjugation though, right?
> I think mixing the word order it sounds better, I can see now because of *raccontare*. to tell/narrate, I need something like "of them, it is told that..." but in a more 'normal' way.
> 
> I suppose just "It is said that infact when they were young", I don't think "di loro" needs to be translated here, anyone agree?


 
I agree.  When translated to English the "Di loro" part would read as you stated--"It is said that when they were young...".


----------



## GavinW

Alex_Murphy said:


> Di isn't a form of dire in any conjugation though, right?


 
It is, actually: it's the singular imperative (but I think it has an accent: dì).


----------



## Jebedia

Alex_Murphy said:


> Di isn't a form of dire in any conjugation though, right?
> I think mixing the word order it sounds better, I can see now because of *raccontare*. to tell/narrate, I need something like "of them, it is told that..." but in a more 'normal' way.
> 
> I suppose just "It is said that infact when they were young", I don't think "di loro" needs to be translated here, anyone agree?



Yes, I agree, for me it works all the same.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Oh well that's good, the only annoying thing is when writing a sentence now in Italian, where I wouldn't write anything in Italian, now I'm thinking "Should I be putting anything in here?".


----------



## uinni

Alex_Murphy said:


> Oh well that's good, the only annoying thing is when writing a sentence now in Italian, where I wouldn't write anything in Italian, now I'm thinking "Should I be putting anything in here?".


 
Well, the two sentences are not completely equivalent:

In the following sentences there is sort of a degree of importance on the object of the speech

a) Di loro si racconta infatti che quando erano...
b) Si racconta di loro infatti che quando erano...
c) Si racconta infatti che quando loro erano... 

In the case a) the speaker means to put maximum emphasis on the object of the speech (them)!

Uinni


----------



## DAH

GavinW said:


> It is, actually: it's the singular imperative (but I think it has an accent: dì).


No way.


----------



## kdl77

DAH said:


> No way.


 
No way? yes indeed

Dì (with the accent) means "speak!", imperative form of the verb "dire", 2nd singular


----------



## Jebedia

kdl77 said:


> No way? yes indeed
> 
> Dì (with the accent) means "speak!", imperative form of the verb "dire", 2nd singular



Of course, it's like that.


----------



## Trina

Ciao.
I'm confused now.

Back to Alex's original sentence:
Di loro si racconta infatti che quando erano ancora adolescenti giocavano a pallone

Should it be "Di loro" (here, "di" meaning of") or should the sentence start with  "Dì loro" (here "dì" is the imperative form of "dire")


----------



## Jebedia

Trina said:


> Ciao.
> I'm confused now.
> 
> Back to Alex's original sentence:
> Di loro si racconta infatti che quando erano ancora adolescenti giocavano a pallone
> 
> Should it be "Di loro" (here, "di" meaning of")      or should the sentence start with  "Dì loro" (here "dì" is the imperative form of "dire" )


----------



## kdl77

Sorry, my fault. I was talking about "dì" in an abstract context, not referred to your sentence! In the original sentence, "di loro" means "about them".


----------



## Necsus

GavinW said:
			
		

> It is, actually: it's the singular imperative (but I think it has an accent: dì).


 


			
				DAH said:
			
		

> No way.


 


			
				kdl77 said:
			
		

> No way? yes indeed
> Dì (with the accent) means "speak!", imperative form of the verb "dire", 2nd singular


 


			
				Jebedia said:
			
		

> Of course, it's like that.


 


			
				Trina said:
			
		

> Should it be "Di loro" (here, "di" meaning of") or should the sentence start with "Dì loro" (here "dì" is the imperative form of "dire")


 
I'm sorry if I cut in, but actually the imperative of verb 'dire' is *di'*, with apostrophe, not accent; the preposition is *di*, without apostrophe nor _(is it correct?)_ accent; and *dì*, with accent, means 'day' (giorno).


----------



## kdl77

Necsus said:


> the imperative of verb 'dire' is *di'*, with apostrophe, not accent


 
I'm not sure about this... But unfortunately I haven't a grammar book here beside me. 
The apostrophe is used when a letter (or more than one) falls... in your opinion, which letter has fallen? To me, it is WITH the accent.


----------



## Necsus

kdl77 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about this... But unfortunately I haven't a grammar book here beside me.
> The apostrophe is used when a letter (or more than one) falls... in your opinion, which letter has fallen? To me, it is WITH the accent.


You don't need a grammar book, I think you can check it on any dictionary. 
And I'm sorry, kdl77, but I think a clarification is needed: the apostrophe is mainly used to indicate an 'elision', that is to say when only ONE letter, the final VOWEL unaccented of a word has fallen. It can also mark the fall of more than one letter, but in this case it indicates an 'apocope (troncamento) sillabica', like in _po'_ (poco), _be'_ (bene), _mo'_ (modo). Speaking of _di'_ (from latin _dic_), the apostrophe indicates an 'apocope postvocalica', like in da' (dare), and someone says also in fa' (fare), sta' (stare), va' (andare). The form with the apostrophe is nowaday the prevalent way to write it, exactly to distinguish it from the word _dì_ (giorno), and from the preposition _di_, obviously.


----------



## kdl77

Your explanation is very clear and I thank you. 
But you can not say that " di' " is like " da' ". Actually, " da' " (with the apostrophe) is used instead of "dai", in an informal italian (da' una mano a tua mamma). Those are all examples of elision. Idem for " fa' ", " sta' " and " va' ": always colloquial ways to say: "fai", "stai" and "vai". 
In my opinion, " di' " (to me, "dì") is different.


----------



## Trina

Yes, I have just looked in my verb book (which I should have done in the first place ) and it is di' not dì. Thank you, Necsus


----------



## Necsus

You're welcome, Trina!

Kdl, as I said in my previous boring explanation _"elision is when only ONE letter, the final VOWEL unaccented of a word has fallen",_ I should have added "before the initial vowel of the following word", so you could realize that yours are not "all examples of elision", or maybe you don't say "da' qua; da' pure; da' quello che vuoi; etc"? But I think you can easily check the difference between elisione and apocope on a grammar book. I'm sorry, but to write in English requires me a lot of time, and I'm supposed to work now... 
By the way, in my opinion _da'_ is not at all a colloquial or informal expression, it is a (not the only) way to write (and pronounce, obviously) the imperative (second person) of verb 'dare'.


----------



## uinni

Necsus said:


> Kdl, as I said in my previous boring explanation _"elision is when only ONE letter, the final VOWEL unaccented of a word has fallen",_ I should have added "before the initial vowel of the following word", so you could realize that yours are not "all examples of elision", or maybe you don't say "da' qua; da' pure; da' quello che vuoi; etc"? But I think you can easily check the difference between elisione and apocope on a grammar book. I'm sorry, but to write in English require me a lot of time, and I'm supposed to work now...
> By the way, in my opinion _da'_ is not at all a colloquial or informal expression, it is a (not the only) way to write (and pronounce, obviously) the imperative (second person) of verb 'dare'.


Your argument is clear (and true).
Nevertheless, dì and dà are accepted (of course to my dismay  ) as verbal voices (of the imperative conjugation)

Uinni


----------



## Nicholas the Italian

uinni said:


> Nevertheless, dì and dà are accepted (of course to my dismay  ) as verbal voices (of the imperative conjugation)


Brrrr... no! NO! Non e' vero! 
(Di' imperativo non sta per Dici?)


----------



## arirossa

kdl77 said:


> Your explanation is very clear and I thank you.
> But you can not say that " di' " is like " da' ". Actually, " da' " (with the apostrophe) is used instead of "dai", in an informal italian (da' una mano a tua mamma). Those are all examples of elision. Idem for " fa' ", " sta' " and " va' ": always colloquial ways to say: "fai", "stai" and "vai".
> In my opinion, " di' " (to me, "dì") is different.



_Fa'_, _sta'_, e _va'_ non mi pare affatto siano forme colloquiali della seconda persona singolare dell'imperativo, ma altrettanto "legittime" e formali (solo, molto più usate, è questo che le fa sembrare colloquiali, forse) di _fai, stai, vai_... L'unica differenza con _di'_ è che quest'ultimo non ha due forme diverse ma un'unica forma...


----------



## Alxmrphi

This Italian is beyond me, what is going on about the imperative form of dire?


----------



## arirossa

Alex_Murphy said:


> This Italian is beyond me, what is going on about the imperative form of dire?


It is _di'_ 
And if you are talking to two or more people, _dite_ 
Sorry for using Italian, but I couldn't explain myself well enough in English, you see...


----------



## Alxmrphi

That's fine, but what was the disagrement about?


----------



## arirossa

About if the imperative is _di'_ with the apostrophe or dì with the accent, and if the imperative form _da', fa', sta'_ of the verbs _dare, fare, stare_ are colloquial or not. Necsus said they are not colloquial (and I agree).


----------



## vikgigio

uinni said:


> Your argument is clear (and true).
> Nevertheless, dì and dà are accepted (of course to my dismay  ) as verbal voices (of the imperative conjugation)
> 
> Uinni



Non mi sembra affatto che siano accettate.. dì (con accento) è un sostantivo (sinonimo di 'giorno') e dà è la terza pers sing del pres indicativo di _dare_. 
Come ha giustamente fatto notare Necsus in un precedente post, le forme apostrofate di cui si tratta in questo thread (di', va', da', fa', sta') sono tutti imperativi di seconda persona sing, forme alternative (ma non per questo più colloquiali; a Caserta per esempio usiamo _dai qua_ più spesso di _da' qua_) di: dici (forma antiquata ormai usata solo al sud), vai, dai, fai e stai.
In verità è accettata anche una terza serie (in cui però è assente l'imperat. di dire): va, da, fa, sta (sono le forme originarie, su base latina, mentre quelle di prima sono le forme fiorentine ottocentesche), anche se meno diffusa.

Riepilogando:
*-* *di* (preposiz sempl) - *dì* (sostantivo) - *di'* (imperativo)
*-* *va* (3pers sing pres indic di _andare_/imperativo alternat) - *va' *(imperativo) [và non esiste]
- *da *(preposiz sempl/imperativo alternat) - *dà* (3pers sing pres indic di _dare_) - *da'* (imperativo)
*-* *fa* (3pers sing pres indic di _fare_/imperativo alternat) - *fa'* (imperativo) [fà non esiste]
*-* *sta* (3pers sing pres indic di _stare_/imperativo alternat) - *sta' *(imperativo) [stà non esiste]


----------



## uinni

vikgigio said:


> Non mi sembra affatto che siano accettate.. dì (con accento) è un sostantivo (sinonimo di 'giorno') e dà è la terza pers sing del pres indicativo di _dare_.


 
Non si capisce da dove "ti sembri". Purtroppo, viene considerato accettato quanto compare nelle grammatiche e nei vocabolari (o tempora, o mores!) ed i vocabolari, poi, in particolare, tendono vieppiù ad ammettere anche dì e dà come voci verbali dell'imperativo 
(Con me, che sono un reazionario conservatore linguistico sfonderesti una porta aperta).

Uinni


----------



## vikgigio

uinni said:


> Non si capisce da dove "ti sembri". Purtroppo, viene considerato accettato quanto compare nelle grammatiche e nei vocabolari (o tempora, o mores!).
> (Con me, che sono un reazionario conservatore linguistico sfonderesti una porta aperta).
> 
> Uinni



Non saprei che dire. Le forme che dici tu (*dì* e *dà* come imperativo) io non le ho mai viste scritte da nessuna parte, e il post di cui sopra l'ho scritto basansomi sul Serianni, che per me è come la Bibbia 
Controllando sul Garzantionline ho visto che porta anche *dì *come imperativo, ma a parte che - ripeto - non l'ho mai visto usare, mi sembra faccia un'inutile confusione con *dì *di 'giorno', e io personalmente non lo userei neanche sotto tortura. Io penso che le forme presenti nello schema che ho fornito quassù siano quelle più usate, ma magari potrei sbagliarmi.


----------



## uinni

vikgigio said:


> Io penso che le forme presenti nello schema che ho fornito quassù siano quelle più usate, ma magari potrei sbagliarmi.


E' qui che purtroppo ti sbagli. Io le vedo usate sempre più spesso a scapito di quelle corrette e più logiche (e mi si bacchetta anche, perché son riportate nero su bianco dai novelli vocabolari) -e quindi "tocca" farle presenti ai learners, ché sennò ci sgridano di "lasciarli nel medioevo"...
(Ça va sans dire che nemmeno io mi piegherò mai ad adottarle).

Uinni


----------



## Necsus

uinni said:
			
		

> Your argument is clear (and true).
> Nevertheless, dì and dà are accepted (of course to my dismay  ) as verbal voices (of the imperative conjugation)


I'll try to write in English for Alex's (and the other interested English speakers) sake…
Uinni, I know that the spellings _dì_ and _dà _are also admitted, in my opinion because it is the simplest way to differentiate them from homophonic prepositions (_di_ and _da_), but so you confuse them with the other monosyllables (_giorno_ and third person of present indicative of _dare_): I frankly think that's a little pointless to arguing for this thesis.
Serianni, justly mentioned by vikgigio, says that in the twentieth century together with the traditional form (without apostrophe) of the irregular verb of first conjugation (_dare_, _fare_, _stare_, _andare_), were also used apostrophized forms (_da'_, _fa'_, _sta'_ e _va'_), and complete forms (_dai_, _vai_, _stai_, _vai_), and only the apostrophized form (_di'_) is used for the verb _dire_ (not _di_, or _dici_). He does not mention the accented form, but for instance Migliorini in his excellent DOP, admit it for the verb _dire_ (_dì_).

And here something from the site of Accademia della Crusca:
L'accento si indica solo nei casi in cui occorra disambiguare il monosillabo per l'esistenza di un omografo: […]
_dà_: presente indicativo di 'dare'; _da_ è preposizione. L'imperativo richiederebbe _da' _('dai'), ma questa forma e gli analoghi imperativi _fa' _('fai'), _sta' _('stai') e _va' _('vai') non sono universalmente accolti sia dall'uso reale sia dai grammatici, pertanto si può scrivere semplicemente _da, fa, sta, va _(forme tradizionali affiancate da quelle apostrofate nel fiorentino ottocentesco);
_di' _o _dì _imperativo di 'dire'; _dì_ 'giorno', ma per altri (cfr. SERIANNI 1989: I 242) solo _di' _vale per l'imperativo di 'dire' (dal latino DIC) distinto in tal modo dalla preposizione _di _e dal sostantivo _dì_

And then, just for curiosity, I've found these directions for typographers (often more important than writers): [...]
6. *Apostrofo, elisione*
a) L'apostrofo, che indica l'elisione di una lettera o di una sillaba, si deve usare con:
*da' *(quando è l'imperativo del verbo dare; la III persona singolare dell'indicativo presente si scrive "dà" per non confonderlo con la preposizione semplice "da")
*di' *(quando è l'imperativo del verbo dire)
*fa' *(quando è l'imperativo del verbo fare)
*to' *(quando è l'imperativo del verbo tenere)
*va' *(quando è l'imperativo del verbo andare) [...]


----------



## confusion

vikgigio said:


> Riepilogando:
> *-* *di* (preposiz sempl) - *dì* (sostantivo) - *di'* (imperativo)


 
Non so quale sia il grado di autorevolezza della fonte...comunque Garzantilinguistica.it dice che l'imperativo di DIRE è "*dì o di'*".


----------

