# ci vuole, ci vogliono, ci si mette



## curon

Ci vuole solo tre ore per leggere questo libro
o
Ci vogliono solo tre ore per leggere questo libro
?
Il secondo è giusto, vero? Voglio solo esserne sicuro. Grazie


----------



## shamblesuk

_Ci vuole un'ora (singolare)_
_Ci vogliono due, tre ore ecc (plurale)_

Questa ho imparato solo ieri sera!


----------



## TimeHP

E se può aiutare, c'è una canzone di Luca Carboni che dice:
_Ci vuole un fisico bestiale_
_anche per bere e per fumare..._ 
Ciao


----------



## curon

Quello mi piace molto 
Grazie ragazzi!


----------



## Evito

Oggi all'università abbiamo parlato dell'idioma volerci, che si usa di più nella terza persona, come "ci vuole coraggio" o "ci volevano otto parole per scrivere questa frase".

Va bene, l'ho capito perfettamente, ma poi ho chiesto all'insegnante se è anche possible usare volerci nella prima persona, come: "ci voglio io per fare il sugo" (per dire "C'è bisogno di me per fare il sugo perché solo io so farlo")

Dopo un'esitazione, mi ha detto che è possible usare volerci anche nella prima o forse seconda persona ma che solo la terza viene usata molto ed "ci voglio io" le sembrava un po' strano.

Però, lei è olandese e dunque penso che gli italiani sappiano meglio se quello che dice è infatti vero (anche per la lingua parlata di oggigiorno). Comunque, la mia domanda è: è vero che si possa dire "ci voglio io", ma che non viene usato molto?


----------



## claudine2006

Evito said:


> Oggi all'Università abbiamo parlato dell'_idiom_ volerci, che si usa di più nella terza persona, come "ci vuole coraggio" o "ci volevano otto parole per scrivere questa frase".
> 
> Va bene, l'ho capito perfettamente, ma poi ho chiesto all'insegnante se è anche possible usare volerci nella prima persona, come: "ci voglio io per fare il sugo" (per dire "C'è bisogno di me per fare il sugo perché solo io so farlo")
> 
> Dopo un'esitazione, mi ha detto che è possible usare volerci anche nella prima o forse seconda persona ma che solo la terza viene usata molto ed "ci voglio io" le sembrava un po' strano.
> 
> Però, lei è olandese e dunque penso che gli italiani sappiano meglio se quello che dice è infatti vero (anche per la lingua parlata di oggigiorno). Comunque, la mia domanda è: è vero che si possa dire "ci voglio io", ma che non viene usato molto?


La tua professoressa ha ragione.
"Ci vuole" è molto usato perché è un altro modo di dire "c'è bisogno".
"Ci voglio io" si può dire, ma suona strano; si usa soprattutto all'imperfetto (nel linguaggio informale) "ci volevo io", nel senso "senza di me non sarebbe stato possibile".


----------



## Evito

Ah! Benissimo, grazie!


----------



## swinginscot

Sono un po' confusa:

Non capisco che cos'e' significa "vogliono" in questo caso:

Quante ore di treno ci vogliono da Roma a Pisa?
How many hours by train does it take from Rome to Pisa?

Is there some colloquial usage of volere that I'm missing? Why isn't prendere used instead?

I seem to remember something along these lines using the impersonal si but I can't remember.  Any help would be appreciated.

Grazie mille


----------



## kdl77

It is a colloquial use of "volerci" (impersonal form of "volere"), yes. In spoken Italian we use it very often:
Ci vuole molta pazienza 
Ci vogliono quattro anni per laurearsi
...
In these sentences, it means "it is needed", or, like in your example, "it takes"


----------



## swinginscot

kdl77 said:


> It is a colloquial use of "volerci" (impersonal form of "volere"), yes. In spoken Italian we use it very often:
> Ci vuole molta pazienza
> Ci vogliono quattro anni per laurearsi
> ...
> In these sentences, it means "it is needed", or, like in your example, "it takes"


 

Grazie per l'aiuto.  Can you also use metterci in these instances?  I've noticed them being translated as the same time (to take ...) but they seem so different.  On another post they mentioned that volerci usually refers to an amount of time something takes and that metterci refers to the person performing the action, does that seem right?  Are they interchangeable in any circumstances?  Hmmm, let me give it a try, how about these sentences?

Ci vuole un'ora finire i miei compiti
Ci vogliono 2 da Firenze a Roma

(am I right in thinking that metterci can't be used in the above sentences?)

Ci mette pazienza
Ci mette un persona forte
Ci mettono tante persone lavorando insieme

(I have a feeling that volerci may be interchangeable in at least some of the last 3 sentences - ci vuole pazienza sounds right somehow, but what do I know hehe).

Grazie mille di nuovo


----------



## kdl77

swinginscot said:


> Grazie per l'aiuto. Can you also use metterci in these instances? I've noticed them being translated as the same time (to take ...) but they seem so different. On another post they mentioned that volerci usually refers to an amount of time something takes and that metterci refers to the person performing the action, does that seem right? Are they interchangeable in any circumstances? Hmmm, let me give it a try, how about these sentences?
> 
> Ci vuole un'ora finire i miei compiti
> Ci vogliono 2 da Firenze a Roma
> 
> (am I right in thinking that metterci can't be used in the above sentences?)
> 
> Ci mette pazienza
> Ci mette un persona forte
> Ci mettono tante persone lavorando insieme
> 
> (I have a feeling that volerci may be interchangeable in at least some of the last 3 sentences - ci vuole pazienza sounds right somehow, but what do I know hehe).
> 
> Grazie mille di nuovo


 
You are right, but the problem in these examples is not the subject, but the verb.
Note this: 
Ci si mette un'ora a finire i miei compiti 
Ci si mettono due ore da Firenze a Roma 
Once again, an impersonal form: "metterci" (and it is a difficult verb in Italian, because you need two pronouns "ci" and "si"... but the meaning of "ci si mette" is the same as "ci vuole", "it takes").
And, as "volerci", it is often used in spoken Italian, but not very elegant! 

BUT:
Luca ci mette tanto a fare i compiti  (a person)
Il treno ci mette due ore ad arrivare a Roma  (a thing)

It is a hard problem, indeed! And my English is not good enought...  Sorry!


----------



## virgilio

Swinginscot,
I think the problem with "volere" in "ci vuole" and "ci vogliono" springs from what we mean not by "volere" but by the word we mentally associate with it - "want".
If we take the word "want" back to its roots, we find that it originally meant "to be in need" or simply "to need" rather than the more modern, self-assertive meaning of "to mean to have"
If we therefore go into reverse a little and think of "volere" and "want" as meaning "to need", the problem - I suggest - disappears:
e.g.
Per arrivare da qui a Roma ci vogliono due ore
(For) to get from here to Rome two hours are wanting = are needed).
I agree that the English does then begin to sound a bit 'Jane Austen' but non the worse for that, surely.
Hope this helps
Virgilio


----------



## MiSiena

Voglio sottolineare che nella lingua parlata vi capiterà di sentire "Ci vuole 3 ore per leggerlo" anche se è una forma scorretta, non-standard, un po' come può essere in inglese "we're not going nowhere" o " I ain't".


----------



## lsp

virgilio said:


> È che mi sbaglio o sarebbe possibile in questo senso anche "Ci mettono un'eternità per sparire"?
> 
> Cosa se ne pensa?
> Virgilio



I wonder if my assumption is correct... I always thought ci vuole is what it takes to accomplish x, for x to happen conceptually; ci mette is what is actually put in to accomplish x or make it happen.

_Moderator note: thread split from discussion here._


----------



## virgilio

lsp, 
Your question is really for the natives, of course, but _I_ think of the things like this: The verb "volere" in the phrase "volerci" is *intransitive*, just as the verb "to want" or "to be wanting" is in old-fashioned English
e.g.
Per arrivare da qui a Torino ci vogliono due ore
(literally) For to get from here to Torino two hours are wanting (for it)
(modern English) It takes two hours to get from here to Torino

whereas the verb "mettere" in the phrase "metterci" - in the above sense - is *transitive*.
e.g.
Luigi guida nervosamente e ci mette un'ora ad arrivare al lavoro.
(literally)Luigi drives nervously and he puts an hour into it (ci) - namely (into) getting to work.
(modern English) Luigi is a nervous driver and he takes an hour to get to work
Luigi.

In other words, what follows the verb "volere" when "volerci" is used is (almost) always its 'subject' (nominative), whereas what follows the verb "mettere" in the phrase "metterci" - as used above - will be its object (accusative)

Natives, please correct, if I'm wrong.
Virgilio


----------



## lsp

Virgilio, I appreciate your taking the time, and I agree with you about the way the words are constructed differently. 

Unfortunately it doesn't exactly answer the question I still have about a difference in usage of these two expressions.


----------



## acerglenn

lsp said:


> I wonder if my assumption is correct... I always thought ci vuole is what it takes to accomplish x, for x to happen conceptually; ci mette is what is actually put in to accomplish x or make it happen.


 
In the grammar books I've read, apparently volerci is used when you're just talking about 'it' in general -- *it* takes x mins/hours/days/etc to do something: ci vuole un'ora per arrivare a Napoli da qui

Metterci is used when you're talking about how long it takes for a specific person to achieve something -- it takes me an hour to get to the office: Ci metto un'ora per arrivate al'ufficio.

And in fact, you'll note with Virgilio's example, ci mette is referring to Luigi.

Virgilio - an alternative way to think about it - secondo al mio dizionario, volerci significa approsimamente 'is needed': ci vogliono due ore per farlo: Two hours are needed (in order) to do it.

Anyway, I'll wait for the natives


----------



## lsp

Thank you. But I am not in doubt about the construction, conjugation or objects of these verbs. I guess I didn't express my question well. Is this any clearer?

Ci metto un'ora per arrivare in ufficio. (I do this, that's the time I truly put into getting to the office. *Actual fact*).
Ci vuole un'ora per arrivare in ufficio. (It takes an hour to get to the office. *Theoretical*).

Or is the only difference that of construction, conjugation or objects of these verbs?


----------



## raffaella

acerglenn said:


> In the grammar books I've read, apparently volerci is used when you're just talking about 'it' in general -- *it* takes x mins/hours/days/etc to do something: ci vuole un'ora per arrivare a Napoli da qui
> 
> Metterci is used when you're talking about how long it takes for a specific person to achieve something -- it takes me an hour to get to the office: Ci metto un'ora per arrivate al'ufficio.
> 
> And in fact, you'll note with Virgilio's example, ci mette is referring to Luigi.
> 
> Virgilio - an alternative way to think about it - secondo al mio dizionario, volerci significa approsimamente 'is needed': ci vogliono due ore per farlo: Two hours are needed (in order) to do it.
> 
> Anyway, I'll wait for the natives


 
Hi lsp,

I have no grammar book to back my feelings, but acerglenn's explanation was right on spot. I would never use "ci vuole" when a specific subject is mentioned, it's an impersonal construction - same as "It takes 2 hours to do something" - but I don't consider this statement "theoretical" because volere is a very strong verb, no doubt about how long it takes to do it.

With "metterci" you express how long it takes *for sombody* to do something, it can be more or less than average.

For instance: "Ci vogliono 2 ore per andare in montagna, ma Paolo va così piano che ce ne mette 4."

Hope this helps,

Raffaella


----------



## virgilio

acerglenn,
             You wrote:"Virgilio - an alternative way to think about it - secondo al mio dizionario, volerci significa approsimamente 'is needed': ci vogliono due ore per farlo: Two hours are needed (in order) to do it."

But that's what I said! I must be losing it!
All the best
Virgilio

lsp,
    Re your:" Ci metto un'ora per arrivare in ufficio. (I do this, that's the time I truly put into getting to the office. *Actual fact*).
Ci vuole un'ora per arrivare in ufficio. (It takes an hour to get to the office. *Theoretical*).

I think I see what you're driving at but the "actual fact/theoretical" approach could easily lead to confusion. After all, why should "It takes an hour to get to the office" be thought 'theoretical'. The fellow might have done the trip for real several times to find out.

" Or is the only difference that of construction, conjugation or objects of these verbs?"
Well, let's be a little more specific. It all boils down to the fact that:
(1) *in the phrases concerned* - "volere" is - for once - _intransitive_ and so has no object (like an old-fashioned use of the English verb "to want" or "to be wanting"
(2) *in the phrases concerned  *"mettere" is its normal _transitive_ self and the infinitive (preceded by "a" or also, it now seems, "per") explains more fully what is meant by "ci".
e,g,
(1) Per arrivare da qui a Torino ci vogliono due ore
(literally) For to get from here to Torino two hours are wanting (for it)
(modern English) It takes two hours to get from here to Torino

(2) Luigi guida nervosamente e ci mette un'ora ad arrivare al lavoro.
(literally)Luigi drives nervously and he puts an hour into it (ci) - namely (into) getting to work.
(modern English) Luigi is a nervous driver and he takes an hour to get to work
Luigi.

Good luck
Virgilio


----------



## Paulfromitaly

virgilio said:


> lsp,
> Re your:" Ci metto un'ora per arrivare in ufficio. (I do this, that's the time I truly put into getting to the office. *Actual fact*).
> Ci vuole un'ora per arrivare in ufficio. (It takes an hour to get to the office. *Theoretical*).
> 
> I think I see what you're driving at but the "actual fact/theoretical" approach could easily lead to confusion. After all, why should "It takes an hour to get to the office" be thought 'theoretical'. The fellow might have done the trip for real several times to find out.
> 
> " Or is the only difference that of construction, conjugation or objects of these verbs?"
> Well, let's be a little more specific. It all boils down to the fact that:
> (1) *in the phrases concerned* - "volere" is - for once - _intransitive_ and so has no object (like an old-fashioned use of the English verb "to want" or "to be wanting"
> (2) *in the phrases concerned  *"mettere" is its normal _transitive_ self and the infinitive (preceded by "a" or also, it now seems, "per") explains more fully what is meant by "ci".
> e,g,
> (1) Per arrivare da qui a Torino ci vogliono due ore
> (literally) For to get from here to Torino two hours are wanting (for it)
> (modern English) It takes two hours to get from here to Torino
> 
> (2) Luigi guida nervosamente e ci mette un'ora ad arrivare al lavoro.
> (literally)Luigi drives nervously and he puts an hour into it (ci) - namely (into) getting to work.
> (modern English) Luigi is a nervous driver and he takes an hour to get to work
> Luigi.
> 
> Good luck
> Virgilio



Flawless explanation.. let me add one more little thing, though: it's also possible to say something like:
"Mi ci vogliono due ore per arrivare in ufficio" which is a perfect synonym of "ci metto due ore ad arrivare in ufficio."


----------



## acerglenn

virgilio said:


> acerglenn,
> You wrote:"Virgilio - an alternative way to think about it - secondo al mio dizionario, volerci significa approsimamente 'is needed': ci vogliono due ore per farlo: Two hours are needed (in order) to do it."
> 
> But that's what I said! I must be losing it!
> Virgilio


 
Your previous post said 'to be wanting': two hours are wanting (for it). It just sounded a bit odd to me....two hours are needed (for it) sounds a bit more natural (to me), so i thought I'd just suggest it. Never mind though. Thanks as always for your informative posts!


----------



## niklavjus

lsp said:
			
		

> I wonder if my assumption is correct... I always thought ci vuole is what it takes to accomplish x, for x to happen conceptually; ci mette is what is actually put in to accomplish x or make it happen.


"Ci volere" and "ci mettere" in the common use are circa the same, only change the construct.
That you find in grammar books is not always equal to that you find in the streets.

You take a taxi, and ask the driver: "Quanto ci mettiamo?".
He respond to you: "Dieci minuti" or "Ci metteremo dieci minuti".
You take a taxi, and ask the driver: "Quanto ci vuole?".
He respond to you: "Dieci minuti" or "Ci vorranno dieci minuti".


P.S. Please, correct my English, and Italian too.


----------



## virgilio

niklavjus,
            May I translate your excellent examples into English:
You take a taxi, and ask the driver: "Quanto ci mettiamo?". -"How long will we take?"
He responds (replies) to you: "Dieci minuti" or "Ci metteremo dieci minuti".-"We''ll take ten minues"
You take a taxi, and ask the driver: "Quanto ci vuole?". _How long does it take?"
He responds (replies) to you: "Dieci minuti" or "Ci vorranno dieci minuti". "It will take ten minues"

Virgilio


----------



## niklavjus

virgilio said:
			
		

> niklavjus,
> May I translate your excellent examples into English:



Lusingato per l'"eccellente". Grazie.

I hope it is clear that I simply mean that if one ask someone else about the time nedeed to go, to make etc., nobody will re-ask him: "But you mean theoretically or actually?".



			
				virgilio said:
			
		

> You take a taxi, and ask the driver: "Quanto ci mettiamo?". -"How long will we take?"
> He responds (replies) to you: "Dieci minuti" or "Ci metteremo dieci minuti".-"We''ll take ten minues"
> You take a taxi, and ask the driver: "Quanto ci vuole?". _How long does it take?"
> He responds (replies) to you: "Dieci minuti" or "Ci vorranno dieci minuti". "It will take ten minues"



Very well, only I've a little doubt on the literal translation of the phrase "Ci vorranno dieci minuti". Here, as Raffaella said, the construct is somewhat impersonal and in this case:

"Ci vorranno dieci minuti" wouldn't be "Ten minutes will be needed"?

May be "It will take ten minutes" it is the same or, worse, my translation is wrong?

Since we are on about, I wish to say, to those that don't know it, that except when used in reflexive mode, "ci+volere" is a sort of compound form equivalent to "abbisognare" (to need), and it is widely used in any situation, and for anything. For example:

"Per aprire la porta *ci vuole* la chiave" - "To open the door the key *is needful*"
"Per la minestra *ci vogliono* patate e carote" - "For the soup *are needed* potatoes and carrots"
"*Ci vuole* qualcun altro" - "Someone else *is needed*"
"Quanto tempo *ci vuole*?" - "How many time *is needed*?"
"*Ci vogliono* molti soldi" - "Much money *are needed*" and so on.

Also used in fixed phrases as: "Ci voleva!", "Questa non ci voleva", "Quando ci vuole, ci vuole.". But I don't know how translate these.

P.S. Please, correct my English, and Italian too.


----------



## virgilio

Niklavjus,
            The reason why I used "It will take ten minutes" for
"Ci vorranno dieci minuti" instead of "Ten minutes will be needed" (which is also good ) is that you put the words into the mouth of a taxi driver. I don't know about Italian taxi drivers but I can't imagine an English taxi driver saying "Ten minutes will be needed".
In a style of English which now sounds old-fashioned - and has possibly never even been heard by some of today's younger folk - the verb "to want" or its continuous form "to be wanting" are used in precisely the same way as the Italian "volerci" (occasionally also as "mancare").

For example in the English of the 19th century one might have heard:
A: What o'clock is it?
B: It wants ten minutes of four o'clock.      (03.50 or 15.50)

C: An unsuccessful examination student of the same period might have said:
"I have been put to the test and found (to be) wanting." (mancante)

Therefore "Per farlo ci vorranno due ore"
(literally)   For to do it two hours will be wanting (=will be needful)
               It will take two hours to do it

By the way, in some parts of England (e.g. in the north-east and parts of the north west) "for to do so" (per farlo) is still heard amongst the older folk.

Nowadays, the verb "to want" in this sense is no longer fashionable - although I'm sure it will return -"what goes around, comes around" - and has been replaced by the impersonal form of "to take".
Therefore it seems to me that we can very simply identify the distinction between "volerci" and "metterci" (in the connotations relevant to this thread) as the difference between the intransitive verb "volere" and the  transitive verb "mettere".

As you rightly imply any mental associations of what is "real" or "theoretical" about the distinction certainly seem to be purely subjective.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## niklavjus

virgilio said:
			
		

> The reason why I used "It will take ten minutes" for...


Sure. I'd have understood it before. You have simply transposed your previous example (#2).

"Ten minutes will be needed (to do *it*)" = "*It* will take ten minutes".

Thank you very much.


----------



## rcsmit

And what about the _Ci vuole_ in Più bella cosa ?


ci vuole passione con te
ci vuole pensiero perciò
ci vuole mestiere perché ????

In a certain translation on allthelyrics dot com it is translated by "There is", what do you think about this?


----------



## neuromatico

Hi and welcome to the forum!

I'm not sure I understand your question. 
In your 3 examples, "It takes..." would fit. 
The last statement uses the figurative meaning of _mestiere._

It takes experience/expertise because...


----------



## Angel.Aura

neuromatico said:


> Hi and welcome to the forum!
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question.
> In your 3 examples, "It takes..." would fit.
> The last statement uses the figurative meaning of _mestiere._
> 
> It takes experience/expertise because...


I agree with neuromatico.


----------



## rcsmit

Thank you for the answers. Maybe it wasn't clear that the song was from ramazotti or I thought you knew all the text by heart  But in none of the translations it is translated as "It takes", that's why I asked the question. The couplets with Ci vuole are:

xxx
  Ci vuole passione con te e un briciolo di pazzia
  Ci vuole pensiero perciò lavoro di fantasia
  xxx
  Ci vuole passione con te non deve mancare mai
  Ci vuole mestiere perchè lavoro di cuore lo sai


----------



## niklavjus

rcsmit said:


> And what about the _Ci vuole_ in Più bella cosa ?
> ...
> In a certain translation on allthelyrics dot com it is translated by "There is", what do you think about this?


I agree with neuromatico and Angel.Aura: I think that translate "Ci vuole" with  "There is" it is uncorrect.

My English is not so good, but "Ci vuole passione con te" mean something like "One must have passion to deal with you".


----------



## neuromatico

That's because you can't translate songs literally; they just don't sound right. 
Anyhow, I've tried to do so and still keep the theme of this thread, (even though I'm breaking the 3 lines only rule ).

With you it takes passion, and a touch of madness
It takes thought, a flight of fancy
With you it takes passion, must never be lacking
It takes skill 'cause you know it's a labor of love


----------

