# Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare



## piccola_stella

Ciao a tutti.
 Sto traducendo delle frasi con particolari problemi grammaticali per l'esame di inglese III a settembre. In questa frase ho dei dubbi se mettere "something eat" o "something to eat"
 Frase da tradurre: Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita.

 Il contesto è l'esame universitario di inglese. Si tratta di 10 frasi con regole grammaticali particolari da tradurre.

 Ho pensato di tradurre così (ma penso sia sbagliato): We have arrived early in order to have something to eat before the match.

 Grazie per il vostro aiuto!


----------



## Isapaola

Credo che gli americani usino poco il present perfect, ma per un esame universitario bisogna essere più precisi. Se questa frase la intendi mentre sei ancora lì e devi ancora mangiare il present perfect è d'obbligo, se invece racconti qualcosa che è avvenuta già, cioè hai mangiato e tutto è già finito, allora il past simple va bene. Something eat è assolutamente impensabile: qualcosa da mangiare lo puoi tradurre some food o something to eat. Ti direi di aspettare i nativi se chi corregge è lingua madre, se è italiano attieniti a quello che ti ho detto. Mi sembrano un po' facili come frasi per un esame universitario, però!


----------



## piccola_stella

grazie...purtroppo mettono solo le frasi senza contesto, quindi non so se hanno già mangiato o meno. Io ho pensato che la dicessero mentre erano alla partita, per quello ho usato il present perfect. Questa è una frase, ma ce ne sono alcune più difficili! CmM grazie


----------



## MR1492

Isapaola said:


> Credo che gli americani usino poco il present perfect, ma per un esame universitario bisogna essere più precisi.



You are quite correct and I may have suggested a change based on my imperfect understanding of the initial Italian sentence.


----------



## Isapaola

It's me to be too fussy! But I am so used to Italians teachers who are so boring about these differences!  Your English is by far better than mine, but I" know" how to tackle Italian Teachers of English!
@piccola stella: manda altre cose se vuoi, io mi diverto!


----------



## CPA

"Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita."

Be', scusate, ma io direi: _Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter mangiare qualcosa prima della partita. _A meno che non volevate passare alla mensa dei poveri prima che chiudesse. Ma cos'è, una traduzione letterale dall'inglese?


----------



## Odysseus54

"We got there early so we could get / (in order) to get something to eat before the game"


----------



## Swisser

We arrived early in order because we wanted to eat something before the start of the match?
( un po' diversa, ma forse potrebbe essere una soluzione)


----------



## Necsus

CPA said:


> "Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita."
> 
> Be', scusate, ma io direi: _Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter mangiare qualcosa prima della partita. _A meno che non volevate passare alla mensa dei poveri prima che chiudesse. Ma cos'è, una traduzione letterale dall'inglese?


----------



## piccola_stella

Isapaola certo appena avrò problemi con altre frasi le invierò!
Grazie a tutti per le varie traduzioni, adesso me le ricopio, così me le ricordo.
CPA E' una lettrice che crea le prove d'esame e non è italiana.


----------



## CPA

piccola_stella said:


> CPA E' una lettrice che crea le prove d'esame e non è italiana.



Poveri voi...


----------



## MR1492

piccola_stella said:


> CPA E' una lettrice che crea le prove d'esame e non è italiana.



I'm going to ask something really stupid here but I have to know.  Is the reader (la lettrice) a person or a thing?  That is does some person write these sentences for you to translate or are they machine generated?  The WR dictionary (http://www.wordreference.com/iten/lettrice) lists the word as meaning either one.  Which is more common in Italian?

Phil


----------



## GavinW

Hi Phil, the context tells us it's a person (specifically, the native-speaker language tutor at the school or university). We are also told "non è italiana", which confirms the fact it's a person (although we already knew that).
;-)


----------



## fredericks

MR1492 said:


> I'm going to ask something really stupid here but I have to know. Is the reader (la lettrice) a person or a thing? That is does some person write these sentences for you to translate or are they machine generated? The WR dictionary (http://www.wordreference.com/iten/lettrice) lists the word as meaning either one. Which is more common in Italian?
> 
> Phil



Anyway I think *Lettrice* is never a thing. *Lettore* can be a thing (lettore mp3, lettore digitale)



CPA said:


> Be', scusate, ma io direi: _Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter mangiare qualcosa prima della partita. _



Se è per questo si può omettere tranquillamente anche "per poter": Siamo arrivati in anticipo per mangiare qualcosa prima della partita.

Ma forse la frase è scritta in quel modo per testare alcune costruzioni particolari....


----------



## chipulukusu

fredericks said:


> Anyway I think *Lettrice* is never a thing. *Lettore* can be a thing (lettore mp3, lettore digitale)



Ciao fredericks, non per fare il pedante, ma io ho fatto appena in tempo a vedere gli ultimi elaboratori a schede perforate e la macchina che leggeva queste schede era chiamata _lettrice_.

Credo che il maschile abbia prevalso ormai da tantissimo tempo, ma probabilmente i vocabolari attestano ancora l'uso al femminile.


----------



## piccola_stella

It's a person


----------



## MR1492

piccola_stella said:


> It's a person



I didn't know.  So I asked.    I was pretty sure it was a person but I had a nagging doubt in my mind.  

Thanks.

Phil


----------



## fredericks

chipulukusu said:


> Ciao fredericks, non per fare il pedante, ma io ho fatto appena in tempo a vedere gli ultimi elaboratori a schede perforate e la macchina che leggeva queste schede era chiamata _lettrice_.
> 
> Credo che il maschile abbia prevalso ormai da tantissimo tempo, ma probabilmente i vocabolari attestano ancora l'uso al femminile.



Si ok  andavo a naso, non sapevo che le schede perforate venissero elaborate da macchine *lettrici*. Buono a sapersi . 
Non si tratta di essere pedanti, se hai ragione hai ragione. A chi non è italiano deve arrivare il messaggio corretto.


----------



## chipulukusu

No no, fredericks, sei _tu_ ad avere ragione perché_ adesso _si usa solo il maschile...

È una prova di quello che ho detto oggi in un altro post: i dizionari registrano _tutti _gli usi delle parole, anche quelli cessati da tempo e quelli che erano di moda nel momento della pubblicazione per poi sparire in breve tempo. Solo il confronto con i madrelingua può confermare o meno l'utilizzo _attuale_ di un determinato vocabolo o modo di dire.

Quindi in ogni caso è doveroso dire che le macchine che leggono e riproducono qualcosa al giorno d'oggi si chiamano esclusivamente _lettori_.


----------



## curiosone

Swisser said:


> We arrived early in order because we wanted to eat something before the start of the match?
> ( un po' diversa, ma forse potrebbe essere una soluzione)



Swisser almost got it right, but I want to be sure Piccola Stella doesn't copy this.  Apart from the fact that an American (and likely a Brit) would probably put a "get" somewhere in this sentence - if only because "going to a game" is an informal context - there are a few choices in how to say it, but you can't say "in order because" - only one or the other.  So here are a few alternatives:
"We arrived early in order to get something to eat before the start of the match."
"We arrived early so we could get something to eat before the game."
"We got there early so we could get something to eat before the game started."
"We got there early because we wanted to eat something before the game."

Personally I prefer to avoid using two "gets" in the same sentence.


----------



## GavinW

Curiosone's suggestions are also fine in BrE


----------



## CPA

curiosone said:


> Personally I prefer to avoid using two "gets" in the same sentence.



Personally I would avoid using "get" at all in a written exam, depending of course on how "serio" the exam is.

I still remember an exercise we had to do at school, many moons ago, in which we were given a longish paragraph studded with "get" and "nice" that we were required to substitute with suitable alternative verbs/synonyms. "Get" and "nice" were considered lazy.


----------



## Odysseus54

On the other hand, resurrecting the long lost art of alliteration is not devoid of all merit.


----------



## CPA

Absolutely. Full marks to Gavin.


----------



## curiosone

CPA said:


> Personally I would avoid using "get" at all in a written exam, depending of course on how "serio" the exam is.
> 
> I still remember an exercise we had to do at school, many moons ago, in which we were given a longish paragraph studded with "get" and "nice" that we were required to substitute with suitable alternative verbs/synonyms. "Get" and "nice" were considered lazy.


 
The main reason to add at least one "get" is the context.  Nobody going to a game at the stadium is likely to use formal language.  The second one is that knowing how to use "get" properly (and understanding its different meanings in different contexts) is an important step to really learning to speak English.  This is a language exam we're talking about - not a creative writing course.


----------



## piccola_stella

Yes, it is a written exam and the lettore tell us that the more important thing is that the grammar is correct. I also prefer have instead of get. Curiosone I haven't copied the Swisser version because "in order because" sounds me strange.


----------



## curiosone

piccola_stella said:


> Yes, it is a written exam and the lettore tell us that the more important thing is that the grammar is correct. I also prefer have instead of get. Curiosone I haven't copied the Swisser version because "in order because" sounds me strange.



Maybe I wasn't totally clear.  "In order because" is incorrect.  You can say either:
"We arrived early in order to have/get something to eat" or
"We arrived early because we wanted to get/have something to eat."

If you want to include the sense of "potere" indicated in the original sentence, you might also say:
"We arrived early so we'd be able to have/get something to eat."


----------



## piccola_stella

curiosone said:


> Maybe I wasn't totally clear.  "In order because" is incorrect.  You can say either:
> "We arrived early in order to have/get something to eat" or
> "We arrived early because we wanted to get/have something to eat."
> 
> If you want to include the sense of "potere" indicated in the original sentence, you might also say:
> "We arrived early so we'd be able to have/get something to eat."


Thank you!


----------



## CPA

curiosone said:


> The main reason to add at least one "get" is the context.  Nobody going to a game at the stadium is likely to use formal language.  The second one is that knowing how to use "get" properly (and understanding its different meanings in different contexts) is an important step to really learning to speak English.  This is a language exam we're talking about - not a creative writing course.



Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. This is a spoken English language exam.


----------



## Odysseus54

piccola_stella said:


> I also prefer have instead of get.




"Have something to eat" and "get something to eat" don't mean exactly the same.


Two examples :

" Let's sit down and have something to eat before the game starts "

" Let's go to the concession and get something to eat before the game starts "

Or :

"Do you have something to eat"   "No, I must go get it before the game starts".

'Have' and 'get' are not always interchangeable.

What does '.. per avere qualcosa da mangiare ' mean, it Italian ?  "To eat something" or "to procure food" ?


----------



## Matrap

Sono d'accordo con Odysseus ma la stessa differenza è presente anche in italiano. Riprendo i tuoi esempi:

" Let's sit down and have something to eat before the game starts "
"Sediamoci e mangiamoci qualcosa prima dell'inizio della partita/prima che inizi la partita"

" Let's go to the concession and get something to eat before the game starts "
"Andiamo allo stand/bancarella/chiosco a prendere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita".


----------



## AnnePk

Matrap said:


> Sono d'accordo con Odysseus ma la stessa differenza è presente anche in italiano. Riprendo i tuoi esempi:
> 
> " Let's sit down and have something to eat before the game starts "
> "Sediamoci e mangiamoci qualcosa prima dell'inizio della partita/prima che inizi la partita"
> 
> " Let's go to the concession and get something to eat before the game starts "
> "Andiamo allo stand/bancarella/chiosco a prendere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita".



I don't think I have ever heard someone saying "Let's go to the concession"...


----------



## Odysseus54

Matrap said:


> Sono d'accordo con Odysseus ma la stessa differenza è presente anche in italiano. Riprendo i tuoi esempi:
> 
> " Let's sit down and have something to eat before the game starts "
> "Sediamoci e mangiamoci qualcosa prima dell'inizio della partita/prima che inizi la partita"
> 
> " Let's go to the concession and get something to eat before the game starts "
> "Andiamo allo stand/bancarella/chiosco a prendere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita".



Sicuro - la domanda allora e' : che cosa significa " .. per avere qualcosa da mangiare "  in italiano ? Ammesso che significhi qualcosa, che sia una frase in italiano, e non una traduzione letterale dall'inglese fatta da una persona che non parla bene l'italiano.


----------



## Odysseus54

AnnePk said:


> I don't think I have ever heard someone saying "Let's go to the concession"...




Yeah, you would probably hear 'concession stand' a lot more frequently.


----------



## chipulukusu

AnnePk said:


> I don't think I have ever heard someone saying "Let's go to the concession"...



Neither I did in the UK. But I used to hear it commonly from American soldiers deployed in Italy, meaning a food stand run in occasion of a particular event under a specific _concession, _if I have got the meaning right.

I think it is a strictly AmE thing.


----------



## Matrap

Odysseus54 said:


> Sicuro - la domanda allora e' : che cosa significa " .. per avere qualcosa da mangiare "  in italiano ? Ammesso che significhi qualcosa, che sia una frase in italiano, e non una traduzione letterale dall'inglese fatta da una persona che non parla bene l'italiano.



Certo che esiste. Ad esempio: "Siamo andati a comprare un paio di panini per avere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita." 
Io però credo che la domanda sia come renderla in inglese. Perché "have something to eat" come nei tuoi esempi non sta tanto per "possedere" qualcosa da mangiare ma è un utilizzo di  "have" come in "have/take a shower" (farsi la doccia) oppure "have some" prendi/assaggia". Quello che voglio dire è che una frase come: "I'll have something to eat" si traduce con "mangerò qualcosa" non con "avrò qualcosa da mangiare", o forse sì?


----------



## chipulukusu

hmmm, I think "I've got some sandwiches in order to have something to eat at the game" può essere capito da un madrelingua come "Ho preso dei panini per avere qualcosa da mangiare alla partita".

Ma mi sembra inutilmente verboso rispetto a un semplice "I've got some sandwiches to eat at the game".


----------



## AlabamaBoy

Definitely not. "I've got," which would mean "I already have" at least in my neck of the woods, makes the whole sentence incomprehensible. "I got" would be understood here.


----------



## bicontinental

I’m sure no other sentence has been analyzed with such attention to detail . But even if we reach a consensus as to what it really means in Italian and agree on an English translation that conveys the specific nuances, it seems we’re still at the mercy of _la lettrice _


  Regardless, I’d say something like this,


> Frase da tradurre: Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare prima della partita.


 _We arrived early in order to get something to eat before the game._
  Good luck,
  Bic.


----------



## chipulukusu

I'm a bit confused here AB... Is this maybe a BrE/AmE difference, here?

I understand "I've got some sandwiches.." as "I just went to the shop (maybe ten minutes ago) and bought a couple of sandwiches so that _now_ I have some food for the game"...

Maybe it's my Italian stepping in here...


----------



## bicontinental

chipulukusu said:


> I'm a bit confused here AB... Is this maybe a BrE/AmE difference, here?
> 
> I understand "I've got some sandwiches.." as "I just went to the shop (maybe ten minutes ago) and bought a couple of sandwiches so that _now_ I have some food for the game"...
> 
> Maybe it's my Italian stepping in here...



  Ciao ,

  This is another one of those AmE/BE differences…
  If you said to me, _I’ve got some sandwiches_, I would understand it as, _I have some sandwiches_ (see AB’s post above).
  If you wanted to express the idea that you just went to the deli to buy some sandwiches, you could say, _I’ve gotten some sandwiches_ (AmE)
  I’ll look for a reference and post it later…
Bic


----------



## chipulukusu

bicontinental said:


> Ciao ,
> 
> This is another one of those AmE/BE differences…
> If you said to me, _I’ve got some sandwiches_, I would understand it as, _I have some sandwiches_ (see AB’s post above).



Ok, I undesrtand now bicontinental, thank you very much! This is still another of the basics of the language which I fail to keep in my mind

Now I understand what AB was meaning by "_already have"... _and surely this is valid for a British too. Sorry for having wandered off but this was worth for me!


----------



## CPA

bicontinental said:


> I’m sure no other sentence has been analyzed with such attention to detail . But even if we reach a consensus as to what it really means in Italian and agree on an English translation that conveys the specific nuances, it seems we’re still at the mercy of _la lettrice _



Appunto.

@ piccola_stella. Se la tua lettrice è americana, puoi usare "get" e "gotten" a gogò. Se è inglese, starei in campana.


----------



## curiosone

I'm not sure why "gotten" was ever brought up, as the "get" referring to "get something to eat" has nothing to do with the past participle "got" (or "gotten" which is also used in AE) used in the _present perfect. _  I mention this because Italians so often (erroneously) want to use the _present perfect _in English (like they do in Italian), when a _simple past _(which corresponds to _passato remoto _in Italian) is what native English speakers would use.

The original sentence "Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare" implies that  
we didn't bring anything to eat with us, but wanted to eat (before the game, as was indicated in the context provided)   So we had to get something ("get" in the sense of "prendere").  That's why "we arrived early" (and not "we have arrived early").


----------



## Odysseus54

curiosone said:


> The original sentence "Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare" implies that
> we didn't bring anything to eat with us, but wanted to eat (before the game, as was indicated in the context provided)   So we had to get something ("get" in the sense of "prendere").  That's why "we arrived early" (and not "we have arrived early").



I am trying a different approach now.


" To have something to eat " means, in Italian " mangiare qualcosa ".


" Hai mangiato prima della partita ? "   " Did you have anything to eat before the game ? "

Conversely, in Italian :

" Avere qualcosa da mangiare " means " to have some food "

" Avete qualcosa da mangiare ? "     " Do you have (any) food ? "


So, I'd say : " We got there early to grab some food before the game "


----------



## MR1492

curiosone said:


> I'm not sure why "gotten" was ever brought up, as the "get" referring to "get something to eat" has nothing to do with the past participle "got" (or "gotten" which is also used in AE) used in the _present perfect. _  I mention this because Italians so often (erroneously) want to use the _present perfect _in English (like they do in Italian), when a _simple past _(which corresponds to _passato remoto _in Italian) is what native English speakers would use.
> 
> The original sentence "Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare" implies that
> we didn't bring anything to eat with us, but wanted to eat (before the game, as was indicated in the context provided)   So we had to get something ("get" in the sense of "prendere").  That's why "we arrived early" (and not "we have arrived early").



I am almost ashamed to admit this but my original answer (which would have been post #2) said that _Siamo arrivati in anticipo per poter avere qualcosa da mangiare_ could be translated using "We arrived early..." rather than "We have arrived early..." since we often translated the passato prossimo with the simple past in English.  However, what is now post #2 responded that since this was a examination, some precision in the translation was required and that the two phrases in English are not exactly equivalent.  Reading them closely, I must admit the objection has merit.  Rather than give piccola_stella potentially bad advice, I deleted my post.

So, to actually give piccola_stella some help, which translation of the Italian sentence is best.  I think we have gotten off track by trying to improve the sentences (both in English and Italian; we're equal opportunity translators here) rather than the task of helping with the translation requested.

Personally, I'm confused.  I thought that the equivalence of the passato prossimo and the simple past was pretty straightforward.  However, looking at the sentence here, I am not so sure.


----------



## curiosone

The _passato prossimo_ (Italian) DOES translate to the _simple past _(English).  However it's not a literal translation (same tense to same tense), but a translation from an Italian way of saying something to an English way of expressing the same concept.  In English we also have the _present perfect _(auxillary "have" plus past participle) which, grammatically speaking, would be the more literal translation of the _passato prossimo.  _However in English we don't use the _present perfect_ the same way Italians use their _passato prossimo. _This is what I meant about Italians making mistakes, when they try to use the _present perfect _instead of the _simple past.
_
I agree with you that this discussion is probably confusing Piccola Stella (more than helping her).  So (to avoid the entire issue of "get" or "have" - which, as Ody pointed out, don't have exactly the same meaning), I vote for his "grab" - which in this context has the same meaning as "get".  In fact it means the same thing to say "Let's get a bite to eat" or "Let's grab a bite to eat" - in the sense of "Mangiamo qualcosa" (s'intende pasto veloce).

_[and if I were grading an exam in which someone chose to use the verb "grab" (and used it well), I'd likely give them extra points for using a less familiar verb]_


----------

