# Elision in Italian



## Necsus

From the thread* '**Apocope**':*


			
				virgilio said:
			
		

> Necsus,
> Thank you for this detailed and very useful explanation. Just one point.
> Re apocope you say that is can happen:"on condition that:
> - the vowel to be left off is unaccented, and it's not 'a' (apart from 'ora' and its compounds, and 'suora' before a first name).
> Is it then wrong to say (ad esempio) "un' espressione"?
> Or have I misunderstood?
> Best wishes
> Virgilio





			
				Necsus said:
			
		

> Yes, Virgilio, as IS said, in _un'espressione_ we have an elision, you can find something about it HERE, or HERE, otherwise I can translate it too from SI forum...


Here the translation of my post in SI (or at least my attempt of it):

The elision occurs when last unaccented vowel of a word is cutted off before initial vowel of following word, and it must be marked with the apostrophe. It is normal to have it with _singular articles_ and respective _prepositions combined with an article_ (l'uomo, dell'altro, un'amica), with singular demonstrative adjectives _questo_, _questa_, _quello_, _quella_ (quest'uomo, quell'amica), with _bello_, _bella_ (bell'uomo, bell'amica), with _santo_, _santa_ (Sant'Antonio, Sant'Anna), with _di_ in _d'accordo_, _d'epoca_, _d'oro_ (but optional before a verb: _d'essere_ o _di essere_), with _come_ and _ci_ before the verb _essere_ (com'è successo, c'è) and with some idioms: _a quattr'occhi_, _l'altr'anno_, _tutt'altro_, _senz'altro_, _nient'altro_, _nessun'altra, tutt'al più_, _mezz'ora, buon'anima, quand'anche_. In other cases the elision is always optional, it occurs especially with the monosyllables, particularly with the preposition _di_, and it is more frequent when the initial vowel of the following word it is the same and it is unaccented (mi importa => m'importa), or when they follow another monosyllable with same vowel (lo ho detto => l'ho detto). It's not possible to elide the preposition _da_, except in the expressions _d'ora in poi_, _d'ora in avanti_, _d'altronde_, _d'altra parte_.


----------



## TimLA

The elision occurs when last unaccented vowel of a word is cut off before initial vowel of following word, and it must be marked with the apostrophe. 
 
It is normal to have it with _singular articles_ and respective _prepositions combined with an article_
l'uomo, dell'altro, un'amica
 
with singular demonstrative adjectives _questo_, _questa_, _quello_, _quella_ quest'uomo, quell'amica
 
with _bello_, _bella_
bell'uomo, bell'amica
 
with _santo_, _santa_
Sant'Antonio, Sant'Anna
 
with _di_ in
_d'accordo_, _d'epoca_, _d'oro_
 
but optional before a verb:
_d'essere_ o _di essere_
 
with _come_ and _ci_ before the verb _essere_
com'è successo, c'è
 
and with some idioms:
_a quattr'occhi_, _l'altr'anno_, _tutt'altro_, _senz'altro_, _nient'altro_, _nessun'altra, tutt'al più_, _mezz'ora, buon'anima, quand'anche_.

In other cases the elision is always optional, it occurs especially with the monosyllables, particularly with the preposition _di_, and it is more frequent when the initial vowel of the following word it is the same and it is unaccented (mi importa => m'importa), or when they follow another monosyllable with same vowel (lo ho detto => l'ho detto).
 
It's not possible to elide the preposition _da_, except in the expressions _d'ora in poi_, _d'ora in avanti_, _d'altronde_, _d'altra parte_.
***********************************
Bravo! Bravo! Forza Necsus!

1 - Is it ever possible to have an elision *without* the double "l"?

I always make mistakes with "dall'Italia"
I used to think of "da il Italia" = "dal Italia" = "dal'Italia"

2 - Does "buon'amica" work?

Grazie MILLE!


----------



## Necsus

TimLA said:
			
		

> Bravo! Bravo! Forza Necsus!
> Thanks, Tim. But I just translate into English (more or less) what I studied in a reliable grammar book...
> 1 - Is it ever possible to have an elision *without* the double "l"?
> I always make mistakes with "dall'Italia"
> I used to think of "da il Italia" = "dal Italia" = "dal'Italia"
> You have to think da + la = dalla => dall(a) => dall'
> 2 - Does "buon'amica" work?
> Definitely yes. 'Buona' (feminine of 'buono') must be elided before vowel.
> Grazie MILLE!


----------



## Londoner06

Buonasera,

Does _le_ experience contraction like _la and lo _when using double pronouns? For example:

I teach the lesson to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *la* lezione. => Ve *l*'insegno.

I teach the lesson*s* to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *le* lezioni. => Ve *le* insegno or Ve *l*'insegno?

Grazie,  

Alex


----------



## Necsus

Londoner06 said:
			
		

> I teach the lesson*s* to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *le* lezioni. => Ve *le* insegno or Ve *l*'insegno?


No, Alex, mostly there is not elision with plural of articles.


----------



## Londoner06

I teach the lesson*s* to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *le* lezioni. => Ve *le* insegno 



Necsus said:


> No, Alex, mostly there is not elision with plural of articles.


 
Necsus, thanks once again for your help. I do note that in the case of _Ve le insegno_, _le_ is an object pronoun and not an article. So I am assuming that the "no elision" rule applies to _le_ both as an article and as a direct object pronoun. 

Alex


----------



## Necsus

Londoner06 said:
			
		

> I do note that in the case of _Ve le insegno_, _le_ is an object pronoun and not an article. So I am assuming that the "no elision" rule applies to _le_ both as an article and as a direct object pronoun.


Yes, Alex, I'm sorry, I've mentioned only plural articles, you're right.
Regarding atonic pronouns we usually have the elision with _mi, ti, vi, si_ and with _lo, la_ when there is not possibility to confuse them with the articles; with _le_, _li_ and _ne_ generally we have not elision.


----------



## Londoner06

Necsus said:


> Yes, Alex, I'm sorry, I've mentioned only plural articles, you're right.
> Regarding atonic pronouns we usually have the elision with _mi, ti, vi, si_ and with _lo, la_ when there is not possibility to confuse them with the articles; with _le_, _li_ and _ne_ generally we have not elision.


 
Tiny change  

Alex


----------



## Necsus

Thank you, Alex!
(because it isn't 'there is not', but 'no elision', right?)


----------



## virgilio

Necsus,
          On this topic there is just one point which puzzles me a little - well you know how pedantic I am! 
Masculine nouns beginning with a vowel have "lo" as the definite article and the "o" can be elided:
e.g.
l'ambasciatore  - for lo_ambasciatore
So far, so good.
Is it the case that, where the definite article is "lo", the corresponding indefinite article should be "uno"?
If the answer is yes, are my Italian friends right, when they tell me not to use an elsision-indicating apostrophe after such an "un(o)"?
In other words, which is correct (or, perhaps I should say,, more correct)?
(1) un'amico
(2) un amico.

I have so far followed my Italian friends' advice but I don't quite see the logic behind it. Can you help.
Many thanks

Best wishes

Virgilio


----------



## Necsus

virgilio said:
			
		

> Is it the case that, where the definite article is "lo", the corresponding indefinite article should be "uno"?
> If the answer is yes, are my Italian friends right, when they tell me not to use an elsision-indicating apostrophe after such an "un(o)"?
> In other words, which is correct (or, perhaps I should say,, more correct)?
> (1) un'amico
> (2) un amico.


Hi, Virgilio. Yes, your friends are right, because with 'uno' we have no elision, but apocope (truncation), that generally doesn't require apostrophe. From the thread about apocope:
[...] the apocope is obligatory (or usual): [...]
- with article _uno_ and _indefinite adjectives_ compounded with _uno_ before vowel and single consonant (except/save z and x) => un uomo, nessun pudore


----------



## virgilio

Thank you very much, Necsus.

I keep confusing elision with apocopé. I must stop!

Best wishes

Virgilio


----------



## Necsus

virgilio said:
			
		

> Thank you very much, Necsus.
> I keep confusing elision with apocopé. I must stop!


You're welcome, virgilio. But don't worry, it's not so easy to to tell them apart. There are also some apocopes (syllabic) that require apostrophe...


----------



## Londoner06

Necsus said:


> Thank you, Alex!
> (because it isn't 'there is not', but 'no elision', right?)


 
OK Necsus, in the first case: _there is not possibility_ you could say there is not any possibility (nessuna possibilità?). I wish I could explain it better. When you insert _any_ then you can use _not._

In the second case: _generally we have not elision_ you would more normally see _generally we do not have elision _or _generally there is no elision. _I can think of times when you would use "we have not" but only as part of a compound verb tense: _We have not been to Venice yet._

Maybe other English speakers will care to expand on my explanation.

Alex


----------



## Necsus

Thanks for your explanation, Alex. I'll open a new thread about this issue (off topic... ).


----------



## Londoner06

virgilio said:


> Is it the case that, where the definite article is "lo", the corresponding indefinite article should be "uno"?


 
Dear Virgilio,

Strictly from Italian 101, which is my level at the moment  "words that have *uno* for 'a' have *lo* for 'the', as well as words beginning with 'z' such as _lo zucchero_"

RE uno => un:

Il *TRONCAMENTO *si deve attuare nei seguenti casi:

1. Con *uno *e suoi composti (*alcuno*, *ciascuno*, ecc):
*un *uomo, *alcun *luogo

Obviously in the case of leaving out letters it becomes truncation rather than elision.

Alex


----------



## Londoner06

Necsus said:


> Thanks for your explanation, Alex. I'll open a new thread about this issue (off topic... ).


 
Oh dear, mea culpa  

Di niente.

Alex


----------



## virgilio

LOndoner06,
                Yes, thank you very much. I keep on confusing the two. With my etymology-obsession, I ought not to do it, after all. 
"Elision" from the Latin "elidere" (to knock, force or squeeze out) is a quite different metaphor from the Greek "apocopé" (a cutting off").
The one vowel gets "squeezed" out by the 'collision' of two words , whereas for the other it's the old surgeon's knife!
I'll look for the other thread.
All the best
Virgilio


----------



## Wolfling Teo

Londoner06 said:


> Buonasera,
> 
> Does _le_ experience contraction like _la and lo _when using double pronouns? For example:
> 
> I teach the lesson to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *la* lezione. => Ve *l*'insegno.
> 
> I teach the lesson*s* to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *le* lezioni. => Ve *le* insegno or Ve *l*'insegno?
> 
> Grazie,
> 
> Alex


 
Be carefull:

In the frase: _Vi insegno la lezione_ => _*la*_ is an article, singular (and if instead of _lezione_ you had _archeologia_: _Vi insegno l'archeologia_)

In the frase: _Ve la_ (yuo don't know what) _insegno_ => _*la*_ is a pronoun, singular (correct translation of this is: I teach (i_nsegno_) it (_la_) to you (plural, _Ve_). No elision.

Same for the plural:
_Ve *le* insegno_ => I teach those to you (sorry couldn't find a better translation) No elision.

Similar case:
_*ne* inumidirei la fronte =>_ I'd wet his/her forehead(...she/he is ill)
NO elision.


----------



## Necsus

Wolfling Teo said:


> In the frase: _Ve la_ (yuo don't know what) _insegno_ => *la* is a pronoun, singular (correct translation of this is: I teach (i_nsegno_) it (_la_) to you (plural, _Ve_). No elision.


 Well, like so actually one might think that the elision is not possible with pronoun _la_, whereas you can ever always elide _mi, ti, vi, si_,_ lo, la__, _whatever the first vowel of following word is. It's just better not to do it when the elision can be the cause of ambiguity.


----------



## Giovanna-Ipazia

When I first learned Italian some decades ago, I was taught to elide _di_ before vowels. Nowadays on the internet it seems like I never see it elided, even before initial _i_-. For example, "di Italia" instead of "d'Italia." Has something changed over the years? (I hate feeling like I missed something when I wasn't paying attention.)


----------



## MünchnerFax

The elision of _di _before a noun beginning with vowel is optional. I'll also add that when the noun begins with a vowel other than _i_, it's possible and correct to do it, but uncommon.
However, we only say_ d'Italia_.


----------



## Necsus

MünchnerFax said:


> The elision of _di _before a noun beginning with vowel is optional.
> However, we only say_ d'Italia_.


I agree with MF, but of course the option goes mainly for written language, because when we speak we often elide all we can..!


----------



## giovannino

MünchnerFax said:


> I'll also add that when the noun begins with a vowel other than _i_, it's possible and correct to do it, but uncommon.


 
In his first post Necsus quoted three cases (from Serianni's grammar, I believe) where elision is mandatory: _d'accordo, d'oro, d'epoca. _Can anyone think of other similar cases? Right now I can only think of _lettera d'amore. _


----------



## Necsus

giovannino said:


> In his first post Necsus quoted three cases (from Serianni's grammar, I believe) where elision is mandatory: _d'accordo, d'oro, d'epoca. _Can anyone think of other similar cases? Right now I can only think of _lettera d'amore. _


Ciao, giovannino. Ehm, actually I didn't say that its is _mandatory_, but _normal_... 

However if you mean when the following noun begins with a vowel other than 'i', for instance 'a', then: (lettera) d'addio; (campo) d'allenamento; (esame) d'ammissione; (vino) d'annata; (linea) d'arrivo; (sala) d'aspetto; (squadra) d'assalto; (giocare) d'astuzia; (sala) d'attesa; (biglietto) d'auguri...


----------



## giovannino

Thanks for the additional examples, Necsus.

I think that with _d'accordo, d'epoca, d'oro _elision is indeed mandatory. From Serianni's _Grammatica:_



> Tra le forme che più facilmente possono perdere la vocale finale ricordiamo i monosillabi, in particolare _di _(elisione obbligatoria in _d'accordo, d'epoca, d'oro _e in qualche altro caso; facoltativa davanti a un verbo: _d'essere _o _di essere, d'udire _o _di udire_)


 
I would definitely add _lettera d'amore _to cases of mandatory elision. I don't think anyone would ever say _lettera di amore._


----------



## Necsus

Yes, you're absolutely right, Serianni says that it is mandatory, I've also quoted it somewhere. But as other text, like Grammar of Dardano Trifone or Treccani, don't mention explicitly this obligatoriness, here I preferred not use this term.


----------



## Giovanna-Ipazia

giovannino said:


> Can anyone think of other similar cases? Right now I can only think of _lettera d'amore. _


Viola d'amore?


----------



## Tristano

Wolfling Teo said:


> Similar case:
> _*ne* inumidirei la fronte =>_ I'd wet his/her forehead(...she/he is ill)
> NO elision.



Non capisco... io avrei detto "gli inumidirei la fronte" piuttosto che "ne"

Tristano


----------



## london calling

giovannino said:


> I think that with _d'accordo, d'epoca, d'oro _elision is indeed mandatory. From Serianni's _Grammatica_
> 
> I would definitely add _lettera d'amore _to cases of mandatory elision. I don't think anyone would ever say _lettera di amore._


 


Giovannino!

Elisir d'amore?
Bramosia d'amore?
Frenesia d'amore?


----------



## Necsus

Tristano said:


> Non capisco... io avrei detto "gli inumidirei la fronte" piuttosto che "ne"
> 
> Tristano


 E avresti (avuto) ragione...!


----------



## Giovedìgiorno

Necsus said:


> Yes, Alex, I'm sorry, I've mentioned only plural articles, you're right.
> Regarding atonic pronouns we usually have the elision with _mi, ti, vi, si_ and with _lo, la_ when there is not possibility to confuse them with the articles; with _le_, _li_ and _ne_ generally we have not elision.





Londoner06 said:


> Buonasera,
> 
> Does _le_ experience contraction like _la and lo _when using double pronouns? For example:
> 
> I teach the lesson to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *la* lezione. => Ve *l*'insegno.
> 
> I teach the lesson*s* to you. [voi] => Ve insegno *le* lezioni. => Ve *le* insegno or Ve *l*'insegno?
> 
> Grazie,
> 
> Alex


                     The reason why le and li never elide before a vowel is simply a matter of sound. Let’s look first,coincidentally,at how the definite article in English changes to accommodate a noun starting with a vowel . The definite article before “cat” “lorry” etc has a different sound than the definite article before “animal” “umbrella “ etc. where we say theey animal etc. providing a “y” sort of hook for euphony rather than have the unpleasant glottal sound which “ the animal” would produce. Li and le already have this hook so do not need to elide before a vowel.Just by the way English of course has a variant of the indefinite article, an before a vowel.


----------

