# forzi ad essere



## shinelikeastar

Ciao a tutti!
Tu mi costringi ,forzi ,ad essere ripetitivo!!!!!
sento di dirti che anche se non ci conosciamo mi senti gia' legato a te!!

You force me to be repetitive!!!???
I feel to say to you ........


Thanks in advance!!!


----------



## mimitabby

shinelikeastar said:
			
		

> Ciao a tutti!
> Tu mi costringi ,forzi ,ad essere ripetitivo!!!!!
> sento di dirti che anche se non ci conosciamo mi senti gia' legato a te!!
> 
> You force me to be repetitive!!!???
> I feel to say to you ........
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!!!



You force me to be repetitive: 
 better: You force me to repeat myself.
I feel like saying to you that even though we haven't met that I am already tied to you.


----------



## Saoul

mimitabby said:
			
		

> You force me to be repetitive:
> better: You force me to repeat myself.
> I feel like saying to you that even though we haven't met that   I am already tied to you.




I'm a bit puzzled by that "that"! May I ask for explanations?


----------



## Auno

Saoul,

È il rapporto romantico di Internet.  Capisci?


----------



## Bookmom

shinelikeastar said:
			
		

> Ciao a tutti!
> Tu mi costringi ,forzi ,ad essere ripetitivo!!!!!
> sento di dirti che anche se non ci conosciamo mi senti gia' legato a te!!
> 
> You force me to be repetitive!!!???
> I feel to say to you ........
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!!!


 
Wow and wow again, this is wonderful, powerful, provocative language...without exact context I'd say  "You compell me, you force me to return (to come back again and again?  I feel I must tell you that even though we haven't met (don' know each other) I already feel bound (tied) to  you.


----------



## moodywop

> I'm a bit puzzled by that "that"! May I ask for explanations?


 
Saoulocchiodifalco, ma non ti sfugge nulla? Comunque non si chiedono spiegazioni a una signora . Penso che nella fretta a mimitabby sia scappato un "that" di troppo



> sento di dirti che anche se non ci conosciamo mi senti gia' legato a te


 
shinelikeastar, volevi dire "mi sent*o*", vero?


----------



## Saoul

Auno said:
			
		

> Saoul,
> 
> È il rapporto romantico di Internet.  Capisci?



Auno, non capisco! Aiuto!

Carlo? Oltre al fatto che non ho le lenti a contatto, ho l'impressione di essermi perso qualcosa? Aiuto!


----------



## shinelikeastar

Si ,volevo dire mi sento.
Grazie ancora.


----------



## Auno

Saoul,

To be more serious for a moment...

"I feel like saying to you that even though we haven't met that I am already tied to you."

It's common to see this, but you wouldn't say both "that's" here, not ideally. But it's not necessarily the second one that's the problem. 

I would write: 

"Even though we haven't met I feel like saying that I am already tied to you."

Or even:

"I feel like saying to you, even though we haven't met, that...(etc)"
(But this requires the commas, which I prefer to do without)

But in both cases get rid of the first "that", in other words.


Let me know if I got the Italian wrong up there, could you?


----------



## Saoul

I think I'm starting to get it.
Gionata, correct me if I am wrong, but since the sentence starts with "I feel like saying to you" it is more likely that the second "that" is omitted.

As a non-Native, to my ear, the sentence seems smoother omitting the second "that", and leaving the first one there, than the oder way round. 

Furthermore, in mimitabby's sentence the second "that" sounded wrong to my non-Native ears. How comes? 

P.S. There's nothing wrong with your Italian, in your sentence. It's me. I don't understand what you mean. Sorry! It's late, be patient.


----------



## mimitabby

Mi dispiace.
You can omit the second "THAT" 
!!


----------



## Saoul

I read again my post. I'm afraid I sounded a bit stiff. I didn't mean to. 
I was not stating one is better than the other.
What I was trying to say, is, I'm not a Native, and one sounds ok, and the other doesn't. Can you explain me which is correct, exactly? Or maybe both of them...


----------



## Auno

Saoul,

No worries - am in a rush here now with early morning work.

Base principle is: you don't want "that" popping up all over the place.
It's a common tendency for people to overuse them, however.

THE central thing the writer is saying in this line is that (there's one) he/she feels tied to the other. So THAT is where I'd put my "that" here.

The 'even though we haven't met' part is secondary - a pre-condition, setting the scene, secondary clause, etc etc.

That's (there's another one) why I reordered as I did. The comma version is fine though, also. I'd even consider it 'good' comma usage, in that it gets rid of the "that", while saying exactly the same thing.

How's that?


----------



## Saoul

How's that? That is brilliant!
Thank you very much.


----------



## brian

If _I_ were _writing_ the sentence, I would definitely use commas, and say:

_I feel like saying to you that, even though we haven't met, I am already tied to you._

I've not consulted an English grammar on this issue, but I'm almost positive that this particular comma usage is a HUGE point of debate among English grammarians.  Many say that in an indirect statment (i.e., _I said/thought/heard/believe/wonder that..._) one should never follow "that" with a comma and one should always avoid using commas within the indirect statement.  Others believe that commas are fine and often necessary.  Personally, I don't mind putting commas, but I _never_ put just one comma...always _two_ (or more, if necessary).  Whether two commas belong or not depends on the subordinate clause/prepositional phrase.

I follow the rule that any adverbial subordinate clause beginning a sentence must end in a comma: this includes, but is not limited to, all clauses beginning with _if, even if, when, since, because, although, while, _etc. + verb.  As for prepositional phrases, if the phrase is 5 words or more long, or if _not_ putting a comma causes any confusion, then you must add a comma (unless it's a short idiomatic phrase like _After that, In short, _etc.).  So we have the following examples:

_Even though we've never met*,* I already feel tied to you._  comma *needed*
_When we first met*,* I already felt tied to you. _ comma *needed*
_After we first met*,* I already felt tied to you. _ comma *needed*

_After our first date I already felt tied to you._  comma *not needed* (only 4 words in the prep. phrase)
_After our wonderfully romantic first date at Luigi's Pizzeria*,* I already felt tied to you._  comma *needed* (more than 5 words)

Basically, if it's an adverbial phrase (i.e., has a verb), you need a comma.  If it's a prep. phrase, count the words.

Okay, so with this in mind, we now turn to using these sentences in indirect statements.  _Personally_, I feel that if a comma was needed above, then _two_ commas are needed here.  If no comma was needed above, then no comma is needed here.  I'll provide only three examples since the rest follow easiliy:

_I feel like saying to you that*,* although we've never met*,* I already feel tied to you.

I feel like saying to you that after our first date I already felt tied to you.
I feel like saying to you that*, *even after our wonderfully romantic first date at Luigi's Pizzeria*,*_ _I already felt tied to you._

So that's my logic.  Now, some people prefer to use only one comma by excluding that first one.  Whenever I read this sentences, I cringe.

So what does this have to use with the double "that" above?  Well, basically, the word "that" is a _signal_ to the reader/listener that an indirect statement is approaching.  If the indirect statement has multiple clauses/phrases, like above, then one should use commas by following the rules outlined above.  If one so wishes to exclude the commas, then an extra "that" should naturally be included before each clause/phrase not set off by commas.  It has to do with how we perceive a sentence.  Our brain needs the "that" to tell us what's coming up:

_I feel like saying to you that even though we've never met that I already feel tied to you_.

A "that" is used twice since we have two clauses.  Now if you take out the first "that" and add the two commas, then the reading/speaking of the sentences includes _pauses_ instead, and these _pauses_ serve the same function as the "that": the _pauses_ signal what's to come--an indirect clause!  If you read the above sentence and feel that the second "that" is awkward/unnecessar/out-of-place, read it again and see if you're pausing in between "met" and "that."  If you are, then that's why the "that" sounds strange: the "that" is serving the function of the pause you've already created!  If you read the sentence faster and do not pause, it sounds less awkward.  (Note: I'm not condoning the use of a double "that"; I'm just pointing out why it's _natural_ for one to add another.)

This is how I think of it at least.  I apologize if this explanation was too pedantic/rambly.


Brian


----------



## Saoul

brian8733 said:
			
		

> If _I_ were _writing_ the sentence, I would definitely use commas, and say:
> 
> _I feel like saying to you that, even though we haven't met, I am already tied to you._
> 
> I've not consulted an English grammar on this issue, but I'm almost positive that this particular comma usage is a HUGE point of debate among English grammarians.  Many say that in an indirect statment (i.e., _I said/thought/heard/believe/wonder that..._) one should never follow "that" with a comma and one should always avoid using commas within the indirect statement.  Others believe that commas are fine and often necessary.  Personally, I don't mind putting commas, but I _never_ put just one comma...always _two_ (or more, if necessary).  Whether two commas belong or not depends on the subordinate clause/prepositional phrase.
> 
> I follow the rule that any adverbial subordinate clause beginning a sentence must end in a comma: this includes, but is not limited to, all clauses beginning with _if, even if, when, since, because, although, while, _etc. + verb.  As for prepositional phrases, if the phrase is 5 words or more long, or if _not_ putting a comma causes any confusion, then you must add a comma (unless it's a short idiomatic phrase like _After that, In short, _etc.).  So we have the following examples:
> 
> _Even though we've never met*,* I already feel tied to you._  comma *needed*
> _When we first met*,* I already felt tied to you. _ comma *needed*
> _After we first met*,* I already felt tied to you. _ comma *needed*
> 
> _After our first date I already felt tied to you._  comma *not needed* (only 4 words in the prep. phrase)
> _After our wonderfully romantic first date at Luigi's Pizzeria*,* I already felt tied to you._  comma *needed* (more than 5 words)
> 
> Basically, if it's an adverbial phrase (i.e., has a verb), you need a comma.  If it's a prep. phrase, count the words.
> 
> Okay, so with this in mind, we now turn to using these sentences in indirect statements.  _Personally_, I feel that if a comma was needed above, then _two_ commas are needed here.  If no comma was needed above, then no comma is needed here.  I'll provide only three examples since the rest follow easiliy:
> 
> _I feel like saying to you that*,* although we've never met*,* I already feel tied to you.
> 
> I feel like saying to you that after our first date I already felt tied to you.
> I feel like saying to you that*, *even after our wonderfully romantic first date at Luigi's Pizzeria*,*_ _I already felt tied to you._
> 
> So that's my logic.  Now, some people prefer to use only one comma by excluding that first one.  Whenever I read this sentences, I cringe.
> 
> So what does this have to use with the double "that" above?  Well, basically, the word "that" is a _signal_ to the reader/listener that an indirect statement is approaching.  If the indirect statement has multiple clauses/phrases, like above, then one should use commas by following the rules outlined above.  If one so wishes to exclude the commas, then an extra "that" should naturally be included before each clause/phrase not set off by commas.  It has to do with how we perceive a sentence.  Our brain needs the "that" to tell us what's coming up:
> 
> _I feel like saying to you that even though we've never met that I already feel tied to you_.
> 
> A "that" is used twice since we have two clauses.  Now if you take out the first "that" and add the two commas, then the reading/speaking of the sentences includes _pauses_ instead, and these _pauses_ serve the same function as the "that": the _pauses_ signal what's to come--an indirect clause!  If you read the above sentence and feel that the second "that" is awkward/unnecessar/out-of-place, read it again and see if you're pausing in between "met" and "that."  If you are, then that's why the "that" sounds strange: the "that" is serving the function of the pause you've already created!  If you read the sentence faster and do not pause, it sounds less awkward.  (Note: I'm not condoning the use of a double "that"; I'm just pointing out why it's _natural_ for one to add another.)
> 
> This is how I think of it at least.  I apologize if this explanation was too pedantic/rambly.
> 
> 
> Brian



No matter how pedantic/rambly this may be, it was absolutly clear.
I thank you Brian, this is most useful.


----------



## Auno

Buongiorno,

Look fair enough Brian, and Mimi too actually.  It all depends on the writer's intent.

The sentence can also be written without a "that" or a comma in sight:

"I feel like saying I am already tied to you even though we haven't met"

Now what the writer feels like saying is a complete package, so to speak.

But my point here (while a bit rushed ieri mattina) is to watch out for "that".  They tend to breed like rabbits and can be costly to maintain - food... clothing... the school fees are horrendous...and before you know it they'll be asking to borrow the keys to the Vespa on Saturdays. 

That sort of thing.  (one snuck in there)

So keep a close eye on them.


----------



## Scopa Nuova

brian8733 said:
			
		

> If _I_ were _writing_ the sentence, I would definitely use commas, and say:
> 
> I follow the rule that......................
> 
> So what does this have to use with the double "that" above? ......................
> 
> This is how I think of it at least.  I apologize if this explanation was too pedantic/rambly.
> 
> 
> Brian


 
That's a great explanation Brian. Although I haven't formally listed the rules you posted, I find myself pretty much applying them as you stated. Thanks for putting them in writing.

I agree that it's better to include commas. It prevents the sentence from appearing to be rambling and separates the sentence into logical concepts. 

I generally agree with your explanation of the use of "that", but to my ear the use of multiple "thats" (more than 2 or 3) sounds a bit awkward.

Great job,

Scopa Nuova


----------



## Auno

I am not going into this at length, but will say this:

One of the greatest misconceptions about commas is that they are used to indicate 'pauses', say like when speaking, or to 'break up' a sentence.

No that's not quite right.

Nor is a sentence of anything like the length of the relevant one here very likely to be 'rambling', if that word is properly understood.

I can be a bit anti-comma sometimes, for professional reasons.  They can get you into trouble - potentially expensive.  I also consider they are used far too often anyway - perhaps due to some laziness in sentence structuring, habit...whatever.

At the same time, yes they can be used to enhance the flow of a sentence.  And for other reasons.  They have their place, but not as prominent as they are so often presented.

Can't quite agree regarding the single comma either, as should be apparent from the above.

Careful with the "..., and..." also.


----------



## brian

Auno said:
			
		

> I am not going into this at length, but will say this:
> 
> One of the greatest misconceptions about commas is that they are used to indicate 'pauses', say like when speaking, or to 'break up' a sentence.
> 
> No that's not quite right.


 I know you did not want to go into detail about your claim here, but I would like for you to explain, if you could, why it is a "misconception" that a function of a comma is to indicate a pause in a sentence.



			
				Auno said:
			
		

> Nor is a sentence of anything like the length of the relevant one here very likely to be 'rambling', if that word is properly understood.


 Up until that lone comma after "rambling," no other comma is needed in this  written sentence, nor is a pause be needed when it is spoken; that is why it doesn't sound like rambling.



			
				Auno said:
			
		

> I can be a bit anti-comma sometimes, for professional reasons.  They can get you into trouble - potentially expensive.  I also consider they are used far too often anyway - perhaps due to some laziness in sentence structuring, habit...whatever.
> 
> At the same time, yes they can be used to enhance the flow of a sentence.  And for other reasons.  They have their place, but not as prominent as they are so often presented.


 I agree that commas are used far too often by certain comma-happy people, and so I am definitely not condoning any free-range comma usage.  I would also agree that often times a simple restructuring of a sentence could enhance the flow better than any comma placements.  I'd like to add, however, that there is a good deal "style" that goes into comma usage.  Personally, I enjoy reading authors who lean more toward the extra comma usage than toward the scarce comma usage, and perhaps this is has affected my own writing style.  I like to have as much information as possible in my sentences without it being too cluttered, illogical, or rambly; and a cautious eye on comma usage is critical for success in that style of writing.



			
				Auno said:
			
		

> Can't quite agree regarding the single comma either, as should be apparent from the above.


 I'm not sure which "single comma" you're referring to...


Brian


----------



## Scopa Nuova

To comma or not to comma, that is the question! 

Of course some common sense must be used. Neither be comma crazy nor comma deficient. But I believe commas help the reader mentally keep phrases together as the author intended.

One way to minimize commas (and the "ands") is to break up long complex sentences into shorter simpler sentences.

Example:

When I got home from work I changed into more comfortable clothes sat down and read the newspaper watched TV for a while had dinner worked on the computer until 10:00 PM took a shower and went to bed.

I think it would read better with commas.

When I got home from work*,* I changed into more comfortable clothes*,* sat down and read the newspaper*,* watched TV for a while*,* had dinner*,* worked on the computer until 10:00 PM*,* took a shower and went to bed.

Better yet make smaller sentences.

When I got home from work*,* I changed into more comfortable clothes*, and* sat down and read the newspaper*. Afterwards, I* watched TV for a while*,* had dinner *and then* worked on the computer until 10:00 PM*. Finally, I* took a shower and went to bed.

In the end, it's going to amount to personal style and preference. The goal should be to make it easy for the reader to understand your message.

*Proverbio*

*Ogni cosa ha il suo tempo.*
Everything has its time.

Scopa Nuova


----------



## Saoul

Scopa Nuova said:
			
		

> *Proverbio*
> 
> *Ogni cosa ha il suo tempo.*
> Everything has its time.
> 
> Scopa Nuova



The sense is the same, but this is the Italian "proverbio"

Ogni cosa a suo tempo. 
Everything in its own time. (Or something like this)


----------



## Auno

Brian/Scopa et al,

What I am reading here is pretty much exactly what NOT to do.  It's not a matter of..."oh I'll plonk in a comma here, BECAUSE I want a pause to be indicated."  Not because you...just felt like having one there either, because you think it looks better or it's...'time for one', somehow.  Okay?  You can read a pause WITHOUT them, although YES a pause is indicated, if one is there.  That's the problem you see - people think you MUST have a comma to indicate a pause.  No way.

Just...read this.  First thing that came up in a Google search just now - 

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

I definitely agree with what they say here.  If you can't justify usage of a comma on one of the bases indicated then forget it, assuming you want to write well.

Take a good look at the passage from Gertrude Stein.  A good look.  Compare that with Scopa's...example.  You would also NEVER put a comma before the 'and' I see there.

Brian commas do not magically 'add information'.  If anything, they will clutter up, ramble, render illogical and whatever else you care to mention, like nothing else.  Just about every great writer in English literary history has reached a conclusion in this vein.  Research it and see for yourself, but above all... read good literature...and don't worry too much about 'grammatical debates'.

Now I'm going back to my Italian...


----------



## ElaineG

Auno, I agree with your  point; ironically, however, your post is filled with ellipses.  If any punctuation mark is abused in the era of the Internet, it is the ellipsis.  An ellipsis should only be used to signal the omission of words or sentences, and _rarely_ to suggest the passage of time in spoken dialogue or similar.

On the Internet, everyone seems to want to use an ellipsis instead of a period or as Auno does here:





> but above all... read good literature...and don't worry too much about 'grammatical debates'.


 
Of course, no punctuation at all is needed there.  But even Auno, an anti-clutter campaigner, can't resist throwing not one but _two_ ellipses into that innocent sentence.  

(Auno, I don't mean to pick on you.  It's just the plague of useless cluttery ellipses on this forum and elsewhere is troubling.  It gives the impression that everyone is really tentative and uncertain: They never want to make a definivite statement. They just trail off....)


----------



## Auno

Hello there Elaine. A fortuitous time for your holiday I imagine and I hope you enjoyed yourself.

You can pick on me if you like, but I don't see any irony at all and I can resist with the best of them. I use my ellipses for a number of reasons, including the ones you mention, both deliberately and knowingly.

Besides, it is such a blessed relief from the inundation of commas.

I do consider I was decidedly temperate during this thread, given certain elements of it.

To be clear, I appreciate your concern to some extent, particularly in the context of this forum. Although if you are suggesting I am somehow hypocritical then...I don't think so. I would ask you to consider that sometimes I don't want a statement to be definitive, let's say, because I can't attend to all that might follow as I'd like to, but at the same time I don't want to mislead. 

There's not very much that's certain Elaine, except death and taxes, as they say.


----------



## ElaineG

I think that if people are uncertain, there are words that can be used to express that.  Ellipses always strike me as lazy.  Just my 3.7 cents and not a moderator comment (although excessive abuse of ellipses, as with any other blatant derogation from standard punctuation, would be in contravention of the rules).


----------



## Auno

Elaine,

Best leave aside what strikes you for now.  Let's just see what can be done about adherence to the 'rules' while also allowing people to think for themselves.

I am fond of Pandas myself incidentally.  A pair came to Melbourne some years ago and I spent any number of days, seeing how they were.


----------



## akaCatherine

Buonasera,

Punctuation aside.....

(Timely, this one..)

Back to the original:

It can be said "Even though we never met, I feel tied to you."

(Sounds a bit weak, wishy washy, unsure, as if awaiting a slap to the face in return, etc., to me.)

For more intensity and my preference:

(Since emotions dominate the human species, and we typically ARE what we feel..... We can swap "feel" in the above sentence -- and in many cases actually -- for 'am'.  If, that is, we mean to sound confident.)

I am tied to you even though we never met.

(THAT should get the point across.)

Continue on....

Buonanotte.


----------



## Auno

Well I think a certain Manhattanite is being a bit irreverent as always, but what can you do.

I do have a bit of difficulty though with this penchant for ICONS, for heaven's sake, while maintaining the view about ellipses on the Net.  To my mind it's obvious that words speak for themselves more in the latter case AND there is actually less 'clutter' - which isn't even most of the point about commas in the first place!

Ah well.


----------



## Scopa Nuova

Auno,

I appreciate you pointing us to the rules for commas. But I conclude that my examples pretty much follow the rules. Here’s the analysis.

My Example:

When I got home from work*,* I changed into more comfortable clothes*,* sat down and read the newspaper*,* watched TV for a while*,* had dinner*,* worked on the computer until 10:00 PM*,* took a shower and went to bed.

Rule 1: Use a comma to separate elements in a series (three or more things).
Comment: That’s exactly what I have. A series of events that happened after I got home.

My Example:

When I got home from work*,* I changed into more comfortable clothes*, and* sat down and read the newspaper*.*

Rule 3: Use a comma to set off introductory elements.
Comment: The first comma follows this rule. The second comma is unnecessary since the serial list is short.


These rules are the same as I learned for technical writing.

I don't want to get into a nasty debate but I believe I am following the rules. Comments welcomed.

*Proverbio*

*Volere è potere.*
*Where there is a will there is a way.*

Scopa Nuova


----------



## utente

*THE SECOND "THAT"*

I learned (many years ago) a simple rule that I find many native-English speakers ignore.

Ho imparato (molti anni fa) una regole semplice, ma trovo che molte madrelingue americane lasciano perdere.

The distinction is between direct discourse and indirect discourse.

La distinzione è fra discorso diretto e discorso indiretto.


In direct discourse, you use the comma and quotation marks.

In discorso diretto, si usano la virgola e le virgolette.

DIRECT: I feel like saying to you, "I am already tied to you."


In indirect discourse, you use only "that" and neither a comma nor quotation marks.

In discorso indiretto, si usa solo "that" invece la virgola o le virgolette.

INDIRECT: I feel like saying to you (better is "telling you") that I am already tied to you.

In the original sentence, Shine wanted to indicate what he would say, but without the exact words (indirect discourse). That is why "that" is used and neither a comma nor quotation marks.

Nella frase originale, Shine voleva segnelare quello che lui avrebbe detto, ma senza le parole esatte (discorso indiretto). Per quella ragione, si usa "that" invece nè una virgola nè le virgolette.


If Shine wanted to use the exact words that he would say, then the sentence would have been "I feel like saying, 'I am already tied to you' ".

Se Shine volesse usare le parole esatte che vorebbe detto, la frase sarebbe stata "I feel like saying, 'I am already tied to you' ".



--Steven


----------

