# Mangiarsi



## nickditoro

Buona sera,

In un novello di Ammaniti, c'e' la frase: "...quei maiali si sono mangiati il bassotto..." Perche' il scrittore usarebbe il riflessivo? Ho imparato che il verbo "mangiare" e' sempre transitivo.

Grazie.
Nick


----------



## moodywop

You will often find this with _mangiare _and _bere. Mangiarsi _and _bersi _are not real reflexives in this case. Adding _si _acts as an intensifier.

_Ha mangiato solo un panino a pranzo _(neutral)

_Si è mangiata l'intera torta! Non me ne ha lasciato neanche un po'!_

_Ha bevuto solo due birre ed è già ubriaco _(neutral)

_Si è bevuto tutto il vino! _


----------



## nickditoro

moodywop said:
			
		

> You will often find this with _mangiare _and _bere. Mangiarsi _and _bersi _are not real reflexives in this case. Adding _si _acts as an intensifier.


 
Grazie per la spiegazione. Ora capisco che _mangiarsi_ e _bersi_ non sono reflessivi veri. Allora, che governa l'uso del verbo ausiliare _essese _nel questo caso? Nei tutti casi? E' una regola semplice? 

(Sarebbe meglio che scriverei in inglese? Spero che non abbia sbagliato troppo.)

Grazie ancora,
Nick


----------



## TimLA

moodywop said:
			
		

> You will often find this with _mangiare _and _bere. Mangiarsi _and _bersi _are not real reflexives in this case. Adding _si _acts as an intensifier.
> _Ha mangiato solo un panino a pranzo _(neutral)
> _Si è mangiata l'intera torta! Non me ne ha lasciato neanche un po'!_
> _Ha bevuto solo due birre ed è già ubriaco _(neutral)
> _Si è bevuto tutto il vino! _


 
Credo che ho imparato qualcosa...

Si manga bene qui (a un ristorante),

non è riflessivo, ma la "si" e per enfasi?


----------



## vincenzochiaravalle

Hello!


I'm waltzing in here just to say "err... ...no, Tim". When you say *"qui si mangia bene"*, "si" has nothing to do with emphasis, it's *"impersonale"* (i. e. "di forma, o costruzione verbale, in cui non è espresso un soggetto determinato (ad es. si dice, si racconta, dicono, "it is told", "it is said", "they say" ecc.)"). 


For you to have a notion AND some examples of "riflessivi", on the other hand, I copy and paste here a few lines from Garzanti: RIFLESSIVO - si dice di forma verbale in cui il complemento oggetto si identifica col soggetto ed è rappresentato da un pronome riflessivo (p. e. io mi lavo, I wash myself)) | *verbo riflessivo apparente (o falso pronominale),* quello che ha forma simile al riflessivo ma nel quale il pronome personale rappresenta il complemento di termine (INDIRECT OBJECT) anziché l'oggetto (DIRECT OBJECT); for example "io mi lavo le mani" "I wash my hands", which you can work out like this: "I wash the hands TO MYSELF".

This is just the case in "quei maiali si sono mangiati il bassotto" "those pigs have eaten the sousage dog _(to themselves)_ (again, _think_ "si" as "to themselves", an indirect object). Which maybe answers our new friend's original question. Mangiarsi, bersi, lavarsi qualcosa are riflessivi apparenti, or falsi pronominali. Though emphasis may sometimes be a hint, I honestly doubt it is the real technical explanation.


I hope I cleared you up more doubts than I actually put you in 


V.


P.S. - Yeah, I know what you are thinking... ...why can't a language be as simple as the thoughts it expresses... I know, I know.... 
Ah, in exchange for this, please be always on the lookout for my English, and PLEASE, do ALWAYS correct my mistakes when you have time to do so!! 

ciao!!


----------



## TimLA

vincenzochiaravalle said:
			
		

> Hello!
> 
> I'm waltzing in here (very good metaphor!) just to say "err... ...no, Tim" (very nice, you watch too much American television!). When you say *"qui si mangia bene"*, "si" has nothing to do with emphasis, it's *"impersonale"* (i. e. "di forma, o costruzione verbale, in cui non è espresso un soggetto determinato (ad es. si dice, si racconta, dicono, "it is told", "it is said", "they say" ecc.)") (benissimo!).
> 
> 
> For you to have a notion AND some examples of "riflessivi", on the other hand, I copy and paste here a few lines from Garzanti: RIFLESSIVO - si dice di forma verbale in cui il complemento oggetto si identifica col soggetto ed è rappresentato da un pronome riflessivo (p. e. io mi lavo, I wash myself)) | *verbo riflessivo apparente (o falso pronominale),* quello che ha forma simile al riflessivo ma nel quale il pronome personale rappresenta il complemento di termine (INDIRECT OBJECT) anziché l'oggetto (DIRECT OBJECT); for example "io mi lavo le mani" "I wash my hands", which you can work out like this: "I wash the hands TO MYSELF".
> 
> This is just the case in "quei maiali si sono mangiati il bassotto" "those pigs have eaten the sousage dog _(to themselves)_ (again, _think_ "si" as "to themselves", an indirect object). Which maybe answers our new friend's original question. Mangiarsi, bersi, lavarsi qualcosa are riflessivi apparenti, or falsi pronominali. Though emphasis may sometimes be a hint, I honestly doubt it is the real technical explanation.
> 
> 
> I hope I cleared-up you more doubts (for you) than I actually put you in  caused
> V.
> P.S. - Yeah, I know what you are thinking... ...why can't a language be as simple as the thoughts it expresses... I know, I know....
> Ah, in exchange for this, please be always on the lookout for my English, and PLEASE, do ALWAYS correct my mistakes when you have time to do so!!
> ciao!!


 
Si impara bene in questo foro! 
Absolutely fantastic. I cannot thank you enough!!!!
For you, I will always have time. Outstanding explanation, now I only have to memorize it! 
Tim


----------



## carrickp

vincenzochiaravalle said:
			
		

> This is just the case in "quei maiali si sono mangiati il bassotto" "those pigs have eaten the sousage dog _(to themselves)_ (again, _think_ "si" as "to themselves", an indirect object). Which maybe answers our new friend's original question. Mangiarsi, bersi, lavarsi qualcosa are riflessivi apparenti, or falsi pronominali. Though emphasis may sometimes be a hint, I honestly doubt it is the real technical explanation.



I agree -- a very interesting, clear and complete explanation. Thanks from me, too. Reading over this I think it may be like our English expression "all by himself [herself/myself], e.g.

He ate the entire cake all by himself -- he didn't leave me a single piece.

He drank the whole bottle of wine all by himself. He is now drunk as a boiled owl.


----------



## nickditoro

carrickp said:
			
		

> I agree -- a very interesting, clear and complete explanation. Thanks from me, too. Reading over this I think it may be like our English expression "all by himself [herself/myself], e.g.
> 
> He ate the entire cake all by himself -- he didn't leave me a single piece.
> 
> He drank the whole bottle of wine all by himself. He is now drunk as a boiled owl.


 
This was my first thought when I read the expression in the novel; however, my Italian tutor later said the use of the reflexive was due to the fact that the novel's narrator is a 9-year-old boy from the _mezzogiorno_ -- in other words, that Ammaniti deliberately has him misspeak. 

My problem is getting it into my head that a usually transitive verb like _mangiare_ suddenly becomes reflexive in the _passato prossimo_, with all the attendant required changes in verb construction: _avere_ become _essere_, and the _participio_ has to agree in number and gender. And all is due merely to the insertion of the simple two-letter word _si_. Why not _Quei maiali si *hanno* mangiat*o* il bassotto_? Oh, well. 

Nick


----------



## nickditoro

vincenzochiaravalle said:
			
		

> This is just the case in "quei maiali si sono mangiati il bassotto" "those pigs have eaten the sousage dog _(to themselves)_ (again, _think_ "si" as "to themselves", an indirect object). Which maybe answers our new friend's original question. Mangiarsi, bersi, lavarsi qualcosa are riflessivi apparenti, or falsi pronominali. Though emphasis may sometimes be a hint, I honestly doubt it is the real technical explanation.


 
Vincenzo,

Thanks for the great explanation of reflexives. I still have issues with this particular use of it, which I've put into my post quoting carrickp.

Nick


----------



## moodywop

nickditoro said:
			
		

> My problem is getting it into my head that a usually transitive verb like _mangiare_ suddenly becomes reflexive in the _passato prossimo_, with all the attendant required changes in verb construction: _avere_ become _essere_, and the _participio_ has to agree in number and gender. And all is due merely to the insertion of the simple two-letter word _si_. Why not _Quei maiali si *hanno* mangiat*o* il bassotto_? Oh, well.


 
Nick

It's not that "_mangiare_ suddenly becomes reflexive in the _passato prossimo". _Reflexive verbs can be quite tricky. I'll try and clear up your doubts:

1) With reflexive verbs proper you perform an action on yourself:

_Si lava = he washes himself_

_Si è trascinato fin lì = he dragged himself there_

_2) _With what Garzanti calles "riflessivo apparente" you perform an action on a part of your body or something that belongs to you. That's why the equivalent structure in English has a possessive adjective:

_Si lava le mani = he washes his hands_

_Si è pettinato i capelli = he has combed his hair_

_Si è tolto il cappotto = he has taken off his coat_

3) I don't agree with Vincenzo that _si sono mangiati il bassotto_ is the same as 2). The structure is identical but there's a major semantic difference. You can _mangiarti _or _berti _something that belongs to someone else:

_Mamma! Si è mangiato il mio panino!_

Which is why _A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian _lists 3) separately from 2) and explains it as follows:

"With certain verbs, reflexive clitics may be used not to indicate that the subject carries out some action upon itself, but merely to indicate that the action concerns, is of interest to, or benefits, only the subject. The nuance...is often well-nigh inexpressible in English, but one might say that while _Leggo questo libro_ is a 'neutral statement', _Mi leggo questo libro_ might imply that I read it because it interests me, or because I need to read it to get through an exam."

The authors go on to suggest that _mangiarsi _and _bersi _often mean _eat up _and _drink up_(followed by an object).

They also insist that 3) is different from 2) since you can change _si lava le mani _into _lava le mani a se stesso_ but you can't change _si mangia il formaggio _to  _mangia il formaggio a se stesso ._

So I'm still convinced that in 3) there is an added nuance suggesting greater involvement or something to that effect.

As for your question, _ si hanno mangiato_ is wrong because you always need to use _essere_ as an auxiliary with reflexive verbs(and that applies to all three types, 1., 2. and 3.).


----------



## nickditoro

moodywop said:
			
		

> As for your question, _ si hanno mangiato_ is wrong because you always need to use _essere_ as an auxiliary with reflexive verbs(and that applies to all three types, 1., 2. and 3.).


 
Wow, moodywop! Your post blew me away. I learned so much about Italian just now that it's made up for an otherwise horrible day. This is definitely a keeper. 

Your last paragraph (quoted above) includes the simple rule about the _ausiliare_ that I needed, but I got so much more.

Thanks!

Nick


----------



## vincenzochiaravalle

Caro Moodywoop,

Leggo solo ora il tuo ultimo post in questo thread. 

Mentre non ho nulla da dire sulla citazione da "_A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian" (_che anzi mi pare un ottima constatazione, nonche un modo molto efficace di spiegare certi riflessivi persino a noi stessi...), a mia volta io rispettosamente dissento dal tuo postulato che "With what Garzanti calles "riflessivo apparente" you perform an action on a part of your body or something that belongs to you". Ne siamo sicuri? "io mi riprometto"...., "io mi do".... "io mi creo"... ??

In effetti, se è vero che non direi MAI "_mangia il formaggio a se stesso", _ciò nondimeno lo posso pensare, se soltanto considero che il mangiare è un atto di assimilazione. Mangio il formaggio a me stesso, quindi lo rendo parte di me. Anche qui ho l'elemento del bisogno e dell'interesse personale all'azione "mangiare". E qui diventa un discorso di filosofia. Intanto allora ricordo a me stesso che il riflessivo apparente si costruisce con TUTTI i complementi indiretti, e non solo il c. di termine; io non volevo complicarla così, ma se "a me stesso" non ti piace, posso "mangiare il formaggio per me stesso", e qui arriviamo a un accordo, mi pare. Infatti l'elemento di bisogno e interesse personale nell'azione mangiare è così perfettamente spiegato, senza bisogno di un tertium genus... .

Quella spiegazione da A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian mi sembra riguardare anch'essa i riflessivi apparenti.

Poi quando i nostri amici ci chiederanno i "riflessivi reciproci" e i "riflessivi intransitivi" dovremo introdurre un terzo e un QUARTO tipo....!!! :-D

Per adesso direi che due bastano 

La cosa più bella di queste discussioni, comunque, è che mi costringono a riguardare cose che FORSE ho appreso con fatica ormai sei, sette anni fa... ...in altre parole mentre studio una lingua straniera sono spinto di necessità a sfidare le mie cognizioni di certi tecnicismi della mia stessa lingua. Cosa che mai avrei pensato, a questo punto della mia scolarizzazione... 

...e questo è semplicemente bello... 
GRAZIE A TUTTI VOI

Buona notte,

V.


----------



## moodywop

I think one of the problems is that the grammar we Italians are taught at school belongs to the traditional/structural(ist)/formalistic approach. This approach focuses on the superficial structure of sentences. Chomsky criticized this approach in the 50s, arguing that it does not go beyond what he called "surface structure". He argued that two sentences which seem identical at a surface structure level turn out to be quite different when analyzed at a "deep structure" level, which takes semantics into account.

His classic example was 1. _John is eager to please _vs 2. _John is easy to please._ The surface structure is the same in both. However, in his opinion, they should be considered different sentence types since at a deep structure level in 1. it's John that wants to please other people, in 2. other people are involved in pleasing John.

I know that to some this may sound like the jargon of academic linguistics, but it's thanks to this shift in approach that today grammar books delve into underlying meaning in a way that was unimaginable decades ago.

This approach is extremely beneficial to foreign learners. Lumping _lavarsi le mani _and _leggersi un libro _together into the same abstract category obscures the fundamental semantic difference.
At school we are taught that they're both "pronominal reflexives" and that's it (surface structure). The _Reference Grammar _goes beyond the hollow label and explains the difference because it focuses on meaning (deep structure).

That is why grammar books written for foreigners are often much better than the grammar books used in Italian schools, which frequently do not go beyond a classification of structures.
A popular advanced English grammar for foreigners, _Practical English Usage (OUP), _devotes 17(!) pages to the use of the past/perfect tenses. If only there were an Italian grammar that analyzed in such detail the use of the imperfect vs the present perfect! (Actually the five pages on the subject in _A Reference Grammar _are not bad at all )


----------



## Alxmrphi

What's the difference here?

Carla si è mangiata la pizza - Carla ha mangiato la pizza

In the reflexive form does it just mean "she eat it herself", or does it imply something different in Italian?


----------



## raffavita

Alex_Murphy said:


> What's the difference here?
> 
> Carla si è mangiata la pizza - Carla ha mangiato la pizza
> 
> In the reflexive form does it just mean "she eat it herself", or does it imply something different in Italian?


 
Non c'è differenza. They're simply two different ways to say the same.
I don't think "she ate it herself" is the right translation for it as it implies that she ate it all alone, doesn't it?
If so, the meaning of "Si è mangiata" is simply "She ate it."
Raffa


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well I meant more "to herself" which means she ate the whole thing and nobody else got to have any.
On another point, it doesn't imply she ate it alone.

Thanks for the help!

Is this is the same when most usual verbs are used in a reflexive way, they just mean the same as the non reflexive verb? Of course I know there are zillions of exceptions but _generally_?


----------



## Lello4ever

I think you got the meaning.
We use the reflexive form to intensify the meaning.
"Ha comprato un pallone"
"Si è comprato un pallone"


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok what about with spending a lot of money...

Ha spento cinque euro - He spent five euroes
Si è spento cinque mila euro - He spent five thousand euroes!!!

Intensified?


----------



## Lello4ever

Alex_Murphy said:


> Ok what about with spending a lot of money...
> 
> Ha speso cinque euro - He spent five euroes
> Si è speso cinque mila euro - He spent five thousand euroes!!!
> 
> Intensified? Yes


----------



## Alxmrphi

Woops wrong past participle! Thanks Lello.


----------



## giovannino

When you use a reflexive pronoun in this "intensifying" way the basic meaning may be the same but you add a sense of greater personal involvement/enjoyment etc. For example, after a hard day's work I might say:

Sono distrutto. Ora mi siedo sul divano e mi leggo un bel libro

Adding "mi" to "leggo" emphasizes my looking forward to the pleasure of relaxing with a good book. Using a plain "leggo" would remove this personal, emotional touch.


----------



## anghiarese

In English there is a similar intensifier.  It's even at least quasi-reflexive too.

Now I am going to sit on the sofa and read (myself) a good book.

I had (myself) a good meal. Etc.


----------



## Necsus

Alex_Murphy said:


> What's the difference here?
> 
> Carla si è mangiata la pizza - Carla ha mangiato la pizza
> 
> In the reflexive form does it just mean "she eat it herself", or does it imply something different in Italian?


Hi, Alex. 'Mangiarsi' is the *pronominal form* of 'mangiare'. See this thread...


----------



## fabiog_1981

"Si è speso cinque mila euro"??!?!?!
Non so, ma non mi suona per niente!


----------



## lafantasticarana

Not sure how to translate it! 

The phrase is: 'un bambino italiano su tre si mangia novanta merendine al mese'


----------



## k_georgiadis

One in three Italian children eats/consumes 90 snacks a month.


----------



## london calling

Hello!

_One Italian child out of three eats 90 "mini-rolls/children's cakes"_ (I mean factory-produced croissants, donuts, mini sponge cakes, that kind of thing) _a month._

By the way, I'm sure the purists here will confirm that this should read _...su tre mangia...._without the _si _(although it's very common!)


----------



## TimLA

Hey KG!

I looked at this one, and said..."ooo...that 'si mangia' really bothers me", so I didn't respond.

I made a major faux pas HERE, and have never forgotten it!

I need some help with that "si"
just to make sure that it's not
"1 in 3 Italian babies are eaten by snacks..."


----------



## k_georgiadis

I don't think that Italian snacks are particularly aggressive, Tim  I think that "mangiar*si*" is what is described as _valore intensivo_.


----------



## london calling

k_georgiadis said:


> I don't think that Italian snacks are particularly aggressive, Tim  I think that "mangiar*si*" is what is described as _valore intensivo_.


I stopped saying it a long time ago, as I was told it was not only incorrect, but "cafone"! But they do use it a lot down here....

EDIT: a friend of mine, who has 3 big boys who all eat like horses, often says (jokingly):

_I bambini non mi mangiano!    Non ancora....._

This is incorrect as well, obviously (it comes from the local dialect, I think). It means "They don't eat" (I bambini non mangiano).


----------



## k_georgiadis

Thanks for the tip , london calling. I'll avoid too!


----------



## novizio

london calling said:


> I stopped saying it a long time ago, as I was told it was not only incorrect, but "cafone"! But they do use it a lot down here....
> 
> EDIT: a friend of mine, who has 3 big boys who all eat like horses, often says (jokingly):
> 
> _I bambini non mi mangiano! Non ancora....._
> 
> This is incorrect as well, obviously (it comes from the local dialect, I think). It means "They don't eat" (I bambini non mangiano).


 
"They are not eating me, Not yet!

No?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

The "si" here makes the sentence sound more colloquial.
It's unnecessary, but quite common.
I would not use it


----------



## Necsus

_Mangiarsi_ is another pronominal verb.


----------



## london calling

novizio said:


> "They are not eating me, Not yet!
> 
> No?


That's the joke, yes!  That's exactly what it means (literally, but that's not what they really mean when they say it!).

Edit: Good heavens, Necsus! What a way to start a day....! But I still won't use "mi mangio" (_me magno_, al paese tuo???!!), having been accused of talking "cafone"!!!!


----------



## Necsus

london calling said:


> Edit: Good heavens, Necsus! What a way to start a day....! But I still won't use "mi mangio" (_me magno_, al paese tuo???!!), having been accused of talking "cafone"!!!!


Eheheheh... tranquilla, Jo, 'magnate pure sto monno e quell'antro'! è solo _parlato_, non _parlare cafone_...!


----------



## mangiacake

Salve tutti,

Ecco qui una situazione ipotetica:

Ci sono alcuni ragazzi che mangiano il pranzo...

La frase :"Si sono mangiati tutto" vuol dire "They ate everything", però letteralmente (nella forma passiva) vuol dire "All of the food was eaten"?

In altre parole, al quale sostantivo si riferisce "si sono mangiati", I ragazzi o il pranzo?

Secondo me, sia il pranzo...Cosa ne pensate? Grazie!

- John


----------



## Necsus

Ciao, mangiacake. In questo caso il _si_ ha solo valore intensificativo e fa parte del verbo stesso, _mangiarsi_, che è è un _verbo pronominale_ (vedi QUI).


----------



## Istriano

The syntax of impersonal/reflexive elements such as _si _is one of the most enduring problems in Romance linguistics. _Si _is not only the 3p reflexive as in (a), but also an impersonal, as in (b), an element inducing passive, as in (c), or unaccusativity, as in (d).


a. Gianni si lava.
'John washes himself'

b. Si va.
'One goes'

c. I giornali si leggono tutti i giorni.
'Newspapers are read every day'

d. La luce si spegne.
 'The light goes off


----------



## mangiacake

Grazie infinite!


----------



## effeundici

Guarda, non penso proprio sia scorretto.

A quanto mi risulta è una forma utilizzata per esprimere affetto e partecipazione; devo dire molto efficace per un orecchio italiano

_Cosa *mi* combina il mio piccolino?_
_La piccina non *mi* mangia, sono preoccupato._
_Il grande non *mi* studia; alla fine *me* lo bocceranno_



london calling said:


> I stopped saying it a long time ago, as I was told it was not only incorrect, but "cafone"! But they do use it a lot down here....
> 
> EDIT: a friend of mine, who has 3 big boys who all eat like horses, often says (jokingly):
> 
> _I bambini non mi mangiano! Non ancora....._
> 
> This is incorrect as well, obviously (it comes from the local dialect, I think). It means "They don't eat" (I bambini non mangiano).


----------



## london calling

effeundici said:


> Guarda, non penso proprio sia scorretto.
> 
> A quanto mi risulta è una forma utilizzata per esprimere affetto e partecipazione; devo dire molto efficace per un orecchio italiano
> 
> _Cosa *mi* combina il mio piccolino?_
> _La piccina non *mi* mangia, sono preoccupato._
> _Il grande non *mi* studia; alla fine *me* lo bocceranno_


Buono a sapersi! Tu e Necsus mi confortate...mi fa piacere comunque che neanche la tua piccina ti mangia (ancora!)!


----------



## MatrixMNP

Ciao a tutti!

Mi potreste "semplicemente" tradurre questa frase, dato che non riesco a capire ancora i vari modi di tradurre i verbi pronominali?:

*a voi lasciano pane non cotto*
*e loro si mangiano una bestia viva*

Io l'ho tradotta così:
 
to you they leave uncooked bread
and they eat a living beast

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Blackman

MatrixMNP said:


> Ciao a tutti!
> 
> Mi potreste "semplicemente" tradurre questa frase, dato che non riesco a capire ancora i vari modi di tradurre i verbi pronominali?:
> 
> *a voi lasciano pane non cotto*
> *e loro si mangiano una bestia viva*
> 
> Io l'ho tradotta così:
> 
> to you they leave uncooked bread
> and they eat a living beast
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 
Forse in inglese si potrebbe rafforzare con "they _do_ eat a living beast..." ma il responso spetta ai nativi....


----------



## Curandera

_I am not too sure if we can say:_

_'You are left with uncooked bread whilst the others/they are eating a living beast'._

_Natives?_


----------



## Alxmrphi

> _'You are left with uncooked bread whilst the others/they are eating a living beast'._


 
Well, it's grammatically correct, though it doesn't make sense to me in any other way except the literal one, they are eating an animal / beast while it is alive, and people are left to eat bread that is not cooked.

Maybe in a context and it was obvious someone was using a metaphor it would make sense, but by itself it doesn't carry any other meaning than the literal one.

Is it idiomatic in Italian?


----------



## Curandera

Actually it is not idiomatic in Italian. I was only trying to translate from Italian into English. It is literal.

I was trying to stress the difference between them. 

Those who have nothing and those who have it all.

You eat uncooked bread, they eat a living beast.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Curandera said:


> You eat uncooked bread, they eat a living beast.


 
I'll pass on both


----------



## MatrixMNP

Thanks to all!!!


----------

