# ce l'ha fatta mia nonna



## taby

Hey, can someone please translate this whole phrase for me? It doesn't quite make sense to me..."Oh, ce l'ha fatta mia nonna per 50 anni con mio nonno in campagna." What I'm more interested in knowing is what does "ce l'ha" mean in this case?


----------



## Moogey

Ciao taby,

"Oh, my grandma {made it/did just fine} for 50 years with my grandpa in the countryside"

C'è un thread recente riguardo ciò nel quale ho partecipato. Magari ti aiuterà http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=188176&highlight=farcela

A proposito, benvenuto al forum!

-M


----------



## brian

taby said:
			
		

> hey, can someone please translate this whole pharase for me? it doesn't quite make sense to me..."Oh, ce l'ha fatta mia nonna per 50 anni con mio nonno in campagna." what i'm more interested in knowing is what does "ce l'ha" mean in this case?


 Hi, Taby...and welcome to WR!

In this sentence, "ce l'ha" is the correct form derived from "ci la ha"--when followed be a form of "avere," the direct-object pronouns "lo" and "la" ellide (drop their final vowel) to "l'ho," "l'abbiamo," etc.; and when "ci" is followed by a direct object pronoun, it changes to "ce."  Hence, "ci la ha"  "ce l'ha."

Now we have to decide what "ci" stands for here.  Either it is that particle _ci_ that means "there" (or replaces some _a + infinitive_ construction), or it is the 1st person indirect object pronoun "to/for us."  Some possibilities:

_Oh, my grandmother made/did it ("la") for/to us ("ci")_ _for fifty years in the country with my grandfather._

_Oh, my grandmother made/did it ("la") there ("ci") for fifty years in the country with my grandfather._

Perhaps some more context as to what "la" refers to what help deciding what "ci" stands for.  Hope this helps.


Brian


EDIT: Ah, scusami Moogey!  Ci siamo incrociati.  Grazie per il riferimento all'idioma "farcela."  Indovino che la mia traduzione seconda sarebbe corretta, no?  In inglese si può omettere la parola "there."


----------



## Moogey

Accidenti! Ho dimenticato a menzionare che il thread riguarda "farcela". "Ce l'ha fatta" è una forma di questo.

-M


----------



## taby

thank you everyone....it did help a lot...grazie


----------



## GammaRay

In this case, is "ce" the dative case of the locative adverb ci before an accusative pronoun (lo)?

Grazie!


----------



## Alxmrphi

GammaRay said:


> In this case, is "ce" the dative case of the locative adverb ci before an accusative pronoun (lo)?
> 
> Grazie!



Every question has to be framed within a contextual sentence to understand the meaning. This is probably most important with when the word is about *ci*.
It categorically is completely impossible to answer your question without context, I really really mean completely impossible.

*Sì che ce l'ha *= Yeah (s)he has it / has got it
*Ce l'ha detto *= (S)he told *us*.
*Ce l'ha fatto *= She did/managed *it*.

Three very different meanings and I could write more possibilities...
You say "in* this *case" but don't talk about *any *case..

Locative adverbs don't decline for case, if it is dative then it'd probably be pronominal, not adverbial.


----------



## GammaRay

My apologies, I forgot to paste the sentence into the text box. Here is the context:

(Individuando un registratore): Ma non ce l'ha le pile?

Grazie

Acutally, you've basically answered my question, alxmrphi; however, can you explain why ci isn't used in this case? Is this just a fixed phrase: ce l'ha/ non ce l'ha, an alternative to c'è?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok sorry, I didn't realise you had mistakenly left out the sentence.
*Ci *is used in this sense in a bit of a redundant way, it's (from what I'm told) colloquial and is used to express a sort of nuance of possession.

So where you can say "*L'ho*" for "I have it", very often the particle *ci *is brought into use (Ce l'ho) to make it seem more 'complete'.



> however, can you explain why ci isn't used in this case?


In which case, sorry?


> Is this just a fixed phrase: ce l'ha/ non ce l'ha, an alternative to c'è?


It sort of is, yes. 
It's not really a fixed phrase, but when talking about possession and people 'having things' it's used in these situations, so while it's not a fixed phrase, I get what you mean and agree, but it's more a fixed 'usage' if you get what I mean.

Hai visto la tenda? Non la trovo da nessuna parte!(Have you seen the tent? I can't find it anywhere!)
Federico e Davide ce l'avevano prima. ....................(Federico and Davide had it before)

So no matter how you mix the conjugations or the tenses, it can be employed, so in that sense it's not a fixed 'phrase', but a fixed 'usage'.
I hope my point is clear.


----------



## GammaRay

I see. Grammatically, then, despite its redundancy, it's still a locative adverb then? "Ce" in this sense is "declined" in a way, or follows the same phonological pattern as datives before accusatives, e.g. me, te, se, etc. I understand it's a pronominal particle, but I'm analyzing the pronoun as a clitic here.

I'm going by the table here.


----------



## Alxmrphi

*Ci* can be a locative adverb, but it's not in this case.
A usage as a locative adverb would be "Ci sono stato l'anno scorso!" (I went there last year!)  but here it is a pronominal particle. I don't think an analyses as a  clitic is fruitful here at all, and would only lead to future  confusions.

It does decline, like you say as if it was a personal pronoun in a  double-object pronoun construction, but it's meaning more pragmatic than  lexical.
In introductory/beginner books I don't imagine this would be talked about, it's a fairly unique case adding to the level of strangeness for us non-native speakers.

The way it became clear to me was "it's just like the declining pronoun, but doesn't link to temporal/locational nuances, and it's not "to us", it just adds a meaning of colloquial possession to a phrase", end of. That worked for me, and I haven't really had recourse to change that view. When I couldn't grasp the lack of lexical meaning and I was trying to imagine a locative meaning, or a sort of understanding of what it meant, I was pulling my hair out getting so annoyed with the language. You just need to adjust your mind to accept idiosyncratic cases like this in foreign languages.


----------



## GammaRay

Mille grazie! I'm researching clitic omissions as phonological or morphological reduction in Italian children's speech, and was unsure if it was a clitic in this case. Wikipedia explains that "pronominal particles ce/ci (to it) and ne (of it) are treated like accusative pronouns for word-order purposes." 

Your insight of grammar is impressive madam/sir! ;-)


----------



## brian

I'd say it's definitely a clitic. Like with other clitics, it can't have focus/stress:

(1) *Non l'ha dato a Giovanni, *me* l'ha dato.
(1') Non l'ha dato a Giovanni, l'ha dato *a me*.
"He didn't give it to Giovanni, he gave it to me."

(2) **Ce* l'ho.
"I have it."

It's unclear what (2) would even be trying to express. _Ce_ in _avercelo_ really doesn't mean anything, hence why it can't have focus.

Also, regarding the infinitive, just like with other clitics/pronouns, it can never be stressed:

_DARmelo_, "to give it to me"
_aVERcelo_, "to have it"

*_averCElo_


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yeah brian is right.

Ignore what I said about it not being one, I am trying to figure out what I meant reading back over my post and I'm not too sure either


----------



## london calling

Another thought that sprang to my mind whilst reading your posts: the root infinitive of the verb is "avere" in any case, not "avercelo". In addition, _ce l'ho, ce l'ha_ etc. to indicate possession would only be used in spoken Italian and would not normally be written, unless you were reporting speech or unless the situation itself were very informal (I'm thinking of e-mails to friends or the various social networks, that kind of thing). Interestingly, this dictionary doesn't mention it at all (and neither does the WR Dictionary)! 

That said, it's very common in speech, although I must admit they seem to use it down here far less than they do, say, in Tuscany (which is where I heard it in the first place, over 30 years ago).

_Avercela (con qualcuno)_ means "to be angry with/have it in for someone". 
The link above says:

*Locuzioni in senso proprio o fig.*: avercela con qlcu., essere arrabbiato con qlcu.


----------



## GammaRay

Well, I'm interested in its nature as a weak pronoun specifically... I feel like *ce* in *ce l'ho* is highly anaphoric: there is no referent, or no real antecedent; in fact, it seems to be just a dummy pronoun in a sense, or at least a pleonastic pronominal particle, like alxmrphi mentioned earlier. If there's nothing real *ce* is referring to, is it a weak pronoun—or a pronoun at all really? I feel that it's grammatical function is not to refer to anything, so calling it a pronoun (or the "dative before accusative" form of ci) is a bit of a misnomer. I'm not so much concerned as to whether or not it's a clitic—it should be, technically—but whether or not it functions as a _weak pronoun_ like the locative adverb *ci* I'm not sure...


----------



## GammaRay

london calling said:


> Another thought that sprang to my mind whilst reading your posts: the root infinitive of the verb is "avere" in any case, not "avercelo". In addition, _ce l'ho, ce l'ha_ etc. to indicate possession would only be used in spoken Italian and would not normally be written, unless you were reporting speech or unless the situation itself were very informal (I'm thinking of e-mails to friends or the various social networks, that kind of thing). Interestingly, this dictionary doesn't mention it at all (and neither does the WR Dictionary)!
> 
> That said, it's very common in speech, although I must admit they seem to use it down here far less than they do, say, in Tuscany (which is where I heard it in the first place, over 30 years ago).
> 
> _Avercela (con qualcuno)_ means "to be angry with/have it in for someone".
> The link above says:
> 
> *Locuzioni in senso proprio o fig.*: avercela con qlcu., essere arrabbiato con qlcu.



That's correct—it's from a transcription


----------



## london calling

Weak it is,  if you want my opinion (for what it's worth, as I studied linguistics too long ago).....  Here they call it "pleonastic".

How good is your Italian? You might like to see what the _Accademia della Crusca _(the "Guardians" of the Italian language) says about what they term the '_c' attualizzante_ here. This is very similar to the form we're looking at now, except that you omit the "l" (hence the forms _c'ho, c'hai_, etc. which basically mean the same as ce l'ho, ce l'hai...)


----------



## brian

I don't think it's a pronoun (or anaphor) at all. Like you say, it doesn't refer to anything. In that sense, why it's "highly anaphoric"? What is it anaphoric to?

We know it's not a personal pronoun here, since _ce/ci_ as a personal pronoun is 1st person plural, "us".

It can certainly be a deictic locative expression, e.g. meaning "there", as in _Toscana? Io non ci sono mai stato_, "Tuscany? I've never been there." But in the case of _avercelo_, it's not deictic, nor is it even locative. (There are also cases where _ci_ is anaphoric to a person/thing, in expressions like _Ci credo_, "I believe it", since one says _credere a qualcosa_; but again, in the case of _avercelo_, it's not anaphoric to any _a + <noun>_ phrase.)

Then there's the _ci_ in _esserci_, which could mean "to be there", with _ci_ being deictic, OR the existential "for there to be", as in _Ci sono tre persone qui_, "There are three people here", or _C'è un motivo per tutto_, "There's a reason for everything." This existential _ci_ is also not deictic or anaphoric; if anything, it's semantically meaningless but syntactically required for whatever reason.

I'm inclined to say that the _ci_ in _avercelo_, as well as _avercela_, _farcela_, and other such expressions, it's similar to the existential _ci_ in that it's meaningless and non-anaphoric but nonetheless syntactically necessary for the construction in question.


----------



## london calling

brian said:


> I'm inclined to say that the _ci_ in _avercelo_, as well as _avercela_, _farcela_, and other such expressions, it's similar to the existential _ci_ in that it's meaningless and non-anaphoric but nonetheless syntactically necessary for the construction in question.


I agree with that but not when it's used to indicate possession, which is a different kettle of fish altogether, as _ci + the article_ is merely an addition to the root verb and isn't at all necessary: it's pleonastic, as they mention in the link above and  acceptable above all in the spoken language, as a colloquialism. It would certainly sound strange if you weren't to use it in some situations, for example:

_Hai la valigia?_
_Sì, l'ho._

L'ho sounds very strange, very old-fashioned!


----------



## brian

Well, I'm starting from the (perhaps mistaken) premise/assumption that _avere_ and _avercelo_ are two different constructions/expressions, despite the fact that they both indicate possession and so are, of course, very similar in meaning.

So we could call possessive _avere_ construction A, and _avercelo_ (_-la, -le, -li_) construction B. Then...



			
				brian said:
			
		

> it's similar to the existential _ci_ in that it's meaningless and non-anaphoric but nonetheless syntactically necessary *for the construction in question*.



...means that _ci_ (_ce_) is syntactically necessary when using construction B. If you take away _ci_ (_ce_), you're left with something different, namely construction A.

It sounds almost tautological (if you have B and change it, you no longer have B - wow!), but again, the assumption is that A and B are fundamentally different, so going from B to A is significant.

In that sense, _ci_ is pleonastic only insofar as, if you leave it out, the sentence is still grammatical/interpretable (though sometimes odd, as in your example) because construction A is still fine -- i.e. _ci_ seemingly optional. However, it's not pleonastic/optional insofar as you go from B to A.

Also, there's no real consensus on what pleonasm is, or what the word "pleonasm" should mean. Semantic pleonasm usually just means redundancy, e.g. _free gift_, whereas syntactic pleonasm sometimes refers to optionality, e.g. _I know John likes Mary_ vs. _I know that John likes Mary_, and sometimes it refers to non-optional but semantically meaningless, e.g. _It rains_ vs. _*Rains_.

In the case of _ci_, I take it to be the latter sort of pleonasm (semantically meaningless but syntactically necessary), whereas I guess you're taking it to be the former (syntactically optional).


----------



## london calling

Ever so quickly (because I'd like to hear the natives on this)!

In my humble opinion:

_Avere_ is the root infinitive and _avercelo_ is a "corruption" of it (you won't find _avercelo_ as an infinitive in any of the dictionaries).
_Pleonastico_: redundant, superfluous (Italian definition: the link I was referring to is written in Italian).
Read this in Treccani - I cannot but agree with it! _Ce l'ho_ is colloquial but "obbligatorio" and _c'ha_ etc. is plain bad Italian.
Amici italiani, cosa vi hanno insegnato a scuola? Una signora che conosco, insegnante di Lettere in pensione, mi ha detto una volta che sbagliavo a dire "ce l'ho", ma chi è che va in giro a parlare come Manzoni? Concorderesti con me che il "ce" è pleonastico in una frase tipo n_on ci sento_  (ossia _non sento_) - I can't hear - mentre, come dice la Treccani, in un'espressione idiomatica come _ce l'ho_ è addirittura d'obbligo?

'Nuff said!


----------



## brian

I'm really confused now.

First off, we need to disregard written Italian, _ortografia_, the style recommendations of newspapers, what was taught in school, etc. There's nothing bad about _c'ha_ (or _ce l'ha_, for that matter) as a linguistic form--it's used by many, many Italians, and has been for centuries. Yes, it may be colloquial/dialectal, but it's not bad, per se.

What is arguably bad is (1) its use in formal settings, and (2) the orthographic rendering of it, but let's let the language dictators and journalists take up these arguments--they don't concern us.

Second (the confusing part), I thought you were arguing that _ci_ in _avercelo_ is pleonastic/optional...



			
				london calling said:
			
		

> Weak it is,  if you want my opinion (for what it's worth, as I studied linguistics too long ago).....  Here they call it "pleonastic".



...but then...



			
				london calling said:
			
		

> _Ce l'ho_ is colloquial but "obbligatorio"



If the _ci_ (_ce_) is sometimes obligatory, then we need to (1) redefine what we mean by "pleonastic", or (2) concede that _ci_ (_ce_) is not pleonastic.

I'm just having trouble seeing what the "sides" are (if you will), and how (if at all) orthography and school teachers play any role in this.

It's also quite possible that the _ci_'s in _c'ho_ and _ce l'ho_ serve different functions. After all, you can say _avercelo_, but (possessive) _averci_ sounds odd, no? For example:

(1) Maria dice di *avercelo* a casa. <-- fine
(2) Maria dice di *averci* a casa un bel balcone. <-- odd, I think

Native speakers will need to give final judgments on the above.


----------



## london calling

brian said:


> First off, we need to disregard written Italian, _ortografia_, the style recommendations of newspapers, what was taught in school, etc.  Why? There's nothing bad about _c'ha_ (or _ce l'ha_, for that matter) as a linguistic form--it's used by many, many Italians, and has been for centuries. Yes, it may be colloquial/dialectal, but it's not bad, per se. It is bad, according to Treccani, if you write it. I have never claimed I believe it to be bad otherwise (as I said, I use it all the time).
> What is arguably bad is (1) its use in formal settings, and (2) the orthographic rendering of it, (which is what Treccani is saying)  but let's let the language dictators and journalists take up these arguments--they don't concern us. They may not concern you, but they do me:  I've lived, loved and worked here for the last 30 years - I find all this very stimulating. Not as a language dictator, of course (I'm no purist).
> 
> Second (the confusing part), I thought you were arguing that _ci_ in _avercelo_ is pleonastic/optional...
> It is pleonastic in many cases (see the examples I gave: _non ci sento/ci sento_) but not all: as Treccani says, it's obligatory in expressions like "ce l'ho" (and I wouldn't like to argue with the Italian equivalent of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", because I think I'd come off worst!). Seriously, I didn't mean to convey the idea that in my opinion it's pleonastic, full stop.
> 
> I'm just having trouble seeing what the "sides" are (if you will), and how (if at all) orthography and school teachers play any role in this. Who teaches the language? How do many kids learn their grammar? I mean, someone has to point out the differences between the written and spoken language, between the formal and the informal or at least point the kids in the right direction. In this part of Italy a lot of them only learn to distinguish between dialect and standard Italian by going to school: so they really need their teachers to help them get things straight (i.e teach them standard Italian and point out the difference between the written and spoken languages) because they're not going to get any help at home, unfortunately.


----------



## brian

london calling said:
			
		

> they don't concern us. They may not concern you, but they do me



GammaRay is researching _ci/ce_ as a grammatical (linguistically theoretical) entity. In particular, GR's research is on child acquisition of _ci/ce_, so by "don't concern us", I meant the following: we're looking at the ways in which _ci/ce_ is actually used in spoken Italian, particularly by children (i.e. before school, I imagine). Thus, it's hard for me to see how the teachers, journalists, grammar writers, etc. come into play here.



			
				london calling said:
			
		

> Who teaches the language? How do many kids learn their grammar?



Wherever children get their linguistic input from (family, friends, etc.), that's who "teaches" them language. However, they don't really "learn" language in the sense that someone teaches them grammar or rules. Rather, the child naturally _acquires_ language purely from input. (That's why we talk about child language _acquisition_ vs. foreign language _learning_.)

It's true that later on children are taught certain grammatical things, like _who/whom_ in English, exceptions and irregularities, etc., as well as the differences between colloquial language and formal/standard language--and this is all important--but the status of things like _averci_ and _avercelo_ in classroom Italian has no bearing on its status as a grammatical entity in colloquial/dialectal Italian, as far as I can tell.

It's a bit like if we were talking about how a certain car performs above 100 miles per hour, and then you say, "But the law says you can't go over 80 mph," although you know that this particular car is capable of surpassing 80 mph. The car's performance at 80 and below, as well as the laws in place, may be interesting in their own right, but for the discussion concerning performance over 100 mph, they seem irrelevant to me.


----------



## london calling

brian said:


> GammaRay is researching _ci/ce_ as a grammatical (linguistically theoretical) entity. In particular, GR's research is on child acquisition of _ci/ce_, so by "don't concern us", I meant the following: we're looking at the ways in which _ci/ce_ is actually used in spoken Italian, particularly by children (i.e. before school, I imagine). Thus, it's hard for me to see how the teachers, journalists, grammar writers, etc. come into play here. Because this is a language forum and any information/discussion about a given form is relevant/useful, in my opinion. Of course I agree that children acquire language from all sorts of situations.
> 
> 
> Wherever children get their linguistic input from (family, friends, etc.), that's who "teaches" them language. However, they don't really "learn" language in the sense that someone teaches them grammar or rules. They do here.  I obviously didn't explain myself properly when I mentioned the "dialect" problem. There are many children in the village where I live whose parents do not speak standard Italian (sadly, they are literally incapable of speaking it which, given the TV and all the rest of it, might seem impossible but it isn't, honestly): their children need to be taught the language. You have to live here to believe that, I realise. It's a very serious problem, as you can imagine, which is not to be underestimated. I have a school right outside my front door, but I had to take my son to a school in town once he'd finished Infant School because he was speaking more dialect than Italian, even if my husband (who very rarely speaks dialect) spoke to him in Italian all the time. I spoke to one of the teachers who confessed that she was forced to speak dialect to make herself understood by some children and their families. Rather, the child naturally _acquires_ language purely from input. (That's why we talk about child language _acquisition_ vs. foreign language _learning_.) I know, I'm an ex-teacher of English who brought up a bilingual child. The problem is the input...if it's mainly dialect, you're going to have BIG trouble....
> 
> It's true that later on children are taught certain grammatical things, like _who/whom_ in English, exceptions and irregularities, etc., as well as the differences between colloquial language and formal/standard language--and this is all important--but the status of things like _averci_ and _avercelo_ in classroom Italian has no bearing on its status as a grammatical entity in colloquial/dialectal Italian, as far as I can tell. True, but I have never denied that:  I use it, as we all do here and I picked it up, just as a child would, through input. It is still however important to know that it's colloquial.
> 
> It's a bit like if we were talking about how a certain car performs above 100 miles per hour, and then you say, "But the law says you can't go over 80 mph," although you know that this particular car is capable of surpassing 80 mph. The car's performance at 80 and below, as well as the laws in place, may be interesting in their own right, but for the discussion concerning performance over 100 mph, they seem irrelevant to me.  Nice one! Depends on your point of view, however!!


Ok, too sociological, I know....


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Una cosa che qualcuno ha scritto in un qualche post qui sopra mi sembra sia scorretta in italiano: "Ce l'ha, le pile (?)". Credo che sia corretto dire "Ce le ha, le pile (?)".
Insomma, ho l'impressione che "elle apostrofo" possa sostituire solo "lo" e "la". Sbaglio?

GS


----------



## london calling

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Insomma, ho l'impressione che "l apostrofo" possa sostituire solo "lo" e "la".


Così credevo anch'io.


----------



## Alessandrino

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Una cosa che qualcuno ha scritto in un qualche post qui sopra mi sembra sia scorretta in italiano: "Ce l'ha, le pile (?)". Credo che sia corretto dire "Ce le ha, le pile (?)".
> Insomma, ho l'impressione che "elle apostrofo" possa sostituire solo "lo" e "la". Sbaglio?
> 
> GS


È la prima volta che sento di questa regola, e, se dovesse essere valida tutt'ora, la mia reazione sarebbe O_O .
Va da sé che difficilmente mi sono trovato nella vita a scrivere _ce l'ha_ in un contesto formale, ma l'idea scrivere da circa vent'anni una cosa così semplice in maniera sbagliata è dura da digerire.


----------



## GammaRay

GammaRay said:


> Well, I'm interested in its nature as a weak pronoun specifically... I feel like *ce* in *ce l'ho* is highly EDIT!!! *un-anaphoric*: there is no referent, or no real antecedent; in fact, it seems to be just a dummy pronoun in a sense, or at least a pleonastic pronominal particle, like alxmrphi mentioned earlier. If there's nothing real *ce* is referring to, is it a weak pronoun—or a pronoun at all really? I feel that it's grammatical function is not to refer to anything, so calling it a pronoun (or the "dative before accusative" form of ci) is a bit of a misnomer. I'm not so much concerned as to whether or not it's a clitic—it should be, technically—but whether or not it functions as a _weak pronoun_ like the locative adverb *ci* I'm not sure...



So the question is not whether _ce l'ho_ is formal or informal really—colloquialisms still cling to some vestiges of grammatical structure. The question I posed was whether or not the word "ce" is a clitic, even as an alternate form of ci. The issue there is whether or not *ce* functions grammatically in the same way as *ci*. It seems to be a "declined" form of ci, the dative before accusative form, similar to *me lo dà*.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Gamma.

_I feel like ce in ce l'ho is highly EDIT!!! un-anaphoric: there is no referent, or no real antecedent_

Well, I would say "there's no _explicit_ referent". In the mind of the speaker who feels the need for pronouncing "ci +" there always seems to be a notion -- be it a place, or a person, or a situation -- to which/whom they refer back to by means of this shorthand notation "ci".

A- Il telefono! Ci vado io?
B- No, ci vado io

A- Ma ti rendi conto di quello che ha fatto quel pazzo?
B- Non me ne parlare: ci penso continuamente/non faccio che pensarci

A- Ha proprio un carattere impossibile!
B- Eh, lo so, anch'io vorrei andarci d'accordo ma è sempre più difficile


Best.

GS


----------



## london calling

GammaRay said:


> So the question is not whether _ce l'ho_ is formal or informal really—colloquialisms still cling to some vestiges of grammatical structure. The question I posed was whether or not the word "ce" is a clitic, even as an alternate form of ci. The issue there is whether or not *ce* functions grammatically in the same way as *ci*. It seems to be a "declined" form of ci, the dative before accusative form, similar to *me lo dà*.


My apologies, I thought that had been cleared up by Brian and Alex (my fault for not reading the posts as thoroughly as I should have).

However, I personally agree that "ce" is a clitic and would appear to be a declined form of "ci", as you say: BUT as I mentioned before, I studied Italian linguistics and semantics many moons ago, so I'm not claiming any sort of expert status on this! Brian and Alex are our resident experts....

Edit: have you tried asking the Solo Italiano lot?


----------



## Necsus

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Insomma, ho l'impressione che "elle apostrofo" possa sostituire solo "lo" e "la". Sbaglio?


You can find various threads about that topic, here is one of them in I/E: Elision, and one in SI: Elisione e troncamento/apocope.


----------



## Beth66

It simply means "Oh, my grandmother managed for 50 years with my grandfather in the fields." Ce l'ha fatta means did it, in this context translated as managed. "Ce l'ho fatta a pulire la casa in tempo." I managed to clean the house in time. Again did it meaning managed.


----------



## gburtonio

I always thought the reason for using "ce l'ho" in the spoken language instead of "l'ho" is simply to avoid ambiguity, since "l'ho" is pronounced in exactly the same way as "lo". When written you can obviously see the difference between the two. Having said that, I don't think I've even seen "L'ho." in a written context (here I'm talking about 'L'ho.' as a complete sentence meaning "I've got it." rather than the beginning of a sentence like 'L'ho comprato').

You do hear things like "Ce l'ho la penna" quite often, too, in spoken language. In such cases the pronouns "ce" and "la" (which becomes l') do seem superfluous. It's just spoken style, I suppose.


----------



## london calling

gburtonio said:


> I always thought the reason for using "ce l'ho" in the spoken language instead of "l'ho" is simply to avoid ambiguity, since "l'ho" is pronounced in exactly the same way as "lo". Could be that, could also be the fact that it's cacaphonic: _l'ho la penna_ sounds dreadful!  You do hear things like "Ce l'ho la penna" quite often, too, in spoken language. It's used all the time, actually. Another thing which is often used is "c'ho la penna" ( I don't know if you read the link I posted to the Treccani web-site, but THAT they find particularly disturbing!!.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hi, gburt.

It never even crossed my mind that "l'ho" and "lo" could have something in common, but that's normal for a native speaker...though I should say that "l'lo" is pronounced with a sharp, short, open "o" sound, whereas "lo" contains a more relaxed, closed "o" (of the kind "naive" transcrptions for English speaking learners of Italian would represent with "low").

As for usage, I'd say "L'ho" _can_ be heard and is in fact heard more often than we would expect.

Prof.  - Ce l'ha il libretto? (the booklet for exam marks)
Stude - Mi dispiace, l'ho a casa

Best.

GS


----------



## Necsus

Speaking of the particle _ci _(from the real beginning of this thread), did you read those threads? (save Alex, obviously) 
ce - ci - ne;
c', ci, c'è.


----------



## london calling

Necsus said:


> Speaking of the particle _ci _(from the real beginning of this thread), did you read those threads? (save Alex, obviously)
> ce - ci - ne;
> c', ci, c'è.


Yep! I read them all before  I posted anything , as I always do.


----------



## Necsus

Good girl.


----------



## london calling

Necsus said:


> Good girl.


 
Scusa eh, la faccia come il sedere  o ce l'hai o non ce l'hai....

Vedi che evito anche le parolacce? Santa mi faranno!


----------



## GammaRay

london calling said:


> My apologies, I thought that had been cleared up by Brian and Alex (my fault for not reading the posts as thoroughly as I should have).
> 
> However, I personally agree that "ce" is a clitic and would appear to be a declined form of "ci", as you say: BUT as I mentioned before, I studied Italian linguistics and semantics many moons ago, so I'm not claiming any sort of expert status on this! Brian and Alex are our resident experts....
> 
> Edit: have you tried asking the Solo Italiano lot?



Thank you so much!

Who are Solo Italiano? (maybe this is more appropriate in a DM...)


----------



## Necsus

GammaRay said:


> Thank you so much!
> Who are Solo Italiano? (maybe this is more appropriate in a DM...)


I am 'solo italiano' (because of my bad English)...! But actually it's also a forum: *Solo Italiano*. 
Anyway take a look at the links I provided above, don't follow the bad example of someone here...


----------

