# Russo-Italiano: uso degli articoli in italiano



## Oblomovita

Ciao a tutti,
volevo sapere, secondo voi, perchè per gli slavofoni è così difficile usare gli articoli determinativi e indeterminativi

Привет всем,
Я хотел бы знать, по вашему, почему это так трудно для русски-говорящих правильно использовать итальянские определенные и неопределенные артикли


----------



## Orlin

Я не говорю по-итальянски, но по-моему ответ очевиден: каждая грамматическая категория, которая отсутствует в родном языке, трудна для изучения (особенно такая абстрактная как категория определенности): в славянских языках кроме болгарского и македонского нет артиклей (в болгарском и македонском есть только определенный артикль), а в языках, в которых есть артикли, они употребляются по не полностью идентичным правилам и поэтому овладеть употребой артиклей может стать еще труднее, эсли ты уже владеешь языком, в котором есть артикли - возможно, что станешь путать правила разных языков.
А числительное один в славянских языках иногда используется как неопределенный артикль, но далеко не всегда, когда в других языках употребился бы неопределенный артикль - еще одна трудность для носителя славянского языка.


----------



## Oblomovita

orlin said:


> Я не говорю по-итальянски, но по-моему ответ очевиден: каждая грамматическая категория, которая отсутствует в родном языке, трудна для изучения (особенно такая абстрактная как категория определенности): в славянских языках кроме болгарского и македонского нет артиклей (в болгарском и македонском есть только определенный артикль), а в языках, в которых есть артикли, они употребляются по не полностью идентичным правилам и поэтому овладеть употребой артиклей может стать еще труднее, эсли ты уже владеешь языком, в котором есть артикли - возможно, что станешь путать правила разных языков.
> А числительное один в славянских языках иногда используется как неопределенный артикль *точно, а это используется в качестве определенного артикля*, но далеко не всегда, когда в других языках употребился бы неопределенный артикль - еще одна трудность для носителя славянского языка.



Тогда, почему же трудно использовать на их место артикли?


----------



## Orlin

oblomovita said:


> Тогда, почему же трудно использовать на их место артикли?


 
Потому что правила об употребе артиклей обычно абстрактные, сложные или имеют много исключений и поэтому не так легки для овладения - нужны немало усилий и времени.


----------



## Oblomovita

Да это правда для английского языка на пример, но в итальянском языке, артикли требуются почти всегда


----------



## Orlin

oblomovita said:


> Да это правда для английского языка на пример, но в итальянском языке, артикли требуются почти всегда


 
Возможно, что в итальянском определить когда употребить артикль или нет решается легко, но в итальянском, как мне известно, артикли имеют несколько форм, определяемых фонотактическими правилами, а кроме того они сливаются с некоторыми предлогами - все эти фонетические варианты и слитные формы надо запомнить.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

В итальянском артикли употребляются далеко не всегда. И если надо выбирать из трёх возможностей - отсутствие артикля, неопределённый артикль, определённый артикль, то это представляет собою проблему для славян, которые (кроме болгар и македонцев) и не знают, зачем вообще нужна эта категория определённости или неопределённости существительного. В славянских языках (я не говорю о болгарском и македонском) то, что как-то подходит под категорию артикля (числительное один) используется крайне несистематично. Отсюда и проблемы.

Есть некоторые случаи, когда славяне употребляют определённый артикль, а носитель языка артикль не употребляет вообще: например, когда в резюме человек пишет "солист Большого театра", то при переводит ставит перед словом "солист" определённый артикль.

А италоговорящие путаются в падежах или глаголах совершенного и несовершенного вида в русском?
Я знаком с болгарином, который в шести падежах русского языка путается как в паутине. Мы, русские, наверное, путались бы в неисчислимых временах и наклонениях болгарских глаголов.


----------



## Orlin

angelo di fuoco said:


> Есть некоторые случаи, когда славяне употребляют определённый артикль, а носитель языка артикль не употребляет вообще: например, когда в резюме человек пишет "солист Большого театра", то при переводит ставит перед словом "солист" определённый артикль.
> (это очень смешно, потому что значит, что у Большого театра только один солист и был именно он).
> А италоговорящие путаются в падежах или глаголах совершенного и несовершенного вида в русском? Почти 100% сигурно.
> Я знаком с болгарином, который в шести падежах русского языка путается как в паутине. Возможно, но у меня никогда не было проблем с падежами. Мы, русские, наверное, путались бы в неисчислимых временах и наклонениях болгарских глаголов. Очень серьезная проблема для всех иностранцев, изучающих болгарский язык.




Я думаю, что хорошо овладеть принципиальными грамматическим категориями, отсутствующими в родном языке, удается лишь немногим (например, может быть, тем, которые изучают данный язык с раннего возраста, а также талантливым или старающимся очень много), а все остальные делают больше или меньше ошибок.


----------



## sokol

Angelo's explanation of course is excellent (and sorry for not writing in either Russian or Italian, but in those languages I have only passive skills) - the main difference is not "just" using the article (some Slavic native speakers indeed do know the concept of definiteness vs. indefiniteness), but to use definite and indefinite article (or no article at all) correctly.

Even those European languages having articles (that is, German, Romance languages, English, etc.) differ greatly in use, and in German even regions differ in use (article - especially definite article - is more frequently used in the south, e. g. with proper names Austrian and Southern Germans like to use article while Northerners don't); similar differences actually might even exist in Italian?

If it were only the article alone then this shouldn't be that different for Russian (or other Slavic) native speakers; the difficulty lies in use.


----------



## Montesacro

sokol said:


> Even those European languages having articles (that is, German, Romance languages, English, etc.) differ greatly in use, and in German even regions differ in use (article - especially definite article - is more frequently used in the south, e. g. with proper names Austrian and Southern Germans like to use article while Northerners don't); similar differences actually might even exist in Italian?



Yes, they do exist.
In colloquial speech many northern Italians will use a definite article with a person's name whilst people from the centre and the south won't.


----------



## Oblomovita

sokol said:


> the main difference is not "just" using the article (some Slavic native speakers indeed do know the concept of definiteness vs. indefiniteness), but to use definite and indefinite article (or no article at all) correctly.
> 
> Yes, this is my question. Why is so difficult for Slavic native speakers use articles in Italian even when they speak it fluently?
> 
> similar differences actually might even exist in Italian?





Montesacro said:


> Yes, they do exist.
> In colloquial speech many northern Italians will use a definite article with a female (I'm form nothern Italy and you're right, anyway in Italian it isn't correct to use articles with person's name at all) person's name whilst people from the centre and the south won't.



I need to teach italian to russian speakers, and I would like to know why they can't use articles
do they hate them?
do they think that articles are not necessary?
how to explain that in Italian articles are very important?
A name can't exist without article!

Мне нужно преподавать итальянский тем, кто говорят на славянском языке, и я хотел бы знать, почему они не могут использовать артикли? 
может быть они ненавидят их?
может быть они думают, что артикли не требуются?
Как объяснить, что в итальянском языке артикли являются очень важны?
Существительные не могут существовать без артикля!


----------



## Orlin

Oblomovita said:


> Мне нужно преподавать итальянский тем, кто говорят на славянском языке, и я хотел бы знать, почему они не могут использовать артикли?
> может быть они ненавидят их? Возможно, если не понимают их употребу.
> может быть они думают, что артикли не требуются? Может быть такая идея появится, потому что славянские языки хорошо функционируют и без артиклей.
> Как объяснить, что в итальянском языке артикли являются очень важны? Если возможно, следует показать примеры, в которых употреба или отсутствие артиклей существенно изменяет значение.
> Существительные не могут существовать без артикля!


 
Хотя это бывает сравнительно редко, все же возможно найти примеры, в которых (не)употребление артиклей существенна для значения. К сожалению я знаю очень мало об итальянском, но хорошо помню один пример в английском, где присутствие или отсутствие определеного артикля решающее:
He is sitting in *the* front of the car.
He is sitting in front of the car.
Вероятно такие ситуации есть и в итальянском.


----------



## Oblomovita

Orlin said:


> Хотя это бывает сравнительно редко, все же возможно найти примеры, в которых (не)употребление артиклей существенна для значения. К сожалению я знаю очень мало об итальянском, но хорошо помню один пример в английском, где присутствие или отсутствие определеного артикля решающее:
> He is sitting in *the* front of the car.
> He is sitting in front of the car.
> Вероятно такие ситуации есть и в итальянском.



Конечно! in the front, потому что front здесь является существительном   
in front, а здесь просто наречие места

nel*la* parte forntale della macchina
di fronte alla macchina


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

oblomovita said:


> i need to teach italian to russian speakers, and i would like to know why they can't use articles
> do they hate them?
> Do they think that articles are not necessary?
> How to explain that in italian articles are very important?
> A name can't exist without article!
> 
> Мне нужно преподавать итальянский тем, кто говорят на славянском языке, и я хотел бы знать, почему они не могут использовать артикли?
> может быть они ненавидят их?
> может быть они думают, что артикли не требуются?
> Как объяснить, что в итальянском языке артикли являются очень важны?
> Существительные не могут существовать без артикля!



Не надо объяснять, что в итальянском артикли важны, лучше объяснить, где и почему (!) используются какие артикли, а где они не используются (такое тоже встречается!).


----------



## Ben Jamin

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Не надо объяснять, что в итальянском артикли важны, лучше объяснить, где и почему (!) используются какие артикли, а где они не используются (такое тоже встречается!).


 
It is often not possible to explain a language student WHY one uses a grammatical construction. The only meaningful explanation is the usage. 
For example, it is not necessary to explain to a speaker of a Germanic language why in the Slavic languages you use the accusative whith the verb to have, but you use the genitive with do not have. You have only to teach them when to use the appropriate case, and drill, drill, drill. I even doubt if there exists an explanation at all.


----------



## Maroseika

Oblomovita said:


> do they think that articles are not necessary?


I think this is the main reason.



> how to explain that in Italian articles are very important?
> A name can't exist without article!


Maybe you should explain why exactly the name can't exist without article. What will happen to the name if it goes without article?


----------



## Frank06

Oblomovita said:


> I need to teach italian to russian speakers, and I would like to know why they can't use articles
> do they hate them?
> do they think that articles are not necessary?
> how to explain that in Italian articles are very important?


Well, teaching Russian speakers the concept of articles and the usage of them is going to be more difficult than teaching them how to use capital letters: Russian doesn't have articles, but the Russian, or rather Cyrillic, script does have capital letters.


> A name can't exist without article!


It can. Just have a look at Latin (and Russian).

Frank


----------



## Oblomovita

Frank06 said:


> Well, teaching Russian speakers the concept of articles and the usage of them is going to be more difficult than teaching them how to use capital letters: Russian doesn't have articles, but the Russian, or rather Cyrillic, script does have capital letters.
> It can. Just have a look at Latin (and Russian).
> Frank


*I mean in Italian*


----------



## Oblomovita

Maroseika said:


> I think this is the main reason.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should explain why exactly the name can't exist without article. What will happen to the name if it goes without article?


 
Sorry, I mean a noun and not a name!
In Italian a noun is always with an article. It is called "gruppo nominale".
When I add an article I create a noun.
*verde* in Italian is green and it is an adjective,
adding the article il, *il verde*, the adjective is now a noun and it means the colour green.

В итальянском языке существительное всегда с артиклем. Это называется "Gruppo nominale".
Когда мы добавим артикль мы создаем существительное.
*Verde* в итальянском значит зеленый и это является прилагательном,
добивая артикль il, *il verde*, прилагательное теперь становится существительное и это означает зеленый цвет.


----------



## Oblomovita

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Не надо объяснять, что в итальянском артикли важны, лучше объяснить, где и почему (!) используются какие артикли, а где они не используются (такое тоже встречается!).



В итальянском языке существуют определенные и неопределенные артикли.
Если я говорю il libro (именно эта определенная книга) это значит что слушающий человек знает о какой книге я говорю. 
А если я говорю un libro (какая-либо неопределенная книга) значит что слушающий эту книгу не знает.
Если я не использую артикль слушающий итальянец начинает думать о какой книге я говорю, и если он должен знать эту книгу, или эта книга ему совсем неизвестна.


----------



## Maroseika

Oblomovita said:


> Sorry, I mean a noun and not a name!
> In Italian a noun is always with an article. It is called "gruppo nominale".
> When I add an article I create a noun.
> *verde* in italian is green and it is an adjective,
> adding the article il, *il verde*, the adjective is now a noun and it means the colour green.


Well, I guess this will be quite sufficient explanation for the Russian speakers. Just show them the difference with Russian, where the names (nouns, adjectives, numerals) don't need any special markers because usually can be easily distinguished.
However you should also explain your students why it is so important to mark a noun as noun. In Russian even substantivated adjectives are clearly perceptible as nouns from the context notwithstanding their morphological appearance (ванная, портной or even красный as in Красные вошли в город на рассвете).


----------



## Maroseika

oblomovita said:


> В итальянском языке существуют определенные и неопределенные артикли.
> Если я говорю il libro (именно эта определенная книга) это значит что слушающий человек знает о какой книге я говорю.
> А если я говорю un libro (какая-либо неопределенная книга) значит что слушающий эту книгу не знает.
> Если я не использую артикль слушающий итальянец начинает думать о какой книге я говорю, и если он должен знать эту книгу, или эта книга ему совсем неизвестна.


Не могли бы вы привести 3 соответствующих примера с русским переводом?


----------



## Oblomovita

Maroseika said:


> Well, I guess this will be quite sufficient explanation for the Russian speakers. Just show them the difference with Russian, where the names (nouns, adjectives, numerals) don't need any special markers because usually can be easily distinguished.
> However you should also explain your students why it is so important to mark a noun as noun. In Russian even substantivated adjectives are clearly perceptible as nouns from the context notwithstanding their morphological appearance (ванная, портной or even красный as in Красные вошли в город на рассвете).



Ты права. Русский более интуитивным чем итальянский. Но я уже объяснял это. Они прекрасно поняли, но все равно они не хотят использовать артикли, как будто они их ненавидят.

You're right. Russian language  is more intuitive than the Italian. But I have already explained this. They understood perfectly it. Anyway they still do not want to use articles, as if they hate them.


----------



## Maroseika

oblomovita said:


> Ты права. Русский более интуитивным чем итальянский. Но я уже объяснял это. Они прекрасно поняли, но все равно они не хотят использовать артикли, как будто они их ненавидят.


Думаю, дело не в ненависти. Я специально попросил вас привести 3 примера с определенным артиклем, неопределенным артиклем и без артикля. Подозреваю, что на русский все три фразы будут переведены одинаково.


----------



## Oblomovita

Maroseika said:


> Не могли бы вы привести 3 соответствующих примера с русским переводом?



я прочитал книгу
ho letto (il - un) libro

In italian without article I can't understand what book did you read. It can be the book that I suggested you (in this case - il libro - definitive article)
or another book that I don't know (un libro - undefenitive article)

Ok, you can say that in russian it is possible to say "я прочитал эту книгу" where эту stands for definitive articles. Anyway in Italian эту (questo) means that is near the speakers. So we have absolutely to use article.


----------



## Oblomovita

Second sentence

я помою машины


1- Io lavo le macchine (definitive article)
2- Io lavo delle macchine (undefenitive article)
3- Io lavo macchine (without article)

First sentence it means that I wash some cars, and we know which cars (maybe mine and yours)
Second: I wash some cars (we don't know which cars)
Third: I work in a car wash (автомойка)


----------



## Orlin

angelo di fuoco said:


> Не надо объяснять, что в итальянском артикли важны, лучше объяснить, где и почему (!) используются какие артикли, а где они не используются (такое тоже встречается!).


 
По-моему это наилучшее объяснение - у *каждого* языка есть *свои* категории и правила и они *обязательны для всех говорящих данный* *язык* (и, конечно, нет значения есть ли такие категории и правила в родном языке или нет - ты должен их запомнить и употреблять, когда это необходимо).
Во-вторых, иногда возникает проблема объяснить что-то без возможности найти подходящий аналог: допустим, что эскимос летит в Африку и, увидев много непознатых вещей (включительно много странных животных), возвращается. Дома он попытается объяснить товарищам каких животных он увидел в Африке:
- Там есть *жирафа*. Она как _лось_, только шея очень длинная.
- Там есть *лев*. Он как _белый медведь_, но ... 
Ясно, что в этих примерах эскимосу будет относительно легко объяснить и его собеседники вероятно более или менее легко поймут.
Но в этом примере возникнет настоящая проблема:
- Там есть *змея*. 
Очевидно эскимосу будет невозможно найти познатое животное, похожее на змею, и как-нибудь он бы попытался объяснить что такое змея, совершенно возможно, что люди его племени ничего не поняли бы. Только, разумеется, это не означает, что эскимосам невозможно объяснить что такое змея - разница с предходными примерами только в том, что это будет труднее из-за отсутствия познатого подходящего аналога и поэтому приходится значительно больше описывать, чтобы им представить это животное.


----------



## Maroseika

Oblomovita said:


> я прочитал книгу
> ho letto (il - un) libro
> 
> In italian without article I can't understand what book did you read. It can be the book that I suggested you (in this case - il libro - definitive article)
> or another book that I don't know (un libro - undefenitive article)
> 
> Ok, you can say that in russian it is possible to say "я прочитал эту книгу" where эту stands for definitive articles. Anyway in Italian эту (questo) means that is near the speakers. So we have absolutely to use article.


I just wanted you to pay attention to the fact that in Russian we usually don't take  this category of  definitness into account at all. That is why for your students it looks superfluous and senseless. They don't use to express this category in some other way, they just don't think about it. 
Your examples with the cars are perfect. All of them are interpreted in Russian equally:
1- Io lavo le macchine (definitive article) - Я мою машину.
2- Io lavo delle macchine (undefenitive article) - Я мою машину.
3- Io lavo macchine (without article) - Я мою машины.
Only the last one differs in the number. Maybe you can use this in your explanation - zero article in Italian corresponds Russian generic idea.


----------



## Oblomovita

Maroseika said:


> Не могли бы вы привести 3 соответствующих примера с русским переводом?





Maroseika said:


> I just wanted you to pay attention to the fact that in Russian we usually don't take  this category of  definitness into account at all. That is why for your students it looks superfluous and senseless. They don't use to express this category in some other way, they just don't think about it.
> Your examples with the cars are perfect. All of them are interpreted in Russian equally:
> 1- Io lavo le macchine (definitive article) - Я мою машину машины.
> 2- Io lavo delle macchine (undefenitive article) - Я мою машину машины.
> 3- Io lavo macchine (without article) - Я мою машины.
> Only the last one differs in the number. Maybe you can use this in your explanation - zero article in Italian corresponds Russian generic idea.



There is no difference in number. They are all in plural number.


----------



## Oblomovita

orlin said:


> По-моему это наилучшее объяснение - у *каждого* языка есть *свои* категории и правила и они *обязательны для всех говорящих данный* *язык* (и, конечно, нет значения есть ли такие категории и правила в родном языке или нет - ты должен их запомнить и употреблять, когда это необходимо).
> Во-вторых, иногда возникает проблема объяснить что-то без возможности найти подходящий аналог: допустим, что эскимос летит в Африку и, увидев много непознатых вещей (включительно много странных животных), возвращается. Дома он попытается объяснить товарищам каких животных он увидел в Африке:
> - Там есть *жирафа*. Она как _лось_, только шея очень длинная.
> - Там есть *лев*. Он как _белый медведь_, но ...
> Ясно, что в этих примерах эскимосу будет относительно легко объяснить и его собеседники вероятно более или менее легко поймут.
> Но в этом примере возникнет настоящая проблема:
> - Там есть *змея*.
> Очевидно эскимосу будет невозможно найти познатое животное, похожее на змею, и как-нибудь он бы попытался объяснить что такое змея, совершенно возможно, что люди его племени ничего не поняли бы. Только, разумеется, это не означает, что эскимосам невозможно объяснить что такое змея - разница с предходными примерами только в том, что это будет труднее из-за отсутствия познатого подходящего аналога и поэтому приходится значительно больше описывать, чтобы им представить это животное.



Вы правы. Может быть, я должен спросить эскимосу :d


----------



## Maroseika

Oblomovita said:


> There is no difference in number. They are all in plural number.


Most unfortunately... In this case, as you see, absolutely no difference in Russian.
To say the truth, though I studied English, Spanish and German, I still cannot realize what are the articles for. I believe you really need them but don't see why.

For example:
- Чем ты занят?
- Читаю книгу.
Obviously, Italian requires definite article here, because I definately know what book I'm reading. On the other hand, this information seems to be quite superfluous because how can I read the book I don't know? Of course I can say: Да вот, читаю какую-то книгу. But even this will not mean I don't know what book I'm reading, but will mean I reckon the book unserious.


----------



## Oblomovita

Maroseika said:


> Most unfortunately... In this case, as you see, absolutely no difference in Russian.
> To say the truth, though I studied English, Spanish and German, I still cannot realize what are the articles for. I believe you really need them but don't see why.
> 
> For example:
> - Чем ты занят?
> - Читаю книгу.
> Obviously, Italian requires definite article here, because I definately know what book I'm reading. On the other hand, this information seems to be quite superfluous because how can I read the book I don't know? Of course I can say: Да вот, читаю какую-то книгу. But even this will not mean I don't know what book I'm reading, but will mean I reckon the book unserious.



the problem is that in italian it isn't superfluous
definitive - leggo il libro - it means that listener knows the book
undefenitive - leggo un libro - it means that listener doesn't know the book I am reading.

So, if I say "leggo libro" the listener (Italian) starts to wonder which book I am reading, if he knows or not and maybe, a little upset, will ask: "What book??"


----------



## Maroseika

Oblomovita said:


> the problem is that in italian it isn't superfluous
> definitive - leggo il libro - it means that listener knows the book
> undefenitive - leggo un libro - it means that listener doesn't know the book I am reading.
> 
> So, if I say "leggo libro" the listeners (Italian) starts to wonder which book I am reading, if he knows or not and maybe, a little upset, will ask: "What book??"


This is exactly what I mean: Italians will start thinking about this but Russians - not. They just don't have such a habit - thinking about these things. For Russian mind it's really superfluous and when studing Italian they should obtain such a habit.
Somebody here has already compared this with a problem of the category of perfectness for all studing Russian. Since you know Russian perfectly you can recall you difficulties with this category and realize what does it mean - think when speaking about the things you never used to think about.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Maroseika said:


> Most unfortunately... In this case, as you see, absolutely no difference in Russian.
> To say the truth, though I studied English, Spanish and German, I still cannot realize what are the articles for. I believe you really need them but don't see why.
> 
> For example:
> - Чем ты занят?
> - Читаю книгу.
> Obviously, Italian requires definite article here, because I definately know what book I'm reading. On the other hand, this information seems to be quite superfluous because how can I read the book I don't know? Of course I can say: Да вот, читаю какую-то книгу. But even this will not mean I don't know what book I'm reading, but will mean I reckon the book unserious.


 Sorry, you do not use the definite article here. 
Que cosa fai?
Leggo un libro.
But
Hai letto "La guerra ed il pace"?
Leggo il libro ora. /Ho letto il libro.


----------



## Maroseika

Ben Jamin said:


> Sorry, you do not use the definite article here.
> Que cosa fai?
> Leggo un libro.
> But
> Hai letto "La guerra ed il pace"?
> Leggo il libro ora. /Ho letto il libro.


OK, thanks for clarification, but no matter. The most important is that for a Russian there is no difference in the definiteness of the book in both cases because he doesn't think about this category at all. And when speaking Italian, he has to think. But at heart he doesn't understand why, if he can easily go without it when speaking Russian.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Maroseika said:


> OK, thanks for clarification, but no matter. The most important is that for a Russian there is no difference in the definiteness of the book in both cases because he doesn't think about this category at all. And when speaking Italian, he has to think. But at heart he doesn't understand why, if he can easily go without it when speaking Russian.


 That is why thinking does not help very much when learning a foreign language. Small children learn without explanations. Adults need drilling. Explanations help only for people with a linguistic mind, and highly trained in philology (but they also forget when speaking). Learning texts and dialogues by heart is the best way to learn a language. And last but not least: the age factor! For every year over age 10 you must increase the amount of drilling with about 50% to obtain the same result.It means that a 40 years old must drill 16 times more than a 10 years old.
After forty the increment increases even more.


----------



## Oblomovita

Maroseika said:


> OK, thanks for clarification, but no matter. The most important is that for a Russian there is no difference in the definiteness of the book in both cases because he doesn't think about this category at all. And when speaking Italian, he has to think. But at heart he doesn't understand why, if he can easily go without it when speaking Russian.



Ok, it' the same for italian with russian verbs.
In Italian I can say "Ho letto un libro"
it means
я читал книгу и 
я прочитал книгу
in Italian, like in English, there is no difference it is always "Ho letto un libro", "I read a book".
But when I speak russian I have to say
я читал книгу if I didn't finih it but
я прочитал книгу if I finished it.

So if I say я прочитал книгу a Russian listener will think that I read it to the very end, and he will probably ask me if it was interesting.
But I'll reply that I read only 5 pages and I have no idea about the plot.
So my Russian friend will have the right to ask me why did you say "я прочитал книгу"?
Fom me, Italian, it would be useless to distinguish читал and прочитал, but I understand that for my Russian listener it is important.

The same importance is for Italians with articles.


----------



## bibax

> В итальянском языке существуют определенные и неопределенные артикли.
> Если я говорю il libro (именно эта определенная книга) это значит что слушающий человек знает о какой книге я говорю.
> А если я говорю un libro (какая-либо неопределенная книга) значит что слушающий эту книгу не знает.
> Если я не использую артикль слушающий итальянец начинает думать о какой книге я говорю, и если он должен знать эту книгу, или эта книга ему совсем неизвестна.


It is simple.

But how to translate (the???) sentences like _"Kniha je přítel člověka"_. In the Czech sentence there are three nouns and no article.
Does (the/a???) listener know the book/friend/man? I am often lost and then I simply guess.


----------



## berndf

bibax said:


> It is simple.
> 
> But how to translate (the???) sentences like _"Kniha je přítel člověka"_. In the Czech sentence there are three nouns and no article.
> Does (the/a???) listener know the book/friend/man? I am often lost and then I simply guess.


Good point. There is no obvious answer. As Sokol pointed out, Western European language differ in their use of articles:
English: _*The* book is man's friend. _(1 article)
French: _*Le* livre est *l*'ami de *l*'homme. _(3 articles)
German: _*Das* Buch ist *des* Menschen Freund./*Das* Buch ist *der* Freund *des* Menschen._ (2 or 3 articles)


----------



## Oblomovita

berndf said:


> Good point. There is no obvious answer. As Sokol pointed out, Western European language differ in their use of articles:
> English: _*The* book is man's friend. _(1 article)
> French: _*Le* livre est *l*'ami de *l*'homme. _(3 articles)
> German: _*Das* Buch ist *des* Menschen Freund./*Das* Buch ist *der* Freund *des* Menschen._ (2 or 3 articles)


 
Italian: Il libro è l'amico dell'uomo (3 articles)


----------



## bibax

I should guess: un ami, un amico.

Le livre est *l'ami* de l'homme.
Le livre est *un ami* fidèle.

Both _fidèle_ and _de l'homme_ are attributes. Why the difference in the article? We, (the) Slavic people, have no feeling for such subtile nuances.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Oblomovita said:


> Italian: Il libro è l'amico dell'uomo (3 articles)



È possibile usare due articoli anziché tre in questa frase ("amico" senz'articolo)?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Ben Jamin said:


> Sorry, you do not use the definite article here.
> Que cosa fai?
> Leggo un libro.
> But
> Hai letto "La guerra ed il pace"?
> Leggo il libro ora. /Ho letto il libro.



Sorry, but in Italian it is "Guerra e pace" (and the noun "pace" in Italian is feminine). So this is a good counterexample for Oblomovita's "A name can't exist without article!".

By the  way, in French the most common translation is "La Guerre e  la Paix". The French Wikipedia lists "Guerre et Paix" as a possible translation, but somehow this sounds odd to me, possibly becaus in the Seventeenth century the Académie Française determined that also abstract nouns are to be used with the definite article..


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Ben Jamin said:


> It is often not possible to explain a language student WHY one uses a grammatical construction. The only meaningful explanation is the usage.
> For example, it is not necessary to explain to a speaker of a Germanic language why in the Slavic languages you use the accusative whith the verb to have, but you use the genitive with do not have. You have only to teach them when to use the appropriate case, and drill, drill, drill. I even doubt if there exists an explanation at all.



Of course you could tell your pupils that the definite articles in Italian, as in most (or, probably, all) other languages that have a definite article, stem from demonstrative pronouns of the Latin language (not very evident, but still visible), as well as the indefinite article (singular) stems from the numerals (obvious). But is this of any use in the usage? So for me the best explanation is the one that explain when to use which article (or to use or not to use it at alll) and which are the differences in the meaning.

You could even tell them that egli, ella, esso, essa also stem from demonstrative pronouns of its ancestor language, as they do in Russian - cf. the modern personal 3rd person pronouns он, она, оно, они (оне) and the obsolete demonstrative pronouns оный, оная, оное, оные (оныя), but this fact is even less useful for a Slavic language speaker when learning the Italian language.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Orlin said:


> По-моему это наилучшее объяснение - у *каждого* языка есть *свои* категории и правила и они *обязательны для всех говорящих данный* *язык* (и, конечно, нет значения есть ли такие категории и правила в родном языке или нет - ты должен их запомнить и употреблять, когда это необходимо).



Thanks! It's even better than I formulated.



Orlin said:


> Во-вторых, иногда возникает проблема объяснить что-то без возможности найти подходящий аналог: допустим, что эскимос летит в Африку и, увидев много не*познатых* вещей (включительно много странных животных), возвращается. Дома он попытается объяснить товарищам каких животных он увидел в Африке


Little OT: In Russian the adjective is незнакомый, or, in some more specific cases, неизвестный.
"Неопознанный летающий объект" (НЛО), however, is very common.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Oblomovita said:


> В итальянском языке существуют определенные и неопределенные артикли.
> Если я говорю il libro (именно эта определенная книга) это значит что слушающий человек знает о какой книге я говорю.
> А если я говорю un libro (какая-либо неопределенная книга) значит что слушающий эту книгу не знает.
> Если я не использую артикль слушающий итальянец начинает думать о какой книге я говорю, и если он должен знать эту книгу, или эта книга ему совсем неизвестна.



For me, not using an article in this case sound ungrammatical or telegramme or newspaper announce style at the best.


----------



## Oblomovita

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblomovita  
Italian: Il libro è l'amico dell'uomo (3 articles)



Angelo di fuoco said:


> È possibile usare due articoli anziché tre in questa frase ("amico" senz'articolo)?


*Yes it's possible*
E' possibile anzichè 
il libro è l'amico dell'uomo
posso dire
il libro è amico per l'uomo

*but in this case amico becomes an adjective*
ma come vedi in questo caso amico diventa un aggettivo e non più un sostantivo

*without article it's adjective.*
senza l' articolo come aggettivo *amico* significa: amichevole, affezionato, caro, favorevole, benevolo, propizio, alleato

*with article it's noun.*
con l' articolo come sostantivo *l'amico* significa: compagno, confidente, conoscente amante, innamorato, spasimante sostenitore, fautore, simpatizzante, seguace


----------



## Oblomovita

Ещё один пример:
Слово *studente *в итальянском является причастием настоящего времени (изучающий),
но если я добавлю артикль *lo studente* становится существительное
Попробуйте догадаться, что это значит...

Another exemple:
Word *studente* in Italian is a present participle that stands for "a person now studying"
but if I add an article, *lo studente*, it becomes a noun
Guess what it means...

Ancora un esempio:
La parola studente in italiano è un participio presente, ma se aggiungo l'articolo, lo studente, diventa un sostantivo. Indovinate cosa significa...


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

bibax said:


> I should guess: un ami, un amico.
> 
> Le livre est *l'ami* de l'homme.
> Le livre est *un ami* fidèle.
> 
> Both _fidèle_ and _de l'homme_ are attributes. Why the difference in the article? We, (the) Slavic people, have no feeling for such subtile nuances.


 
Well while I lack knowledge in Russian or for that matter Italian, we English speakers, though the definite/indefinite articles are incredibly important and common, find that the usage of the definite articles in Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, etc.) and even in Germanic languages (German) are over the top and beyond what is needed.  I may be wrong but in English I feel we use the articles much less than most of the European languages which have actually functioning articles denoting indefiniteness/definiteness.  

If you translate Italian texts into English with keeping all the articles you will find that we will find it funny because for us we do not need to use all those articles.  

General statements at least in English can avoid definite articles entirely though less idiomatic:

Le livre est *l'ami* de l'homme=Books are friends of people/men OR Books are people's/man's friends.   
Le livre est *un ami* fidèle=Books are loyal friends.  

The difference about perfectiveness in Russian seems to be explained quite well and makes plenty of sense in reference to the idea of say "I have read a book."  

The articles' functions however seem less apparent and logical for that matter, as even as a native speaker it is a gray area of grammar which I would try to avoid explaining at all costs, as I only know how to use them because I am a native.  But they allow us to express differences in knowledge: what we already know about and what we are looking for.  

"I want the apple"=refers to a very specific apple which the speaker knows about.  Possibly it is being sold or in someone's hand.  But we know that it is a SPECIFIC fruit which the speaker is aware of.  

"I want an apple"=refers to ANY apple.  The speaker won't care what apple he is given, he will take whatever apple he can find.  

The articles become ever more important when using superlatives and clauses relating what may or may not actually exist (I want the apple that is red versus I want an apple that may be red), as the verb mood may change depending on the article!  

I have never studied Italian but perhaps the same structure found in Spanish/French exists in Italian:

Busco *un* hombre que *hable* italiano.  

versus

Busco *el* hombre que *habla* italiano.


----------



## Oblomovita

Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> Well while I lack knowledge in Russian or for that matter Italian, we English speakers, though the definite/indefinite articles are incredibly important and common, find that the usage of the definite articles in Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, etc.) and even in Germanic languages (German) are over the top and beyond what is needed.
> I may be wrong but in English I feel we use the articles much less than most of the European languages (yes, it's true)which have actually functioning articles denoting indefiniteness/definiteness.
> 
> If you translate Italian texts into English with keeping all the articles you will find that we will find it funny because for us we do not need to use all those articles.
> 
> General statements at least in English can avoid definite articles entirely though less idiomatic:
> 
> Le livre est *l'ami* de l'homme=Books are friends of people/men OR Books are people's/man's friends.
> Le livre est *un ami* fidèle=Books are loyal friends.
> 
> Anyway in Italian it is not superfluous the use of articles. As I wrote before, the word amico (friend) can be adjective (without article) or noun (with article)
> 
> The difference about perfectiveness in Russian seems to be explained quite well and makes plenty of sense in reference to the idea of say "I have read a book."
> 
> The articles' functions however seem less apparent and logical for that matter, as even as a native speaker it is a gray area of grammar which I would try to avoid explaining at all costs, as I only know how to use them because I am a native.  But they allow us to express differences in knowledge: what we already know about and what we are looking for.
> 
> "I want the apple"=refers to a very specific apple which the speaker knows about.  Possibly it is being sold or in someone's hand.  But we know that it is a SPECIFIC fruit which the speaker is aware of.
> 
> "I want an apple"=refers to ANY apple.  The speaker won't care what apple he is given, he will take whatever apple he can find.
> 
> The articles become ever more important when using superlatives and clauses relating what may or may not actually exist (I want the apple that is red versus I want an apple that may be red), as the verb mood may change depending on the article!
> 
> I have never studied Italian but perhaps the same structure found in Spanish/French exists in Italian:
> 
> Busco *un* hombre que *hable* italiano.
> 
> versus
> 
> Busco *el* hombre que *habla* italiano.



Yes, it's the same in Italian:

Cerco un uomo che parli italiano
vs
Cerco l'uomo che parla italiano


----------



## Orlin

angelo di fuoco said:


> little ot: In russian the adjective is незнакомый, or, in some more specific cases, неизвестный.
> "Неопознанный летающий объект" (НЛО), however, is very common.


 
Спасибо, я забыл, что в отличие от болгарского и сербского, в русском используется другое прилагательное. Но, кажется, все-таки Вы меня поняли.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> Ok, it' the same for italian with russian verbs.
> In Italian I can say "Ho letto un libro"
> it means
> я читал книгу и
> я прочитал книгу
> in Italian, like in English, there is no difference it is always "Ho letto un libro", "I read a book".
> But when I speak russian I have to say
> я читал книгу if I didn't finih it but
> я прочитал книгу if I finished it.
> 
> So if I say я прочитал книгу a Russian listener will think that I read it to the very end, and he will probably ask me if it was interesting.
> But I'll reply that I read only 5 pages and I have no idea about the plot.
> So my Russian friend will have the right to ask me why did you say "я прочитал книгу"?
> Fom me, Italian, it would be useless to distinguish читал and прочитал, but I understand that for my Russian listener it is important.
> 
> The same importance is for Italians with articles.


"in Italian, like in English, there is no difference"
It is not so simple.
Although it is quite correct to translate 'я читал книгу' with "I read a/the book", it will often be necessary to translate it with 'I was reading a/the book' or 'I had read the book'. But there is something that is never taught at language courses: the English language also has perfective and imperfective verbs, but they are not so easy to distinguish from each other, as the distinction is fuzzy and has no outward markers. The perfectiveness and imperfectiveness is hidden, but it is there. 
For example:
to sleep - imperfective 
to kill - perfective 
to read - can be both.
If you say 'I slept' everybody will understand that it was an ongoing action.
If you say 'I killed', everybody will understand that it was a completed action.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> я читал книгу и
> я прочитал книгу
> in Italian, like in English, there is no difference it is always "Ho letto un libro", ...


 But what about using the imperfetto? Can't you say 'leggeva?' It would be the best translation of я читал, I think.
'я прочитал книгу' can also be translated with 'io lessi'. I heard that this tense is not used in Northern Italy, but is still in use in the South.


----------



## Oblomovita

Ben Jamin said:


> "in Italian, like in English, there is no difference"
> It is not so simple.
> Although it is quite correct to translate 'я читал книгу' with "I read a/the book", it will often be necessary to translate it with 'I was reading a/the book' or 'I had read the book'. But there is something that is never taught at language courses: the English language also has perfective and imperfective verbs, but they are not so easy to distinguish from each other, as the distinction is fuzzy and has no outward markers. The perfectiveness and imperfectiveness is hidden, but it is there.
> For example:
> to sleep - imperfective
> to kill - perfective
> to read - can be both.
> If you say 'I slept' everybody will understand that it was an ongoing action.
> If you say 'I killed', everybody will understand that it was a completed action.



I don't think that in English there are perfective and imperfective verbs.
To sleep is always to sleep.
On the other hand there are perfective or imperfective tense
I slept or I was sleeping (this is an ongoing action)

But how can we find two differente verbs in English to translate
писать
написать
there is only to "write"


----------



## Oblomovita

Ben Jamin said:


> But what about using the imperfetto? Can't you say 'leggeva?' It would be the best translation of я читал, I think.
> 'я прочитал книгу' can also be translated with 'io lessi'. I heard that this tense is not used in Northern Italy, but is still in use in the South.



It isn't the same.
The Imperfetto in Italian has a different use.
Io leggevo it means that I was reading while...something happened

я читал it can also mean that I read, but I didn't read all.
In this case I don't have an equivalent verb in Italian but I have to say
Ho letto e non ho finito (I read and I didn't finish)

It is different.

In Italian we don't have perfective and imperfective verbs like in Russian.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> I don't think that in English there are perfective and imperfective verbs.
> To sleep is always to sleep.
> On the other hand there are perfective or imperfective tense
> I slept or I was sleeping (this is an ongoing action)
> 
> But how can we find two differente verbs in English to translate
> писать
> написать
> there is only to "write"


 
"there are perfective or imperfective tense"
Well, no. There is no perfective and imperfective tense in English. There is simple past, present perfect, past perfect. Present perfect and past convey usually a perfective meaning, but not necessarily. Simple past is quite neutral, and in the case of a neutral verb like 'to read' the translator has to guess what was the meaning, but in the case 'killed' there is no doubt, it must be *убил*.
"I don't think that in English there are perfective and imperfective verbs"
Yes, most people think so, but they just have not reflected about that.


----------



## Oblomovita

Ben Jamin said:


> "there are perfective or imperfective tense"
> Well, no. There is no perfective and imperfective tense in English. *The imperfect tense, in the classical grammar of several Indo-European languages, denotes a past tense with an imperfective aspect. In English, it refers to the tense of a verb for an action or a condition as incomplete, continuous, habitual, or coincident with another action. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_tense* There is simple past, present perfect, past perfect. Present perfect and past convey usually a perfective meaning, but not necessarily. Simple past is quite neutral, and in the case of a neutral verb like 'to read' the translator has to guess what was the meaning, but in the case 'killed' there is no doubt, it must be *убил*.
> "I don't think that in English there are perfective and imperfective verbs"
> Yes, most people think so, but they just have not reflected about that.



Ok, so how to translate in English я читал книгу and я прочитал книгу?
to read is perfective or imperfective?

I've never heard about impefective verbs in English


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> It isn't the same.
> The Imperfetto in Italian has a different use.
> Io leggevo it means that I was reading while...something happened


What about these sentences (pasted from Italian web articles)
Leggevo il mio nome sui giornali, ma fino al giorno dopo la vittoria del Mondiale non avevo sentito nessuno, poi mi ha chiamato Albertini.
Leggevo la tua rubrica con i miei alunni.
Leggevo poi malissimo, in fretta e furia, disordinatamente.
None of them is a sentence of the type "while...something happened"



Oblomovita said:


> In Italian we don't have perfective and imperfective verbs like in Russian.


 
There was never a question about that


----------



## Oblomovita

Ben Jamin said:


> What about these sentences (pasted from Italian web articles)
> Leggevo il mio nome sui giornali, ma fino al giorno dopo la vittoria del Mondiale non avevo sentito nessuno, poi mi ha chiamato Albertini.
> Leggevo la tua rubrica con i miei alunni.
> Leggevo poi malissimo, in fretta e furia, disordinatamente.
> None of them is a sentence of the type "while...something happened"




It is implicit, It means that it is a description of what was going on in that moment while...

Leggevo il mio nome sui giornali, ma fino al giorno dopo la vittoria del Mondiale non avevo sentito nessuno, poi mi ha chiamato Albertini. mentre ancora non avevo sentito nessuno

Leggevo la tua rubrica con i miei alunni. forse, quando ero a scuola o quando ero bambino...

Leggevo poi malissimo, in fretta e furia, disordinatamente. mentre stavo facendo qualcosa d'altro...

We have to find the context, otherwise the last two sentences has no meaning.


Believe me that Imperfetto in Italian has a different meaning, it isn't simple the imperfective russian verb in the past tense.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> [/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> It is implicit, It means that it is a description of what was going on in that moment while...
> 
> Leggevo il mio nome sui giornali, ma fino al giorno dopo la vittoria del Mondiale non avevo sentito nessuno, poi mi ha chiamato Albertini. mentre ancora non avevo sentito nessuno
> 
> Leggevo la tua rubrica con i miei alunni. forse, quando ero a scuola o quando ero bambino...
> 
> Leggevo poi malissimo, in fretta e furia, disordinatamente. mentre stavo facendo qualcosa d'altro...
> 
> We have to find the context, otherwise the last two sentences has no meaning.
> 
> 
> Believe me that Imperfetto in Italian has a different meaning, it isn't simple the imperfective russian verb in the past tense.


 
What about this:
http://www.transparent.com/italian/passato-prossimo-e-imperfetto/

This blog is obviously written by an Italian native speaker, and a teacher of Italian for foreigners. It describes the use of imperfetto that matches very well a Russian past tense of an imperfective verb. There ARE CERTAINLY differences in usage, but in MOST CASES there is a very good correspondence between Russian past tense of an imperfective verb and imperfetto.


----------



## Maroseika

Oblomovita said:


> But when I speak russian I have to say
> я читал книгу if I didn't finih it but
> я прочитал книгу if I finished it.


In fact you may use читал even if you had finished it already:
- Ты эту книгу читал?
- Да. Барахло.
Anyway, this is a good illustration of how one can "not think" about some things when speaking.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Oblomovita said:


> Ещё один пример:
> Слово *studente *в итальянском является причастием настоящего времени (изучающий),
> но если я добавлю артикль *lo studente* становится существительное
> Попробуйте догадаться, что это значит...
> 
> Another exemple:
> Word *studente* in Italian is a present participle that stands for "a person now studying"
> but if I add an article, *lo studente*, it becomes a noun
> Guess what it means...
> 
> Ancora un esempio:
> La parola studente in italiano è un participio presente, ma se aggiungo l'articolo, lo studente, diventa un sostantivo. Indovinate cosa significa...



È un cattivo esempio. La parola "studente", pur proveniente da un participio presente latino, in italiano è sempre un sostantivo, con o senz'articolo.
Il participio presente è studiante, giacché l'infinitivo in Italiano moderno è studiare anziché *studere.
Comunque, il ragionamento vale per "insegnante" ed "insegnare".


----------



## Ben Jamin

Maroseika said:


> In fact you may use читал even if you had finished it already:
> - Ты эту книгу читал?
> - Да. Барахло.
> Anyway, this is a good illustration of how one can "not think" about some things when speaking.


 
The verb 'to read' has an irregular usage in many Slavic languages. You usually use the imperfective to say that you have read a certain book (a perfective action). You use the perfective only when you want to ephasize that you have read the book through, especially if the action was recent. 

Again it is not possible to explain why it is so, just usage.


----------



## Rallino

I have very little knowledge about Russian Language, but my native language doesn't use articles either.

Now, I am not sure if this is true, I just thought maybe it could help you, so I'm sharing this:

Languages with declensions, avoid the articles. Because "accusative" is there for it.
Languages without declensions use articles to talk about definitiveness.

But then, I never understand why German needs both accusative AND articles, though...


----------



## Oblomovita

Ben Jamin said:


> What about this:
> http://www.transparent.com/italian/passato-prossimo-e-imperfetto/
> 
> This blog is obviously written by an Italian native speaker, and a teacher of Italian for foreigners. It describes the use of imperfetto that matches very well a Russian past tense of an imperfective verb. There ARE CERTAINLY differences in usage, but in MOST CASES there is a very good correspondence between Russian past tense of an imperfective verb and imperfetto.



Ben I agree that Imperfetto sometimes can be translated with imperfective verb in russian, but it is not always the same.

For exemple in Russian we can say:Вчера я читал за три часа
in Italian we can't say: Ieri leggevo per tre ore but Ieri ho letto per tre ore.
So, sometime when in Russian you can use imperfective verb in Italian you can't use Imperfetto.

Another exemple:
If in Russian I say "Мы досмотрим фильм" I mean to watch it to the end
but if I say "Мы смотрим фильм" I don't mean that it must be to the end

In Italian we can't use different verbs to express the same but we have to say
Guardiamo il film fino alla fine
or
Guardiamo il film.

*So, what I wanted to say is that even for us it's difficult to understand the use of perfectvie or imprefective verbs in russian. An if we don't use correctly the listeners can misunderstand us. The same with italian articles*

Please, remember we are talking about articles. It'd be interesting to keep on our discussion about verbs, but we should open a new thread.


----------



## Oblomovita

Rallino said:


> I have very little knowledge about Russian Language, but my native language doesn't use articles either.
> 
> Now, I am not sure if this is true, I just thought maybe it could help you, so I'm sharing this:
> 
> Languages with declensions, avoid the articles. Because "accusative" is there for it.
> Languages without declensions use articles to talk about definitiveness.
> 
> But then, I never understand why German needs both accusative AND articles, though...



Yes, you're right. In fact in romance languages articles appeared when declinations disapperead.
The latin word illus, declined in illo, that means "that" became the italian definitive article *il* and *lo* 

I know that in Turkish you don't use articles. It's similar to Kazakh language that I am learning.


----------



## phosphore

You can't argue that articles are essential for communication. If one said

Libro è amico d'uomo

you wouldn't really ask yourself whether it is just any book, friend or man or not. You would perfectly understand the meaning intended. There are indeed cases where this or that article or no article at all can change the expressed meaning, but otherwise you don't really need them. Thus I don't think you can explain to a native Russian speaker _why_ he needs to put an article to almost every word in an Italian sentence. He just has to learn that as it is.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> Yes, you're right. In fact in romance languages articles appeared when declinations disapperead.
> The latin word illus, declined in illo, that means "that" became the italian definitive article *il* and *lo*
> 
> I know that in Turkish you don't use articles. It's similar to Kazakh language that I am learning.


 This theory is not quite convincing, as we have at least the following IE languages that have both inflection and articles: German, Icelandic and Romanian. Maybe the processes were synchronous, but not caused by each other.


----------



## phosphore

Ben Jamin said:


> This theory is not quite convincing, as we have at least the following IE languages that have both inflection and articles: German, Icelandic and Romanian. Maybe the processes were synchronous, but not caused by each other.


 
Old French too had both declensions and articles. But it seems to me that both the loss of declensions and the development of articles are vulgar linguistic developments and that would be the link between the two.


----------



## Oblomovita

Rallino said:


> I have very little knowledge about Russian Language, but my native language doesn't use articles either.
> 
> Now, I am not sure if this is true, I just thought maybe it could help you, so I'm sharing this:
> 
> Languages with declensions, avoid the articles. Because "accusative" is there for it.
> Languages without declensions use articles to talk about definitiveness.
> 
> But then, I never understand why German needs both accusative AND articles, though...





Ben Jamin said:


> This theory is not quite convincing, as we have at least the following IE languages that have both inflection and articles: German, Icelandic and Romanian. Maybe the processes were synchronous, but not caused by each other.



Yes, there are other languages; but Italics didn't speak German, Icelandic or Romanian. So they simply started to use articles instead of declinations.


----------



## phosphore

I don't think that's true. The truth is that declensions and articles have very little in common. Case markings express relations between the words of the sentence themselves, while articles express relations between the words of the sentence and the context. What makes up for the loss of declensions is the fixed word order.


----------



## Oblomovita

phosphore said:


> You can't argue that articles are essential for communication. If one said
> 
> Libro è amico d'uomo
> 
> you wouldn't really ask yourself whether it is just any book, friend or man or not. You would perfectly understand the meaning intended. There are indeed cases where this or that article or no article at all can change the expressed meaning, but otherwise you don't really need them. Thus I don't think you can explain to a native Russian speaker _why_ he needs to put an article to almost every word in an Italian sentence. He just has to learn that as it is.



Yes, this is true for a beginner. But if you already speaks fluently, and you talk everyday with you Italian friends, you can't expect that they have always to guess what you are talking about. So if you don't use artciles correctly, it would be hard for them to listen you.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Oblomovita said:


> Ben I agree that Imperfetto sometimes can be translated with imperfective verb in russian, but it is not always the same.
> 
> For exemple in Russian we can say:Вчера я читал за три часа
> in Italian we can't say: Ieri leggevo per tre ore but Ieri ho letto per tre ore.
> So, sometime when in Russian you can use imperfective verb in Italian you can't use Imperfetto.



"Вчера я читал за три часа" isn't correct. We can say "Вчера я читал три часа" (without a preposition), than it means "yesterday I read during three hours".
We can also say "я прочитал книгу за три часа" which means "I read the book through in three hours".



Oblomovita said:


> Another exemple:
> If in Russian I say "Мы досмотрим фильм" I mean to watch it to the end
> but if I say "Мы смотрим фильм" I don't mean that it must be to the end
> 
> In Italian we can't use different verbs to express the same but we have to say
> Guardiamo il film fino alla fine
> or
> Guardiamo il film.



Si deve tenere in mente che il presente dei verbi perfettivi ha il valore semantico del futuro.



Oblomovita said:


> *So, what I wanted to say is that even for us it's difficult to understand the use of perfectvie or imprefective verbs in russian. An if we don't use correctly the listeners can misunderstand us. The same with italian articles*
> 
> Please, remember we are talking about articles. It'd be interesting to keep on our discussion about verbs, but we should open a new thread.



Probably we should ask the moderators to split the threads.


----------



## Oblomovita

Ho trovato un documento interessante che fa al caso nostro
I found an interesting document etitled:
RIFLESSIONI SULL' ARTICOLO MAI NATO NELLE LINGUE SLAVE
Unfortunately it's a PDF file and I can't post a link, anyway if you search in google the title you will find this document.

There are two important considerations.
First: Why slavic languages do not have articles? Because in these language there was the use of two forms of adjectives: long and short one. So, the definition is on the adjective and not onthe noun. While indoeuropean languages developed articles in order to define nouns.

"Le lingue indoeuropee, secondo Moszynski, avevano due possibilita' di
differenziare gli aggettivi dai sostantivi: assegnare una marca speciale o
agli aggettivi o ai sostantivi. Le lingue slave hanno scelto la prima
possibilita', mentre quelle germaniche e il greco la seconda."

Unfortunately it is all in Italian.

Second: What is the origin of the articles? There are no doubt that the origin of articles depends on the end of the use of declinations.
"La nascita dell'articolo nelle lingue indoeuropee e' stata spesso messa
in relazionecon la scomparsa della flessione casuale. Anche se in alcuni
casi l'articolo convive a lungo con le declinazioni (cfr. Ramat 1986: 114,
per le lingue germaniche e Renzi 1992, per quelle romanze), una
relazione tra la scomparsa di queste ultime e la nascita del primo
indubbiamente esiste."
"Aquestoproposito sembra molto interessante l'ipotesi formulata recentemente da
Renzi(1992),secondo cui l'ordine logico in cui si verificano i due fenomeni e' il
seguente:
l. lo sviluppodell'articolo marcato per il caso (attestato nelle lingue romanze
antiche);
2. perditadella fIessione nominale resa possibile dal nuovo affisso; esso infatti
rappresentalo spostamento della marca casuale a destra del nome, d'accordo con il
nuovotipo sintattico delle lingue romanze, successivamente manifestatosi con una
maggiorediffusione delle preposizioni e l'evolversi della funzione dell'articolo.
SecondoRenzitale ordine dei fatti si verifico' anche in bulgaro e in macedone che,
comee' noto, hanno sviluppato l'articolo e perso i casi. Egli si spinge addirittura a
sostenereche le altre lingue slave non hanno perso i casi perche' non avevano
sviluppato l'articolo.


----------



## rusita preciosa

Oblomovita said:


> Italian: Il libro è l'amico dell'uomo


Case in point. Why il? We are not talking about a particular book (known to the speakers), we are talking about books in general. 

Things like these are very confusing for these whose native language does not have articles and who have to learn to understand not only the concept of definite/indefinite but also all the exceptions.


----------



## Outsider

rusita preciosa said:


> Why il? We are not talking about a particular book (known to the speakers), we are talking about books in general.


Precisely. We're talking about the notion of book in abstract/ in general. Hence the article.


----------



## Oblomovita

Outsider said:


> Precisely. We're talking about the notion of book in abstract/ in general. Hence the article.



Yes, in Italian you have to use the definitive article when you talk about a notion in abstract / in general.
We assume that the notion of book (what a book is) is known to everybody.


----------



## rusita preciosa

That's all fine. 

I was just offering an illustration of how the use of def/indef articles is not obvious to someone whose language does not have them: *"abstract book / books in general”* to most people is the opposite of *"the particular book we were talking about just a minute ago"*, yet in both cases the definite article is used.


----------



## Outsider

The distinction between definite and indefinite has to do with whether the referent is regarded as unique, or as one among many/several. Thinking this way may help to make sense of the fact that we use the definite article when we speak of things in general in the Romance languages: the concept, the abstraction, is unique.

But I readily admit that I'm making an _ad hoc_ rationalization here. In English you're supposed to _omit_ the article when you're speaking in general.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> But I readily admit that I'm making an _ad hoc_ rationalization here. In English you're supposed to _omit_ the article when you're speaking in general.


True, the rules for using the definite article in conjunction with abstracta differs among the various Western European languages. Yet, in my experience from questions by speakers of Slavic languages about the use of the definite article, they often identify the notion of _definite_ vs. _indefinite _with the notion of _concrete_ vs. _abstract_. I suspect that this mistaken association of the two concepts is responsible for many of the difficulties speakers of Slavic languages have with the concept of _definiteness_.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> True, the rules for using the definite article in conjunction with abstracta differs among the various Western European languages. Yet, in my experience from questions by speakers of Slavic languages about the use of the definite article, they often identify the notion of _definite_ vs. _indefinite _with the notion of _concrete_ vs. _abstract_. I suspect that this mistaken association of the two concepts is responsible for many of the difficulties speakers of Slavic languages have with the concept of _definiteness_.


 The idea of an abstract but definite being is difficult in itself, and I suspect that most of the speakers using it "go on autopilot" without reflecting about the idea itself. It must have originated in bookish language.


----------



## Outsider

Definiteness is no literary invention. It arose in popular speech...


----------



## XiaoRoel

Creo que es un problema de conceptos como bien apuntó berndf. La presencia del artículo determinante en las lenguas romances (de ille o de ipse; en rumano pospuesto como en albanés y búlgaro), *determina*, _*concretiza*_, guardando en el fondo su valor deíctico original (sucede lo mismo en griego).
Una función muy importante del artículo romance es la de morfema substantivador de adjetivos (propios y sintácticos).
En cierto sentido, el concretizador, hay una correspondencia con lo que se describe para el ruso.
El artículo de las lenguas romances, desde mi perspectiva, es un _*morfema*_ con valores de *determinación* o *concretización*, o simplemente *substantivador*.
Su relación con los deícticos es todavía visible en el uso romance.


----------



## phosphore

I hope moderators won't delete this post even though it doesn't deal with Italian.

How could you _explain_ to a Russian that in French to say in France he needs to say en France (no article) but to say in Japan he needs to say au Japon (with an article)? Or why paying by credit card should be paiement par carte (no article) but travelling by train should be voyage par le train (with an article)? I'm sure there are such let's say irregularities in Italian too. How could you _explain_ that by stating the alleged importance of articles and their general uses?


----------



## XiaoRoel

phosphore said:


> I'm sure there are such let's say irregularities in Italian too.


No veo la irregularidad por ningún lado.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> The idea of an abstract but definite being is difficult in itself...


Not really, unless you get the concept explained in a misleading way, and that's what many grammar books do. The definite marker (an article in most Western European languages; a suffix in North Germanic languages) indicates that the marked noun denotes a single entity while its absence indicates that the noun may stand for a an unspecified entity out of a set of potentially more than one entity. The misconception is that definiteness indicates that an entity should be known or tangible. Definiteness is only concerned with uniqueness.

What makes it difficult is that these languages vary in the way they treat designations which by their very nature refer to unique objects. Those are primarily abstracta and proper names:
English: _Love is blind_
German: _Liebe ist blind_ or _*Die* Liebe ist blind_
French:_ *L*'amour est aveugle_

English: _Peter is tall_
German: _Peter ist groß_ or _*Der* Peter ist groß _(the former is Northern, the latter Southern use)
French:_ Pierre est grand_


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> Definiteness is no literary invention. It arose in popular speech...


Absolutely. It even existed in pre-historic languages, e.g. in Proto-Germanic.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

phosphore said:


> I hope moderators won't delete this post even though it doesn't deal with Italian.
> 
> How could you _explain_ to a Russian that in French to say in France he needs to say en France (no article) but to say in Japan he needs to say au Japon (with an article)? Or why paying by credit card should be paiement par carte (no article) but travelling by train should be voyage par le train (with an article)? I'm sure there are such let's say irregularities in Italian too. How could you _explain_ that by stating the alleged importance of articles and their general uses?



"En France" (female country name), "au Japon" (male country name), and even better: "en Alsace" (male country name beginning with a vowel) - and "dans la rue". With the countries, you have the rule as I explained above, but for all other things you've just to learn it.

In Italian, we do have "in Italia" (country) or "in via Manzoni" (street), but "a Roma" (city). The curiosity of this consists in the fact that until the 20th century it was "in Roma". Why did it is change? I don't know.


----------



## phosphore

Angelo di fuoco said:


> "En France" (female country name), "au Japon" (male country name), and even better: "en Alsace" (male country name beginning with a vowel) - and "dans la rue". With the countries, you have the rule as I explained above, but for all other things you've just to learn it.


 
Oh, I know that, but how is that an _explanation_? Both France and Japan are definite and that has nothing to do with their grammatical gender. My point being that even when we get to an understanding of the idea of articles we get stuck with problems like this one.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Well, I just wanted to point out that French has THREE prepositions to translate the concept "in".


----------



## Ben Jamin

Outsider said:


> Definiteness is no literary invention. It arose in popular speech...


 Definiteness generally, yes, but I meant definiteness of an abstract entity.


----------



## Outsider

Ben Jamin said:


> Definiteness generally, yes, but I meant definiteness of an abstract entity.


I'm pretty sure that it arose in popular language as well.

Regarding the use or omission of articles with place names, I think there's no way around it: it is pretty messy, at least in the Romance languages (though much simpler in English). But with common nouns (and leaving aside some idioms) there's usually a semblance of logic to it. Not impeccable Cartesian logic, to be sure, but there is some method to all the madness.


----------



## Oblomovita

berndf said:


> True, the rules for using the definite article in conjunction with abstracta differs among the various Western European languages. Yet, in my experience from questions by speakers of Slavic languages about the use of the definite article, they often identify the notion of _definite_ vs. _indefinite _with the notion of _concrete_ vs. _abstract_. I suspect that this mistaken association of the two concepts is responsible for many of the difficulties speakers of Slavic languages have with the concept of _definiteness_.



Yes, you're right. It's absolutely wrong the association
concrete = determinative
abstract = indeterminative

In Italian for example:
*determinative *= when speakers and listeners know exactly what we are talking about
*indeterminative *= when at least one person among interlocutors doesn't know exactly the subject of the speach.

Ho letto un libro (I read a book) = I know what book I read of course, but listener doesn't.
Ho letto il libro (I read the book) = the listener knows the book I read. He can easily idenitify it, probably it's the book he recommended.  
Ho letto dei libri (I read some books) = here in Italian we use indefenitive article, becouse listener doesn't know which books I read.
Mi piace leggere i libri (I like read books) = here in Italian we use defenitive article because everyone knows the concept of book.

In Russian определять means "to identify" so in Italian we use determinative articles when everybody can identify what we are talking about.


----------



## Nanon

Orlin said:


> У каждого языка есть свои категории и правила и они  обязательны для всех говорящих данный язык (и, конечно, нет значения  есть ли такие категории и правила в родном языке или нет - ты должен их  запомнить и употреблять, когда это необходимо).


Браво, Орлин! 



Ben Jamin said:


> The idea of an abstract but definite being is  difficult in itself, and I suspect that most of the speakers using it  "go on autopilot" without reflecting about the idea itself.



That's what "native" or "native-like" is about... autopilot. Explaining things requires some distance. This is why explaining things that seem natural in language A to speakers of language B is difficult, even if both languages are close. I taught French as a foreign language to Spanish speakers, and Spanish to French speakers. Even with that degree of closeness, explaining things requires entering into more detail than general categories: why do they need articles? subjunctive? verbs?...



Angelo di fuoco said:


> "en Alsace"


Feminine, sorry - but your example of en + masculine noun with initial vowel  would work with "en Alaska" .



phosphore said:


> You can't argue that articles are essential for communication.


This can be put backwards. You can say that verbal aspects are not essential for communication. Many speakers of Slavic languages won't find this a good idea, as Angelo says:



Angelo di fuoco said:


> А италоговорящие путаются в падежах или глаголах совершенного и  несовершенного вида в русском?





Maroseika said:


> To say the truth, though I studied English, Spanish and German, I still cannot realize what are the articles for. I believe you really need them but don't see why.
> 
> For example:
> - Чем ты занят?
> - Читаю книгу.
> Obviously, Italian requires definite article here, because I definately know what book I'm reading. On the other hand, this information seems to be quite superfluous because how can I read the book I don't know?



One must get used to the idea that there may be some non-informative parts in a language, like there are non-information-bearing parts of DNA... Difficult to admit, but this is part of the learning process, too!



Angelo di fuoco said:


> Есть некоторые случаи, когда славяне употребляют определённый артикль, а носитель языка артикль не употребляет вообще: например, когда в резюме человек пишет "солист Большого театра", то при переводе ставит перед словом "солист" определённый артикль.


Прекрасный пример "перфекционизма", Angelo. Le soliste du grand (Grand) théâtre в резюме звучит коряво. Значит, в театре, допустим, единственный солист - тенор. А где сопрано? 



Orlin said:


> Правила об употреблении артиклей обычно  абстрактные, сложные или имеют много исключений и поэтому не так легки  для овладения - нужны немало усилий и времени.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Sorry, but in Italian it is "Guerra e pace" (and the noun "pace" in Italian is feminine). So this is a good counterexample for Oblomovita's "A name can't exist without article!".


I'd like to take up the theme again, after what I learned from posts after this. I am not expert in Italian, but when I chose the definite form for "La guerra e la pace" I believed that Italian uses the definite form for "a thing in general", which was confirmed in other posts. Why then "Guerra e pace"? If the title was understood as a concrete idea (the war against Napoleon) it would be definite too.


----------



## relativamente

phosphore said:


> I hope moderators won't delete this post even though it doesn't deal with Italian.
> 
> How could you _explain_ to a Russian that in French to say in France he needs to say en France (no article) but to say in Japan he needs to say au Japon (with an article)? Or why paying by credit card should be paiement par carte (no article) but travelling by train should be voyage par le train (with an article)? I'm sure there are such let's say irregularities in Italian too. How could you _explain_ that by stating the alleged importance of articles and their general uses?



In Latin there were not articles, being an innovation of romance languages.The articles appeared in the first stages of romance and little by little were being more and more widely used.
In general the only imnportant rule about articles is that the subject or ancient nominative must go with an article, (or some other particle like a deictic or possessive particle)but in ancient expressions like sayings sometimes is also absent the article.For example Spanish "perro ladrador poco mordedor" instead of "el perro que es ladrador es poco mordedor"
With prepositions is a dificult matter and only after long years of practice you will be able to use the article as natives do, but in fact is not important for comprehension. For example "un reloj de oro" "una estatua de madera"without article because this use is very ancient, versus "cansado del trabajo" "presidente del consejo".
"Un reloj de oro" versus "limpio como los chorros del oro" since that expression apeared in recent times in the history of the language.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Ben Jamin said:


> I'd like to take up the theme again, after what I learned from posts after this. I am not expert in Italian, but when I chose the definite form for "La guerra ed il pace" I believed that Italian uses the definite form for "a thing in general", which was confirmed in other posts. Why then "Guerra e pace"? If the title was understood as a concrete idea (the war against Napoleon) it would be definite too.



I don't believe the title was understood as the war against Napoleon, it has a broader, more universal meaning.
Don't ask me why there are no articles, I know just that it is as it is: "Guerra e pace", "Risurrezione", "Infanzia", "Adolescenza", "Giovinezza". I'd like to hear what the natives have to say about it.


----------



## Outsider

Ben Jamin said:


> I'd like to take up the theme again, after what I learned from posts after this. I am not expert in Italian, but when I chose the definite form for "La guerra e la pace" I believed that Italian uses the definite form for "a thing in general", which was confirmed in other posts. Why then "Guerra e pace"? If the title was understood as a concrete idea (the war against Napoleon) it would be definite too.


I think _La Guerra e la Pace_ could work as the title for a philosophical or political essay _about_ the topics of war and peace. But Tolstoy's epic is a novel... war and peace are the backgrounds to the story, but only obliquely can we regard them as the subject.

Having said that, this is a translation! There is a chance that no articles are used in the Italian name simply because none were present in the original Russian. 

Moreover--and this is probably the main factor--it's a book title! Choosing between using or omitting articles in titles can be a very subtle matter. I frequently feel that both choices would be possible.


----------



## Nanon

Interestingly, the French version of the title chosen by Tolstoy himself was _La guerre et la paix_, with articles. He quoted the title of an essay (you were quite right, Out) by Joseph Proudhon. Some translations of _Война и мир_ use articles in the title, some don't (although I can speak for French and Spanish only, I am not sure about Italian).

Moreover, I second Outsider (again). The choice of a title (by the author, the editor, the translator or whoever is involved in that process) is a matter of style, and using or omitting articles depend on how the title of the book is connected to the contents. Titles or subtitles without articles that work particularly well in Romance languages (a gross generalisation, I know) may contain _life, memories, thoughts, _etc. _Vita ed opere di Xxx_ doesn't seem to require an article. There is a chance that, let's say, Vassily Grossman's _Vita e destino_ has no article in Italian because the original _Жизнь и судьба_ does not contain any article, but it may sound also very normal in Italian...


----------



## Oblomovita

In Italian, the articles are omitted only in these cases:

1) with the possessive adjectives in front of family names (only singular, except their): mio zio (my uncle)

2) numbers: cinque persone (five persons)

3) appositions: Vittorio Emanuele II, re d'Italia (Vittorio Emanuele II, King of Italy)

4) city names: Milano, Roma, New York...

5) adverbs: in fondo, di proposito, a zonzo (after all, deliberately, to roam)
con audacia, con intelligenza, con serenità (boldly, intelligently, calmly)

6) with some places: a casa (home), andare in campagna (go to the countryside)...

7) before names that with the verb form a single predicate expression: avere fame (to be hungry), sentire freddo (to feel cold)...

8) in phrases where a noun complements the meaning of another: sala da pranzo (dining room), abito da sera (evening dress)

9) proverbial phrases (buon vino fa buon sangue, can che abbaia non morde)

10) Titles of books or chapters (Grammatica italiana, Canto quinto) and signs (Entrata, Uscita, Arrivi, Partenze, Merceria, Ristorante, Giornali...)

11) for reasons of brevity in telegraphic messages in the small newspaper advertising: (partecipiamo vostra gioia, vendo appartamento zona centrale)

As you can see, we don't use the article in Italian very rarely.

With some exceptions, the article is not used when the noun works as a verbal predicate, an adverb or an adjective. That is perfectly logical in italian.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Oblomovita said:


> As you can see, we don't use the article in Italian very rarely.
> 
> With some exceptions, the article is not used when the noun works as a verbal predicate, an adverb or an adjective. That is perfectly logical in italian.



Non sono in effetti cosí pochi i casi in cui l'articolo viene omesso, ed hai dimenticato un caso: l'articlo indefinito plurale in italiano è usato molto piú rararmente che, per esempio, in francese, dove invece è quasi sempre obbligatorio il suo uso.


----------



## Oblomovita

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Non sono in effetti cosí pochi i casi in cui l'articolo viene omesso, ed hai dimenticato un caso: l'articlo indefinito plurale in italiano è usato molto piú rararmente che, per esempio, in francese, dove invece è quasi sempre obbligatorio il suo uso.



Se contiamo il numero dei casi, possiamo anche argomentare che non siano pochi (una decina), ma se consideriamo la frequenza con qui questi casi occorrono, allora penso che debba convenire che siano rari.
In che casi l'articolo indefinitivo plurale (che tra l'altro in Italiano non esiste, al suo posto si usa il partitivo) viene usato raramente? Il suo uso, per quanto io sappia, non differisce dagli altri articoli.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oblomovita said:


> In Italian, the articles are omitted only in these cases:
> 
> 1) with the possessive adjectives in front of family names (only singular, except their): mio zio (my uncle)
> 
> 2) numbers: cinque persone (five persons)
> 
> 3) appositions: Vittorio Emanuele II, re d'Italia (Vittorio Emanuele II, King of Italy)
> 
> 4) city names: Milano, Roma, New York...
> 
> 5) adverbs: in fondo, di proposito, a zonzo (after all, deliberately, to roam)
> con audacia, con intelligenza, con serenità (boldly, intelligently, calmly)
> 
> 6) with some places: a casa (home), andare in campagna (go to the countryside)...
> 
> 7) before names that with the verb form a single predicate expression: avere fame (to be hungry), sentire freddo (to feel cold)...
> 
> 8) in phrases where a noun complements the meaning of another: sala da pranzo (dining room), abito da sera (evening dress)
> 
> 9) proverbial phrases (buon vino fa buon sangue, can che abbaia non morde)
> 
> 10) Titles of books or chapters (Grammatica italiana, Canto quinto) and signs (Entrata, Uscita, Arrivi, Partenze, Merceria, Ristorante, Giornali...)
> 
> 11) for reasons of brevity in telegraphic messages in the small newspaper advertising: (partecipiamo vostra gioia, vendo appartamento zona centrale)
> 
> As you can see, we don't use the article in Italian very rarely.
> 
> With some exceptions, the article is not used when the noun works as a verbal predicate, an adverb or an adjective. That is perfectly logical in italian.


 The conclusion is then: use of definitive articles in Italian is relatively simple, and even an average Slavic speaker can learn it quickly when taught in an adequate manner. But "not using" IS complicated, and generally impossible to learn by memorizing rules. Only by memorizing whole sentences again and again.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Oblomovita said:


> Se contiamo il numero dei casi, possiamo anche argomentare che non siano pochi (una decina), ma se consideriamo la frequenza con qui questi casi occorrono, allora penso che debba convenire che siano rari.
> In che casi l'articolo indefinitivo plurale (che tra l'altro in Italiano non esiste, al suo posto si usa il partitivo) viene usato raramente? Il suo uso, per quanto io sappia, non differisce dagli altri articoli.



Non ho scritto "viene usato raramente", ma "in italiano è usato molto piú rararmente che, per esempio, in francese".
Per esempio, se l'articolo indeterminativo singolare (un, una) è frequentissimo, l'uso di "dei, delle" in funzione d'articolo indeterminativo invece è piú ristretto e, direi, anzi, meno sistematico - sempre col francese in vista come termine di paragone.
La mia terminologia è influenzata dalla terminologia francese, poiché, essendo un autodidatta avanzato, all'università non ho mai imparato in modo sistematico la grammatica di base (ma sì varie sottigliezze dell'uso dei verbi). In scuola m'insegnarono, infatti, di distinguere, nella lingua francese, nel plurale l'articolo partitivo da quello indeterminativo, pur aventi forma identica.


----------



## Oblomovita

Ben Jamin said:


> The conclusion is then: use of definitive articles in Italian is relatively simple, and even an average Slavic speaker can learn it quickly when taught in an adequate manner. But "not using" IS complicated, and generally impossible to learn by memorizing rules. Only by memorizing whole sentences again and again.



That's true, and even Italians doesn't it ecxactly, but we had time to memorize all these cases. 

So, as you said, the use of articles is relative simple even for slavic Speakers, but I notice that usually Slavic don't use articles at all.
Hence my original question: why Slavic speakers don't use articles in Italian?


----------



## Oblomovita

Io non so che differenza ci sia tra l'articolo indeterminativo plurale francese e italiano. Ma mi sembra che in Italiano non ci sia un uso più ristrettivo dell'indeterminativo plurale rispetto agli altri articoli, quindi non ho capito a cosa ti stavi riferendo.


Angelo di fuoco said:


> Per esempio, se l'articolo indeterminativo singolare (un, una) è frequentissimo, l'uso di "dei, delle" in funzione d'articolo indeterminativo invece è piú ristretto


Per quanto io sappia, in linea generale, negli stessi casi in cui uso un/uno/una al singolare devo usare dei/degli/dei al plurale.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

"Devo" o "posso usarlo, ma posso anche ometterlo"?


----------



## Sobakus

Oblomovita said:


> That's true, and even Italians doesn't it ecxactly, but we had time to memorize all these cases.
> 
> So, as you said, the use of articles is relative simple even for slavic Speakers, but I notice that usually Slavic don't use articles at all.
> Hence my original question: why Slavic speakers don't use articles in Italian?



The only remaining possibility is they aren't properly taught to. I mean, you can't forget to use something if you're told you should use it always(except for the first stages). I had been learning English from the first grade when I finished school and up to that moment no one had ever properly explained to me why and when I had to use the articles(praised be intuition!). I had to "google it" myself, but even now the one thing that gets me stuck for 5 minutes in every 10th sentence is pondering whether I used the godforsaken thing right


----------



## Oblomovita

Sobakus said:


> The only remaining possibility is they aren't properly taught to. I mean, you can't forget to use something if you're told you should use it always(except for the first stages). I had been learning English from the first grade when I finished school and up to that moment no one had ever properly explained to me why and when I had to use the articles(praised be intuition!). I had to "google it" myself, but even now the one thing that gets me stuck for 5 minutes in every 10th sentence is pondering whether I used the godforsaken thing right



I think that the problem is about how we are wired up.
We use a different logic.
When Italian speaks they always mind if a noun is well known to everybody (determinated) or it's in a certain way not known (indeterminated).

For example. I use to have a steak for dinner.
So my wife ask me: "Do you want the steak?" ( vuoi la bistecca?).
Both of us (my wife and I) knows everything about the steak becouse I always eat a steak, and exactly that beef steak. So it is weel known and we use a determinative artcle.
But if she asks me "Do you prefer a sandwich?" (preferisci un panino?) here she use the indeterminative articlem becouse sandwich is something new for me at all. I don't know what kind of sandwich she is going to give me, while before I knew exactly what kind of steak she cooks.
But if she asks "do you want a steak?" (vuoi una bistecca) with indeterminative article I can thin that she wants to cook a different kind of steak.

This is our (italian) logic. 
Do you think that it can help to teach russian-speakers to use articles?


----------



## Oblomovita

Angelo di fuoco said:


> "Devo" o "posso usarlo, ma posso anche ometterlo"?



Se al singolare non lo posso omettere, non posso ometterlo nemmeno al plurale, salvo rare eccezioni nella definizione delle professioni.
Ad esempio: l'ingegnere progetta ponti. (qui a volte posso omettere l'articolo, ma si tratta di un'eccezione alla regola)


----------



## Sobakus

Oblomovita said:


> I think that the problem is about how we are wired up.
> We use a different logic.
> When Italian speaks they always mind if a noun is well known to everybody (determinated) or it's in a certain way not known (indeterminated).
> 
> This is our (italian) logic.
> Do you think that it can help to teach russian-speakers to use articles?



This logic can't be taught, it will eventually be acquired through practice. You(or most) can't first understand an entirely unfamiliar concept and then use it, you understand it *while* using it(or seeing it being used)!


----------



## berndf

*Thank you very much for the lively discussion. The topic seems to be exhausted now and the tread is therefore closed now. If anybody thinks he or she has another aspect to contribute please feel free to contact the moderators and we will consider reopening the thread.*


----------

