# she dropped her handkerchief



## giacinta

Ciao a tutti,

Ho visto che "far cadere il suo fazzoletto" o " lasciar cadere il suo fazzoletto" e' il modo giusto per rendere " to drop her handkerchief"

Pero' secondo me non da' nessun' idea se lei l'abbia fatto apposta o no.  Vero?

Che cosa e' il modo migliore per dare l'idea giusta. 

Lei ha fatto cadere il suo fazzoletto apposta/ Lei ha fatto cadere il suo fazzoletto per sbaglio/senza saperlo.  

Giacinta


----------



## Blackman

Ciao Giacinta,

non ci crederai, ma entrambi i modi indicano che l'ha fatto apposta.
_Le cadde il fazzoletto, _invece, no.


----------



## giacinta

Grazie Blackman- ma secondo il dizionario WR- si usano entrambe le espressioni per dire due cose diverse.(?) ( o due diverse cose???)


----------



## Blackman

Pubblica il link e ne discutiamo.


----------



## giacinta

*drop[sth]* _vtr_ (let fall accidentally) lasciare cadere⇒, fare cadere⇒ _vtr_
  He dropped his keys on the pavement.
  Ha lasciato cadere le chiavi sul marciapiede.
*drop[sth]* _vtr_ (let fall intentionally) lasciare cadere⇒, fare cadere⇒ _vtr_
    fare rimbalzare⇒ _vtr_
  The table tennis player dropped the ball on the table to serve.
  Il giocatore di ping pong ha fatto cadere la pallina sul tavolo per battere.


----------



## ohbice

giacinta said:


> Ciao a tutti,
> 
> Ho visto che "far cadere il suo fazzoletto" o " lasciar cadere il suo fazzoletto" e' il modo giusto per rendere " to drop her handkerchief"
> 
> Pero' secondo me non da' nessun' idea se lei l'abbia fatto apposta o no.  Vero?
> 
> Che cosa e' il modo migliore per dare l'idea giusta.
> 
> Lei ha fatto cadere il suo fazzoletto apposta/ Lei ha fatto cadere il suo fazzoletto per sbaglio/senza saperlo.
> 
> Giacinta


Qui si tratta di sfumature, a mio modo di vedere "Ha fatto cadere il fazzoletto per sbaglio" non implica che l'abbia fatto apposta. E' stato un incidente, uno "sbaglio". Però la costruzione proposta da Blackman al post 2 è più naturale. Poi ci sarebbe da indagare anche la responsabilità, o la colpa: "Ha fatto cadere il vaso per sbaglio" è diverso (sfumature, sempre) da "Il vaso le è caduto": nel primo caso il soggetto svolge una funzione attiva, e forse è questo che voleva dire Black quando afferma che "l'ha fatto apposta". Nel secondo caso ("Il vaso le è caduto") la costruzione passiva dà quasi l'idea che il colpevole della caduta del vaso sia il vaso stesso. Magari era bagnato, e quindi scivoloso, mah 
Ciao
p


----------



## giacinta

Perhaps I haven't explained myself well!  My question is:  it seems that in NEITHER CASE simply to say " Lei ha fatto cadere il fazzoletto OR Lei ha fatto lasciare il fazzoletto"  is the impression given, one way or the other, as to whether it was an accident or not.  My question is: what one can say/add (if anything)  to clarify whether it was an accident or whether it was done on  purpose.

Giacinta


----------



## Pietruzzo

giacinta said:


> Perhaps I haven't explained myself well!  My question is:  it seems that in NEITHER CASE simply to say " Lei ha fatto cadere il fazzoletto OR Lei ha fatto lasciare il fazzoletto"  is the impression given, one way or the other, as to whether it was an accident or not.  My question is: what one can say/add (if anything)  to clarify whether it was an accident or whether it was done on  purpose.
> 
> Giacinta


The answer was in @Blackman's post #2
As for me, I would use your two examples only for a specific situation: an eighteenth century  lady who dropped her handkerchief on purpose in order to start conversation with some gentleman.
In any other situation I'd say something else:
Ha gettato a terra un piatto(on purpose)
Le è caduto a terra un piatto(accidentally)
Things could be dfferent if we were talking about objects which are not in our hands. 
Eg. "Ha spinto il fratello e l'ha fatto cadere"(on purpose)
"Ha urtato la lampada e l'ha fatta cadere(accidentally).
In this case you could also add apposta/di proposito/per sbaglio etc.
Ha fatto cadere il fratello di proposito
Ha fatto cadere la lampada per sbaglio.


----------



## giacinta

Grazie a tutti


----------



## alicip

Perdonatemi, ma la frase in OP per me può significare solo due cose:
*"she dropped her handkerchief" = "le è caduto il fazzoletto (a terra) / le cadde il fazzoletto (a terra)" (accidentally)
"she dropped her handkerchief" = "ha gettato il fazzoletto (a terra) / gettò il fazzoletto (a terra)" (on purpose)
*
Vediamo l'esempio di un cameriere:
1. As he approached the table, the waiter slipped and dropped his dishes with a loud clatter. -> qui tradurrei con "...scivolò e fece cadere i piatti..." (accidentally) oppure con "...scivolò e i piatti gli caddero..." (accidentally)
2. As he approached the table, the waiter saw his wife with another man. He dropped his dishes with a loud clatter and ran into the kitchen. -> qui tradurrei con "Gettò i piatti (a terra)" (on purpose, as he was enraged at seeing his wife with another man) oppure con "Lasciò cadere i piatti (a terra)" (on purpose, as he was shocked, overwhelmed by sadness, etc.)

Credo che il contesto possa essere molto d'aiuto in situazioni del genere. Potrei sbagliarmi, ma io la vedo così.


----------



## sorry66

I don't understand
lasciar cadere is on purpose?
far cadere is acccidental  or on purpose?
le e caduto/le cadde qualcosa is accidental?


----------



## Necsus

"Lasciar cadere" is mainly on purpose [ha lasciato cadere il fazzoletto (di proposito/intenzionalmente) perché quell'affascinante gentiluomo potesse raccoglierlo e riportarglielo].
"Far cadere" can be on purpose, in my opinion only if you don't hold the object, otherwise you would use 'lasciare' [ha fatto cadere un vaso per distrarre l'attenzione], or accidental [passando ha fatto cadere a terra il foglio su cui era scritto il numero di telefono].
"Cadere (di mano)" is accidental [per lo spavento le caddero (di mano) le chiavi].


----------



## Pietruzzo

giacinta said:


> Ho visto che "far cadere il suo fazzoletto" o " lasciar cadere il suo fazzoletto" e' il modo giusto per rendere " to drop her handkerchief"


Let's take it from the top. What does "drop" mean in the OP sentence? Is it intentional? Accidental? Dontknow?


----------



## sorry66

That's a clear explanation, Necsus. Thanks. 
To Pietruzzo:
It could be both.
In most of the situations I can imagine she would have dropped her handkerchief by accident. 
If, however, she 'dropped her handkerchief' to get the attention of that charming gentleman - then that's on purpose.


----------



## alicip

I believe *giacinta *could enlighten us.


----------



## sorry66

Enlighten us as to what? When you say 'drop', it can be either intentional or accidental.


----------



## alicip

sorry66 said:


> Enlighten us as to what? When you say 'drop', it can be either intentional or accidental.


I know what "drop" means. Giacinta should enlighten us as to whether the lady who "dropped her handkerchief" did it on purpose or accidentally. How are we supposed to provide an accurate and faithful translation if we do not know what the real intention of the lady was? Then, it would be usweful to know: was she sad? was she mad? was she shocked? why did she drop it? The contextx, I mean. It is true that translation is an art, but we cannot translate "ha lasciato cadere il suo fazzoletto (per attirare l'attenzione di quel gentiluomo)" when the intended meaning is/was "ha gettato a terra il suo fazzoletto (perché era furiosa - aveva appena scoperto che il marito la tradiva)". It wouldn't be faithful to the original. Even though translation is not an exact science and that the "perfect translation" clearly does not exist, we have to strive to make our translations as accurate as possible. Our translations should be true and faithful reflections of the intent and meaning of the original. OK...maybe it's just me.


----------



## Pietruzzo

alicip said:


> Our translations should be true and faithful reflections of the intent and meaning of the original.


...and shouldn't be wild guesses or lists of dozens of cases.


----------



## sorry66

Maybe Giacinta didn't want a specific translation but to explore the different possibilities of the word 'cadere'.
Of course, that makes it a hard task for people here on the forum.


----------



## alicip

Pietruzzo said:


> ...and shouldn't be wild guesses or lists of dozens of cases.


Why not? I kinda like wild guesses...or maybe not...let me roll the dice...or, even better, let me toss the coin...see what I get. 
P.S.: I agree with you.


----------



## giacinta

sorry66 is almost right!  But it wasn't the word "cadere" that I was exploring- rather, it surprised me that the same Italian words (according to WR dictionary) are used to describe the act of dropping something leaving open the possibility that it was *either* deliberate or accidental without being specific.  So, if a lady dropped her handkerchief, apparently by accident, but in fact hoping to attract the attention of a man who might retrieve it for her- the Italian translation would not enlighten the reader one way or the other - ie whether the dropping was accidental or deliberate.


----------



## Necsus

Ciao, Giacinta.
Actually as I said in my previous post when you say "lasciar cadere" or "far cadere", the dropping is mainly deliberate (if the lady holds the handkerchief)...


----------



## sorry66

I think it's the other way round, giacinta. If you look at necsus's earlier post.


Necsus said:


> "Lasciar cadere" is mainly on purpose [ha lasciato cadere il fazzoletto (di proposito/intenzionalmente) perché quell'affascinante gentiluomo potesse raccoglierlo e riportarglielo].
> "Far cadere" can be on purpose, in my opinion only if you don't hold the object, otherwise you would use 'lasciare' [ha fatto cadere un vaso per distrarre l'attenzione], or accidental [passando ha fatto cadere a terra il foglio su cui era scritto il numero di telefono].
> "Cadere (di mano)" is accidental [per lo spavento le caddero (di mano) le chiavi].


'Drop' is the vague term and not 'lasciar cadere' or 'far cadere' or 'cadere'; with 'drop' you have to guess whether it's deliberate or not, unless the context is clear.


----------



## giacinta

Necsus said:


> Ciao, Giacinta.
> Actually as I said in my previous post when you say "lasciar cadere" or "far cadere", the dropping is mainly deliberate (if the lady holds the handkerchief)...


So, the WR dictionary is a bit mis-leading?


----------



## Necsus

Perché, Giacinta? Mi pare di capire che il vero problema sia che in inglese si usa comunque _drop_, che l'azione sia intenzionale o no... Sbaglio?


----------



## sorry66

From Word Ref:


giacinta said:


> *drop[sth]* _vtr_ (*let fall accidentally) lasciare cadere⇒, fare cadere*⇒ _vtr_
> He dropped his keys on the pavement.
> Ha lasciato cadere le chiavi sul marciapiede.
> *drop[sth]* _vtr_ (*let fall intentionally) lasciare cadere⇒, fare cadere*⇒ _vtr_
> fare rimbalzare⇒ _vtr_
> The table tennis player dropped the ball on the table to serve.
> Il giocatore di ping pong ha fatto cadere la pallina sul tavolo per battere.


Hi necsus,
You said this:


Necsus said:


> "Lasciar cadere" is mainly on purpose [ha lasciato cadere il fazzoletto (di proposito/intenzionalmente) perché quell'affascinante gentiluomo potesse raccoglierlo e riportarglielo].
> "Far cadere" can be on purpose, in my opinion only if you don't hold the object, otherwise you would use 'lasciare' [ha fatto cadere un vaso per distrarre l'attenzione], or accidental [passando ha fatto cadere a terra il foglio su cui era scritto il numero di telefono].
> "Cadere (di mano)" is accidental [per lo spavento le caddero (di mano) le chiavi].



so I understood this as
'lasciare cadere' - usually intentional
'far cadere' - (when you don't hold the object) accidental OR
(if you hold the object) intentional

Is that what you meant? If you did, then WR is, indeed, misleading ( the entry is above). It suggests that they can be used interchangeably even though the examples given suggest a difference.


----------



## Blackman

That's what I said in my first post: he dropped his keys on the pavement should go as le caddero le chiavi sul marciapiede. Sono le chiavi a cadere, non lui a lasciarle/farle cadere.


----------



## Necsus

Ciao, sorry.
In the first sentence you can't actually say if the translation of the verb is wrong or not, because he can also "lasciar cadere la chiavi" intentionally.
In the second one what is wrong in my opinion is the Italian verb they chose in translation, I'd say "ha fatto *rimbalzare *la pallina".


----------



## Pietruzzo

This thread looks like an eternal loop. As far as I can understand the WR dictionary  is telling us that far/lasciar cadere could be either intentional or accidental. So please give us a specific sentence with a specific context so that we can provide a specific translation. Otherwise that should be a "solo italiano" issue, I suppose.


----------



## sorry66

Hi Blackman, 


Blackman said:


> le caddero le chiavi sul marciapiede


I understand that well - it's accidental. However, 'drop' could be intentional or accidental.
Necsus,
Maybe you should 'signal' to WR what sentences would be correct. According to WR 'far/lasciar cadere' are identical and as I explained in #26 you are saying they are different!!



Pietruzzo said:


> As far as I can understand the WR dictionary is telling us that far/lasciar cadere could be either intentional or accidental.


What an aglophone needs to understand is in what circumstances you would use one rather than the other.
For example: Ho lasciato/fatto cadere il carbone caldo. (we infer that it's on purpose)
Ho lasciato/fatto cadere un zecchino. (we infer that it's accidental)

Although, they may be used interchangeably here, necsus has suggested that there are circumstances (see previous posts) where you can't.


----------



## Pietruzzo

sorry66 said:


> What an aglophone needs to understand is in what circumstances you would use one rather than the other.


Dear Sorry, why don't you understand that context is everything? Is my English so bad? If you go on like this "mi farai cadere le braccia" and I"ll let you decide whether that would be intentional or accidental.


----------



## sorry66

No, your English is very good, Pietruzzo.
_(I, on the other hand, seem to be imprisoned at the pre-intermediate level of Italian!)
_
I did give a specific sentences above (re: your earlier post).

Ok, let me put it like this: In your opinion, is far/lasciar cadere interchangeable 99% of the time? Can you give a specific context where they are not interchangeable? (necsus did this but now seems to be wavering)


----------



## Paulfromitaly

sorry66 said:


> far/lasciar cadere interchangeable 99% of the time?


To me, it is not.

Giorgio ha fatto cadere il vaso (accidentally)
Giorgio ha lasciato cadere le chiavi (deliberately) 

It's not maths, but I'd interpret it like this most of the time.


----------



## sorry66

In that case, as giacinta suggests, shouldn't there be a revision of the WR entry under 'drop'?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

sorry66 said:


> In that case, as giacinta suggests, shouldn't there be a revision of the WR entry under 'drop'?


Perhaps the examples should be translated more accurately, but I think the entries are fine because, as I said, the two meanings can overlap.
As always, the context is the key.


----------



## Necsus

sorry66 said:


> (necsus did this but now seems to be wavering)


Sorry66, probably I'm not very clear because of my poor English, what does it seem to you wavering?


----------



## sorry66

sorry66 said:


> so I understood this as
> 'lasciare cadere' - usually intentional
> 'far cadere' - (when you don't hold the object) accidental OR
> (if you hold the object) intentional
> 
> Is that what you meant? If you did, then WR is, indeed, misleading ( the entry is above). It suggests that they can be used interchangeably even though the examples given suggest a difference.


Hi necsus, Can you confirm that the above analysis from post # 26, is correct? It seems like you're avoiding being definitive about it.


----------



## Necsus

sorry66 said:


> so I understood this as
> 'lasciare cadere' - usually intentional
> 'far cadere' - (when you don't hold the object) accidental OR
> (if you hold the object) intentional
> Is that what you meant? If you did, then WR is, indeed, misleading ( the entry is above). It suggests that they can be used interchangeably even though the examples given suggest a difference.





sorry66 said:


> Hi necsus, Can you confirm that the above analysis from post # 26, is correct? It seems like you're avoiding being definitive about it.


Sorry66, I've written


Necsus said:


> "Lasciar cadere" is *mainly *on purpose [ha lasciato cadere il fazzoletto (di proposito/intenzionalmente) perché quell'affascinante gentiluomo potesse raccoglierlo e riportarglielo].
> "Far cadere" can be on purpose, in my opinion only if you don't hold the object, otherwise you would use 'lasciare' [ha fatto cadere un vaso per distrarre l'attenzione], or accidental [passando ha fatto cadere a terra il foglio su cui era scritto il numero di telefono].
> "Cadere (di mano)" is accidental [per lo spavento le caddero (di mano) le chiavi].


and of course I confirm it, otherwise I wouldn't have written it.  And precisely because I said that, I can't say if the translation in this entry:
_He dropped his keys on the pavement.
Ha lasciato cadere le chiavi sul marciapiede._​is correct or not, since there is no context. Some possible scenario:
"Chiudendo la porta ha lasciato/fatto cadere le chiavi sul marciapiede perché lei le potesse recuperare";
"Mentre fuggiva ha lasciato/fatto cadere le chiavi sul marciapiede per evitare che gliele trovassero addosso";
oppure
"Chiudendo la porta dall'interno ha fatto cadere sul marciapiede le chiavi che erano infilate dall'altra parte";
"Mentre fuggiva, passando ha fatto cadere le chiavi sul marciapiede, infatti erano appoggiate sul foglio su cui era scritto il numero di telefono, che lei aveva lasciato sul muretto".


----------



## banundia

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused than I was before. 
I found exactly the opposite in the second paragraph of this page:
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/costruzione-causativa_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/ 
In a causative construction one can employ "fare" or "lasciare". If a clear will is expressed one has to use "fare", while if the action is just allowed or not prevented even on purpose (grado debole) then one has to use "lasciare". 
I must say though that I have heard often both verbs used interchangeably in both cases of causative construction, and the intentionality or not was derived from the contest.
Please, is all this wrong? Can someone make sense of all this?


----------



## sorry66

Banundia, I don't know if your link applies to 'far/lasciar cadere', which might be a special case for all I know.

"Per esprimere questi due gradi di forza causativa, l’italiano (al pari del francese) ha due verbi specializzati: _fare _e _lasciare. Fare _esprime tanto il grado forte (12) a. quanto quello debole (12) b. di forza causativa: 
(12) a. mia madre mi fa studiare anche la notte 
  b. mio padre mi fa andare in vacanza da sola
Il verbo _lasciare_, invece, esprime esclusivamente il grado debole: 
(13) a. ho lasciato uscire i ragazzi
  b. ho lasciato prendere la macchina a mio figlio "

In French, _faire tomber_ (cadere) and _laisser tomber_ are quite distinct.

The only distinction I can see following necsus' explanation is that y*ou use 'far cadere' rather than 'lasciar cadere' if you are not holding the object**. *

Otherwise, they're interchangeable (in terms of intention and accident (as said in WordRef)) but there are differences of preference:


Necsus said:


> "Lasciar cadere" is mainly on purpose





Necsus said:


> "Far cadere" can be on purpose,



You can add ‘per sbaglio’ and ‘apposta’ to make it clearer.

Pietruzzo agrees with this but would use ‘cadere’ if it was accidental. So would ohbice and Blackman.
Paul, however, says:


Paulfromitaly said:


> Giorgio ha fatto cadere il vaso (accidentally)
> Giorgio ha lasciato cadere le chiavi (deliberately)


so does alicip.

There are those here who say 'gettare' can also be used if it's intentional.


----------



## Necsus

banundia said:


> I found exactly the opposite in the second paragraph of this page:
> http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/costruzione-causativa_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/


Ciao, banundia.
If you go over first paragraph, you'll see that's not the opposite, it's simply another case, different from that we are talking about here:
(a) mette in scena due agenti: il primo è il soggetto del primo predicato; l’altro quello del secondo all’infinito;
(b) stabilisce tra i due agenti una precisa relazione: il primo è istigatore dell’agire del secondo (per questo è detto talvolta _Iniziatore_o, meno spesso, _Istigatore_); il secondo è l’esecutore dell’evento indicato;
(c) tra Iniziatore e Esecutore c’è un rapporto gerarchico: il primo ha il potere di indurre il secondo a fare una cosa.


----------



## banundia

Thank you for your useful summary, sorry66.
Necsus, thank you! I understand much better now.
I love this forum, it is fun and one can learn a lot from other people!


----------



## alicip

Paulfromitaly said:


> To me, it is not.
> 
> Giorgio ha fatto cadere il vaso (accidentally)
> Giorgio ha lasciato cadere le chiavi (deliberately)
> 
> It's not maths, but I'd interpret it like this most of the time.


I totally agree with you!  Of course, context is everything...and, unfortunately, here on WR context is not always provided. But that's another story...


----------

