# Could you have it made for me?



## cecil

All:

Potrebbe farmelo fare? Could you have it made for me?  Giusto o no?

Potrebbe farmi preparato due uove strapezze? Could you have two scrambled eggs prepared for me?  Giusto o no?

cecil


----------



## TrentinaNE

I don't think so.  My attempt:  Potrebbe (potresti) averlo fatto per me?

Elisabetta


----------



## cecil

TrentinaNE said:


> I don't think so. My attempt: Potrebbe (potresti) averlo fatto per me?
> 
> Elisabetta


 
Your expression is certainly closer to the English expression, but somewhere I think I've read that fare fare is "to have made."  We'll see what the natives say. Thanks.

cecil


----------



## TrentinaNE

It appears you are right, cecil.  Check out this thread.  

Elisabetta


----------



## _forumuser_

What misled Elisabetta is probably the fact that potrebbe farmelo fare can mean both:

could you have it made for me? (and)
would you allow me to do it?

Better to use your other example:

Potrebbe farmi *preparare* due uova strapazzate?
Could you have 2 scrambled eggs prepared for me. 

Potrebbe farmi *mandare *2 scatoloni per domani mattina?
Could you have 2 boxes sent to me by tomorrow morning? 

Always use the infinitive after fare.

Also note: 

*Potrebbe essere cosi' gentile da* farmi preparare due....
Would you be so kind as to have 2 xxx made...

In less formall contexts, as you probably already know, you can use the second person:

*Potresti* farmi....


----------



## ElaineG

More than you wanted to know about far fare: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=117152&highlight=fare+fare


----------



## Roo Boy

ElaineG said:


> More than you wanted to know about far fare: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=117152&highlight=fare+fare



Could someone please clarify whether far [+infinitive] takes an indirect or a direct object. Both are used in examples in the above thread.

For example,

Would "Make her/him speak more clearly" be

Falla parlare piu' chiaramente
Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente

OR

Falle parlare piu' chiaramente
Fagli parlare piu' chiaramente


----------



## cecil

TrentinaNE said:


> It appears you are right, cecil. Check out this thread.
> 
> Elisabetta


 
Elisabetta,

This was very helpful: 

So if you have in English:
Have Catherine make a good tea for me
You can translate
Fai fare a Catherine un buon the per me

You can notice how the constuction is different:

English = Have someone make (or do) something
Italian = Far fare a qualcuno qualcosa

How did you search for the thread? I tried "Search" with far fare, fare fare, and have done, but without results. 

Thanks,

cecil



_forumuser_ said:


> What misled Elisabetta is probably the fact that potrebbe farmelo fare can mean both:
> 
> can you have it made for me? (and)
> would you allow me to do it?
> 
> Better to use your other example:
> 
> Potrebbe farmi *preparare* due uova strapazzate?
> Could you have 2 scrambled eggs prepared for me.
> 
> Potrebbe farmi *mandare *2 scatoloni per domani mattina?
> Could you have 2 boxes sent to me by tomorrow morning?
> 
> Always use the infinitive after fare.
> 
> Also note:
> 
> *Potrebbe essere cosi' gentile da* farmi preparare due....
> Would you be so kind as to have 2 ...
> 
> In less formall contexts, as you probably already know, you can use the second person:
> 
> *Potresti* farmi....


 
Very helpful, I've made a note of these phrases. Can't trust the old brain anymore.

 
Another question, somewhat related: 

Would the following expression be correct for "I could have prepared the eggs."

Potrei aver preparato le uova.




ElaineG said:


> More than you wanted to know about far fare: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=117152&highlight=fare+fare


 
Ah, you searched with "fare + fare"? I'll see if I get the same results.

Thanks,

cecil

_Moderator note: Egg question moved to __new thread__. Grazie!_


----------



## Roo Boy

Roo Boy said:


> Could someone please clarify whether far [+infinitive] takes an indirect or a direct object. Both are used in examples in the above thread.
> 
> For example,
> 
> Would "Make her/him speak more clearly" be
> 
> Falla parlare piu' chiaramente
> Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente
> 
> OR
> 
> Falle parlare piu' chiaramente
> Fagli parlare piu' chiaramente



We were a bit sidetracked. Could someone please clarify this for me.


----------



## MünchnerFax

Roo Boy said:


> Would "Make her/him speak more clearly" be
> 
> Falla parlare piu' chiaramente
> Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente
> 
> OR
> 
> Falle parlare piu' chiaramente
> Fagli parlare piu' chiaramente


 
Well... If I strictly had to choose among these ones, I'd pick:
_Falla parlare piu' chiaramente_
_Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente_

...but in fact I wouldn't say anything of the above. _Far fare_ implies sort of my direct participation in the process; whereas here, I only have to 'convince' him to speak. Thus, If I was to use _parlare_, I'd say: _fai in modo che parli più chiaramente_.
Nevertheless, 'native' chioces would rather be: _fai in modo che lui sia più chiaro, fatti spiegare più chiaramente_, etc.

As to point out what I'm trying to explain, the expression _l'hanno fatto parlare_ perfectly fits for instance in a context of police questioning, implying a bit of offhanded manners were used to make him speak.


----------



## Roo Boy

MünchnerFax said:


> Well... If I strictly had to choose among these ones, I'd pick:
> _Falla parlare piu' chiaramente_
> _Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente_
> 
> ...but in fact I wouldn't say anything of the above. _Far fare_ implies sort of my direct participation in the process; whereas here, I only have to 'convince' him to speak. Thus, If I was to use _parlare_, I'd say: _fai in modo che parli più chiaramente_.
> Nevertheless, 'native' chioces would rather be: _fai in modo che lui sia più chiaro, fatti spiegare più chiaramente_, etc.
> 
> As to point out what I'm trying to explain, the expression _l'hanno fatto parlare_ perfectly fits for instance in a context of police questioning, implying a bit of offhanded manners were used to make him speak.



OK. So it takes a direct object.

ie. "l'hanno fatto parlare" NOT "gli hanno fatto parlare"

This thread
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=117152
uses these examples which use an indirect object

io farò fare a lui per te- I'll have him do that for you
fargli scrivere una biografia di Behetoven - Have him write a biography of Beethoven

Are these correct?


----------



## dirittodritto

Mi fai fare due uove...

O la frase: io farò fare a lui per te- I'll have him do that for you

Te lo faccio fare da lui. 

Di solito, quando si usa il futuro in inglese, si usa il presente in italiano, per esempio quando si promete qualcosa, o quando si decide qualcosa in quel momento:

I'll answer it (the phone or door).

Rispondo io. 

Quindi, Will you have a chocolate cake made for me? 

Mi fai fare una torta di ciocolato?


----------



## Roo Boy

dirittodritto said:


> Mi fai fare due uove...
> 
> O la frase: io farò fare a lui per te- I'll have him do that for you
> 
> Te lo faccio fare da lui.
> 
> Di solito, quando si usa il futuro in inglese, si usa il presente in italiano, per esempio quando si promete qualcosa, o quando si decide qualcosa in quel momento:
> 
> I'll answer it (the phone or door).
> 
> Rispondo io.
> 
> Quindi, Will you have a chocolate cake made for me?
> 
> Mi fai fare una torta di ciocolato?



Grazie ma non è la risposta che sto cercando.

"a lui" puo essere sostituito in italiano con "gli".

Allora, "io farò fare a lui per te" = "io gli farò fare per te".

Dunque, se si segue questa regola

Falla parlare più  chiaramente 
Fallo parlare più chiaramente 

Falle parlare più chiaramente 
Fagli parlare più  chiaramente 

Credo che questo non sia corretto.


----------



## dirittodritto

Si. Hai ragione, rispondevo piu' alla prima domanda.  Quindi,fagli parlare piu' chiaramente e' correcto, y falle parlare, con il soggetto indirecto. 

Nota que si usa "gli" nella lingua parlata anche con il soggetto al plurale. Tipo _gli ho detto_, invece di _ho detto a loro_, che sarebbe la forma grammaticalmente correcta. Fagli parlare, se ci sono piu' persone, o se c'e' una persona sola.


----------



## Roo Boy

dirittodritto said:


> Si. Hai ragione, rispondevo piu' alla prima domanda.  Quindi,fagli parlare piu' chiaramente e' correcto, y falle parlare, con il soggetto indirecto.
> 
> Nota que si usa "gli" nella lingua parlata anche con il soggetto al plurale. Tipo _gli ho detto_, invece di _ho detto a loro_, che sarebbe la forma grammaticalmente correcta. Fagli parlare, se ci sono piu' persone, o se c'e' una persona sola.



Allora, mi stai dicendo che usare l'oggetto diretto è un sbaglio e "Falla parlare più  chiaramente" e "Fallo parlare più chiaramente" sono espressioni sbagliate?


----------



## dirittodritto

Si, e' sbagliato dire "falla parlare" o "fallo parlare." 

Si usa il soggetto indiretto. Tipo: Dai...fagli parlare!


----------



## Roo Boy

dirittodritto said:


> Si, e' sbagliato dire "falla parlare" o "fallo parlare."
> 
> Si usa il soggetto l'oggetto indiretto. Tipo: Dai...fagli parlare!



Grazie. Finalmente la risposta che cercavo!


----------



## dirittodritto

E grazie per la correzione!


----------



## Roo Boy

dirittodritto said:


> E grazie per la correzione!



Prego...


----------



## _forumuser_

dirittodritto said:


> Si, e' sbagliato dire "falla parlare" o "fallo parlare."
> 
> Si usa il soggetto indiretto. Tipo: Dai...fagli parlare!


 
*WRONG!!*

 

intransitive verbs:

Fallo parlare = fai parlare lui = have/make/let him talk/speak
falla parlare = fai parlare lei = have/make/let her talk/speak

fagli parlare  

transitive verbs:

fagli dire = fai dire a lui = have him say
falle dire = fai dire a lei have her say

faglielo dire = fallo dire a lui = have him say it
faglielo dire = fallo dire a lei = have her say it


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> *WRONG!!*
> 
> 
> 
> intransitive verbs:
> 
> Fallo parlare = fai parlare lui = have/make him talk/speak
> falla parlare = fai parlare lei = have her talk/speak
> 
> fagli parlare
> 
> transitive verbs:
> 
> fagli dire = fai dire a lui = have him say
> falle dire = fai dire a lei have her say
> 
> faglielo dire = fallo dire a lui = have him say it
> faglielo dire = fallo dire a lei = have her say it



Adesso sono anche piu perplesso di prima!

Stai dicendo che ci sia una regola per "parlare" (oggetto diretto) ed un altra per "dire" (oggetto indiretto)?


----------



## _forumuser_

Roo Boy said:


> Adesso sono anche piu perplesso di prima!
> 
> Stai dicendo che ci sia una regola per "parlare" ed un altra per "dire"?


 
No. I gave you an example of a* transitive verb* and an example of an *intransitive verb*.


----------



## dirittodritto

Guarda, per me "fagli parlare," lo uso quando voglio dire "let him talk." 

Faglielo dire lo usarei si voglio dire "let him say it," como dici tu. O fallo dire a lui/lei. 

Ti dico como lo direi io.


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> No. I gave you an example of a* transitive verb* and an example of an *intransitive verb*.



Dire and Parlare are both intransitive verbs...


----------



## _forumuser_

Roo Boy said:


> Dire and Parlare are both intransitive verbs...


 
Roo....You are kidding right? 

http://www.demauroparavia.it/33519


----------



## _forumuser_

dirittodritto said:


> Guarda, per me "fagli parlare," lo uso quando voglio dire "let him talk."
> 
> Faglielo dire lo usarei si voglio dire "let him say it," como dici tu. O fallo dire a lui/lei.
> 
> Ti dico como lo direi io.


 
Diritto, I am sorry but I have to insist. Fagli parlare is WRONG, end of story.


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> Diritto, I am sorry but I have to insist. Fagli parlare is WRONG, end of story.



And "fagli dire"?


----------



## _forumuser_

Roo Boy said:


> And "fagli dire"?


 
Fagli dire is RIGHT. Because when the main verb is transitive and it can hold a complemento oggetto (qualcosa) then you must use an indirect pronoun for the person who does the action (make/let *him* say). Could it be any clearer?


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> Roo....You are kidding right?
> 
> http://www.demauroparavia.it/33519



Are we on the same page? 

An intransitive verb is one whose object must be an *indirect *object. 

A transitive verb is one whose object must be a *direct *object. 

If "dire" were a transitive verb, you would say "L'ho detto" instead of "Gli ho detto".

An example of a transitive verb is "ascoltare" which means "to listen *to*". Therefore, you would say "L'ho ascoltato" and not "Gli ho ascoltato".


----------



## _forumuser_

Roo Boy said:


> Are we on the same page?
> 
> An intransitive verb is one whose object must be an *indirect *object.
> 
> A transitive verb is one whose object must be a *direct *object.
> 
> If "dire" were a transitive verb, you would say "L'ho detto" instead of "Gli ho detto".
> 
> An example of a transitive verb is "ascoltare" which means "to listen *to*". Therefore, you would say "L'ho ascoltato" and not "Gli ho ascoltato".


 
This is my last reply to this thread because things are getting out of hand.  Whatever happened to* farlo fare*? If you need clarifications on pronoun usage in general there is plenty of existing threads to look at. This thread is about far fare. So here it goes, once more:

*1. Transitive Verbs (Use indirect pronouns for the person)*

Make/have him listen:
Fa*gli* ascoltare

Make/have him listen to it:
Fa*glielo* ascoltare. (it to him)
Fallo ascoltare a lui

Note: Dire--a transitive verb--behaves in exactly the same way as ascoltare.

*2. Intransitive Verbs (Use direct pronouns for the person)*:

Let him in/Make him come in:
Fal*lo* entrare


----------



## TrentinaNE

The thing I find perplexing in all these examples of "making him/her do something" is that in English the _him/her_ would seem to be a direct object of the first far(e) rather than of the thing he/she is being made to do (ascoltare, parlare, dire, fare, ecc).   I know from the earlier thread that both Elaine and I linked to (as well as other dual-verb constructions) that Italian treats the  object pronouns differently, but that treatment is very non-intuitive for me!  Maybe I don't understand the English equivalent correctly either.      I think I'll ask in EO.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> This is my last reply to this thread because things are getting out of hand.  Whatever happened to* farlo fare*? If you need clarifications on pronoun usage in general there is plenty of existing threads to look at. This thread is about far fare. So here it goes, once more:
> 
> *1. Transitive Verbs (Use indirect pronouns for the person)*
> 
> Make/have him listen:
> Fa*gli* ascoltare
> 
> Make/have him listen to it:
> Fa*glielo* ascoltare. (it to him)
> Fallo ascoltare a lui
> 
> Note: Dire--a transitive verb--behaves in exactly the same way as ascoltare.
> 
> *2. Intransitive Verbs (Use direct pronouns for the person)*:
> 
> Let him in/Make him come in:
> Fallo entrare



I think that you are getting confused.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/jargonbuster/t-z/transitive?view=uk

A transitive verb takes a direct object (mi, ti, lo, la, ci, vi, li).
An intransitive verb takes an indirect object (mi, ti, gli, le, ci, vi, gli).
ie. me, you (s), him, her, us, you (pl), them - respectively

Parlare and Dire are both intransitive verbs (gli parlavo, le dicevo etc.)
Ascoltare and Trovare are transitive verbs (Lo ascoltavo, li ho trovati)

With "Far dire", "Far ascoltare" etc, it shouldn't matter whether the second verb is transitive or intransitive, "Far" should be either transitive or intransitive itself independently of the second verb. ie.both verbs can have their own separate objects. So the question is whether "far" is transitive or intransitive in this context.


----------



## _forumuser_

Roo Boy said:


> I think that you are getting confused.
> 
> http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/jargonbuster/t-z/transitive?view=uk
> 
> A transitive verb takes a direct object (mi, ti, lo, la, ci, vi, li).
> An intransitive verb takes an indirect object (mi, ti, gli, le, ci, vi, gli).
> ie. me, you (s), him, her, us, you (pl), them - respectively
> 
> *Parlare and Dire are both intransitive verbs*  (gli parlavo, le dicevo etc.)
> Ascoltare and Trovare are transitive verbs (Lo ascoltavo, li ho trovati)
> 
> With "Far dire", "Far ascoltare" etc, it shouldn't matter whether the second verb is transitive or intransitive, "Far" should be either transitive or intransitive itself independently of the second verb. ie.both verbs can have their own separate objects. So the question is whether "far" is transitive or intransitive in this context.


 
Forgive me, but you can't insist on absurdities like "*Parlare and Dire are both intransitive verbs"  .* This is plain W-R-O-N-G, just look it up. Anyway, on to the more important question:

*Fare* is *ALWAYS* transitive. Its direct object in far+infinitive type of sentences is the verb in the infinitive (Far mangiare > mangiare is the direct object of fare). Now, to decide whether to use direct or indirect pronouns we must look at *whether the verb that follows fare is transitive or intransitive:*

Fare + transitive > indirect pronouns (Fargli mangiare)

Fare + instransitive > direct pronouns (Farlo andare)

The object of fare is always the verb (transitive or instransitive).

CAREFUL: *This only applies in the case of <fare + infinitive> structures*. So please stop talking about transitive and intransitive verbs in general.


----------



## MünchnerFax

Here's my tiny contribution.

As Trentina pointed out, maybe it's not clear what the pronouns represent in this Italian expression.

The direct object in _far fare_ may be the subject of the second verb (intransitive verbs) or the direct object of the second verb (transitive verbs). The indirect object only appears if both subject and object of the second verb are expressed - and as I require an object, the verb must be transitive. No indirect object may appear with intransitive verbs.
I had better write a couple of examples to be more clear...

* Intransitive verb: *_parlare_
_Lo faccio parlare_ -> '_Lo_' is the subject of _parlare_ (what is my wish? That he speaks.)

This structure is the equivalent of the English _have _+ obj. + infinitive. But in Italian, it may only be used with intransitive verbs.

*Transitive verb*: _ascoltare_
_Lo faccio ascoltare_ -> '_Lo_' is the object of _ascoltare_ (what is my wish? That people listen to it). It may be a radio programme, a CD, etc. _Never ever_ is it the one who should listen to something (that is, the subject of _ascoltare_)!!! In this sentence, I'm not saying who should listen to the thing.

_Gli faccio ascoltare il CD_. -> The object here is '_il CD_', that is again what I want people to listen to. The indirect object represents the subject of the second verb: '_gli_' refers to the one who should listen to the CD.

Version with both pronouns: _glielo faccio ascoltare_ - '_lo_' = the CD or whatever, _gli_ = who's going to listen to it.

This structure is the equivalent of the structure _have _+ obj. + past participle.


And by the way: _dire_ is transitive. _Dire_ doesn't make any sense without an object (What am I saying?).

EDIT-
*transitive verb requiring both direct and indirect object*: _spedire
_It's getting a bit tricky... If I want Luigi to send 'it' (the package) to you, then it's:
_
Te lo faccio spedire il pacco da Luigi._
Direct object _lo_: the item sent (the package)
Indirect object _te_: the recipient
_da Luigi_: who is going to the post office, that is, the sender

If I don't express _da Luigi_, the sentence is ambiguous in Italian, as it may be the second or the third case:
_Glielo faccio spedire_ = I'll have it sent to him or I'll have him send it. Is the one '_gli_' refers to the recipient or the sender? Only context can help.

Example with _dire_:

_Glielo faccio dire_ = I'll have him say it, I'll force him to say it. or I'll have it said to him (does this make any sense in English?), I'll find someone who can confirm it to him.
but
_Glielo faccio dire da qualcuno_ = unambiguous: I'll have someone tell it to him, I'll find someone who can confirm it to him.


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> Forgive me, but you can't insist on absurdities like "*Parlare and Dire are both intransitive verbs"  .* This is plain W-R-O-N-G, just look it up. Anyway, on to the more important question:
> 
> *Fare* is *ALWAYS* transitive. Its direct object in far+infinitive type of sentences is the verb in the infinitive (Far mangiare > mangiare is the direct object of fare). Now, to decide whether to use direct or indirect pronouns we must look at *whether the verb that follows fare is transitive or intransitive:*
> 
> Fare + transitive > indirect pronouns (Fargli mangiare)
> 
> Fare + instransitive > direct pronouns (Farlo andare)
> 
> The object of fare is always the verb (transitive or instransitive).
> 
> CAREFUL: *This only applies in the case of <fare + infinitive> structures*. So please stop talking about transitive and intransitive verbs in general.



This is quite a complex subject and I am not so sure that it is black and white. This thread touches on the subject:

http://forum.wordreference.com/show...ighlight=avere+essere+transitive+intransitive

I can't think of an expression which uses "Parlare" or "to speak" transitively either in Italian or English except possibly a colloquial English expression such as "To talk the leg off a chair".

According to this source, it is an intransitive verb.
http://italian.about.com/library/verb/blverb_parlare.htm

"To tell/ To say" can be used transitively in English as in "To tell a story", "To say bad things", "To tell the truth".
Can these be said in Italian eg."Dire una storia" or would you have to say "Raccontare una storia"? Can you say "Dire la verità"? I have a feeling that you can.

Anyway, back to (in the example below) "far dire"/ "far parlare".  A verb cannot be the object of another verb. An object by definition is a noun or a pronoun.

Make him tell her (the object of make is him - not tell)
Make her tell him (the object of make is her - not tell)
Make him speak to her
Make her speak to him

This is why I am not so sure that that the object of "far" could be dependent on the second verb. If "Fare" is always transitive then it must always take a direct object. Therefore, the above sentences would translate:

Fallo dire a lei
Falla dire a lui
Fallo parlare a lei
Falla parlare a lui


----------



## stella_maris_74

Roo Boy said:


> Fallo dire a lei
> Falla dire a lui
> Fallo parlare a lei
> Falla parlare a lui



Roo Boy, "parlare" is GENERALLY intransitive.
The only case you can use "parlare" transitively is for phrases such as:
parlare una lingua/ il tedesco / male (bene) l'inglese / un linguaggio troppo tecnico.

and that's it.

EDIT:
In the case of:


> Make him speak to her
> Make her speak to him



the correct italian would be:
Fallo parlare con lei
Falla parlare con lui



ciao 

dani


----------



## MünchnerFax

Roo Boy said:


> Make him speak to her
> Make her speak to him


 
I finally understood what you meant here: _make X speak to Y, _you want X to speak with Y. In Italian, _fallo parlare a lei_ may be grammatically correct, but it sounds terribly weird. A native would say _fallo parlare con lei_.



Roo Boy said:


> Fallo dire a lei
> Falla dire a lui


You can see from my previous post that these sentences mean to a native Italian _make her tell it_, being _lo _the message to be said and _a lei_ the subject who has to say it.
In order to translate _make him tell her, _we have to rephrase the sentence. (Apart from the fact that an object is missing here. What shall he tell her?)


----------



## Roo Boy

stella_maris_74 said:


> Roo Boy, "parlare" is GENERALLY intransitive.
> The only case you can use "parlare" transitively is for phrases such as:
> parlare una lingua/ il tedesco / male (bene) l'inglese / un linguaggio troppo tecnico.
> 
> and that's it.
> 
> EDIT:
> In the case of:
> 
> 
> the correct italian would be:
> Fallo parlare con lei
> Falla parlare con lui
> 
> 
> 
> ciao
> 
> dani



Thanks, Dani. 

So the object of fare is always a direct object.

If we were to substitute "a lei" with "le" and "a lui" with "gli", where would those pronouns go?

Fallo dire a lei
Falla dire a lui

Can "con lei" be substituted with "le" and can "con lui" be substituted with "gli" in the following expressions and if so, where would they go?

Fallo parlare con lei
Falla parlare con lui


----------



## Roo Boy

MünchnerFax said:


> I finally understood what you meant here: _make X speak to Y, _you want X to speak with Y. In Italian, _fallo parlare a lei_ may be grammatically correct, but it sounds terribly weird. A native would say _fallo parlare con lei_.
> 
> 
> You can see from my previous post that these sentences mean to a native Italian _make her tell it_, being _lo _the message to be said and _a lei_ the subject who has to say it.
> In order to translate _make him tell her, _we have to rephrase the sentence. (Apart from the fact that an object is missing here. What shall he tell her?)



Fallo dire a lei la verità - Make him tell her the truth


----------



## MünchnerFax

Roo Boy said:


> Fallo dire a lei la verità - Make him tell her the truth


 
No. Your Italian sentence doesn't make sense.

Either:
_fagli dire la verità_ -> Make him tell the truth (who to? Not expressed.) EDIT: or _make someone tell him the truth_, ambiguous

or:
_falle dire la verità_ -> Make her tell the truth (who to? Not expressed.) EDIT: or _make someone tell her the truth_, ambiguous

or:
_faglielo dire_ -> make him/her tell it or make someone tell it to him/her (ambiguous)

A translation for _make him tell her the truth_ would be:
_fai in modo che lui le dica la verità_
_convincilo a dirle la verità_
or something alike.

EDIT -You could say:
_Falle dire da lui la verità_, this works (it sounds a bit artificial, though). The focus is rather on the fact that she doesn't believe me, so maybe she'll get finally convinced if he (instead of me) tells her the truth.


----------



## Roo Boy

MünchnerFax said:


> No. Your Italian sentence doesn't make sense.
> 
> Either:
> _fagli dire la verità_ -> Make him tell the truth (who to? Not expressed.)
> 
> or:
> _falle dire la verità_ -> Make her tell the truth (who to? Not expressed.)
> 
> or:
> _faglielo dire_ -> make him/her tell it or make someone tell it to him/her (ambiguous)
> 
> A translation for _make him tell her the truth_ would be:
> _fai in modo che lui le dica la verità_
> _convincilo a dirle la verità_
> or something alike.
> 
> EDIT -You could say:
> _Falle dire da lui la verità_, this works (it sounds a bit artificial, though). The focus is rather on the fact that she doesn't believe me, so maybe she'll get finally convinced if he (instead of me) tells her the truth.



This contradicts what Dani wrote above. She suggested that "fare" always takes a direct object (Fallo dire, falla dire) and you're saying that it takes an indirect object (Fagli dire, Falle dire).


----------



## MünchnerFax

No, there's no contradiction. I hope you read my post no. 34, it took me some minutes to write it and even though it was early in the morning, I hope I've explained the whole thing clearly... 

_Fallo dire_ is completely right. The only problem is: unlike English, -_lo_ is not the person who will say something, but this something which has to be said. Alright?
So, this translates _have it said_.


----------



## stella_maris_74

Roo Boy said:


> This contradicts what Dani wrote above. She suggested that "fare" always takes a direct object (Fallo dire, falla dire) and you're saying that it takes an indirect object (Fagli dire, Falle dire).



That's not what I wrote 
My post (and the transitive/intransitive dilemma) was solely about "parlare":



stella_maris_74 said:


> Roo Boy, "parlare" is GENERALLY intransitive.
> The only case you can use "parlare" transitively is for phrases such as:
> parlare una lingua/ il tedesco / male (bene) l'inglese / un linguaggio troppo tecnico.
> 
> and that's it.



as per the rest (fare), MF's post pretty much explains everything.

ciao

dani


----------



## Roo Boy

_forumuser_ said:


> CAREFUL: This only applies in the case of <fare + infinitive> structures. So please stop talking about transitive and intransitive verbs in general.



OK. I think that the penny has dropped. This has been my mistake - trying to generalise the "far+infinitive" structure when it is a special case.



MünchnerFax said:


> No, there's no contradiction. I hope you read my post no. 34, it took me some minutes to write it and even though it was early in the morning, I hope I've explained the whole thing clearly...
> 
> _Fallo dire_ is completely right. The only problem is: unlike English, -_lo_ is not the person who will say something, but this something which has to be said. Alright?
> So, this translates _have it said_.



I have gone through this carefully.

This is how I understand it. Are these correct?

SECOND VERB IS INTRANSITIVE (ie.it does not have a direct object)

Make him tell her - Fallo dire a lei
Make him speak to her - Fallo parlare a lei (or Faglielo parlare ??)
Make him go away - Fallo andarsene
Make him leave - Fallo partire
Make him swim - Fallo nuotare

SECOND VERB IS TRANSITIVE (ie.it has a direct object)

Make him tell the truth - Fagli dire la verità
Make him play soccer - Fagli giocare al calcio
Make him guess the answer - Fagli indovinare la risposta
Make him read the book - Fagli leggere il libro
Make her listen to the record - Falle ascoltare il disco
Make her eat the apple - Falle mangiare la mela
Make her watch the film - Falle guardare il film


----------



## _forumuser_

Roo Boy said:


> OK. I think that the penny has dropped. This has been my mistake - trying to generalise the "far+infinitive" structure when it is a special case.
> 
> 
> 
> I have gone through this carefully.
> 
> This is how I understand it. Are these correct?
> 
> SECOND VERB IS INTRANSITIVE (ie.it does not have a direct object)
> 
> Make him tell her - Fa*glielo* dire a lei
> Make him speak to her - Fallo parlare *con* lei (or Faglielo parlare ??)
> Make him go away - Fallo andar *via*
> Make him leave - Fallo partire
> Make him swim - Fallo nuotare
> 
> SECOND VERB IS TRANSITIVE (ie.it has a direct object)
> 
> Make him tell the truth - Fagli dire la verità
> Make him play soccer - Fa*llo* *giocare* al calcio
> Make him guess the answer - Fagli indovinare la risposta
> Make him read the book - Fagli leggere il libro
> Make her listen to the record - Falle ascoltare il disco
> Make her eat the apple - Falle mangiare la mela
> Make her watch the film - Falle guardare il film


 
You got them almost all right. But unless you get the verbs right the game doesn't work. Giocare in Italian is intransitive. So that sentence belongs to group 1.


----------



## MünchnerFax

SECOND VERB IS INTRANSITIVE (ie.it does not have a direct object)

Make him tell her - Fallo dire a lei  No, you've been told many times this is wrong. And besides, _dire_ is transitive: how can you say just "ti dico"? Where is the object? "Che cosa ti dico?". Your error here is that _dire_ requires a direct object, whereas you carry on using it without any (which doesn't make sense in Italian). Thus, it should go into the group below and the sentence should be built accordingly.
Make him speak to her - Fallo parlare a lei (or Faglielo parlare ??)  Again, this was discussed in two previous posts: grammatically right but it sounds weird.
Make him go away - Fallo andarsene Sounds extremely awkward. A native would't use _fare_ + infinitive with _andarsene_. Correct, 'native' alternative: _fai in modo che se ne vada, fallo andare via._
Make him leave - Fallo partire 
Make him swim - Fallo nuotare 
These last two sentences sound a bit artificial, though.


----------



## MünchnerFax

SECOND VERB IS TRANSITIVE (ie.it has a direct object)

Make him tell the truth - Fagli dire la verità 
Make him play soccer - Fagli giocare al calcio Giocare is intransitive. Thus, construction like group above: _fallo giocare a calcio_.
Make him guess the answer - Fagli indovinare la risposta but sounds weird.
Make him read the book - Fagli leggere il libro 
Make her listen to the record - Falle ascoltare il disco 
Make her eat the apple - Falle mangiare la mela 
Make her watch the film - Falle guardare il film


----------



## Roo Boy

MünchnerFax said:


> _Glielo faccio dire_ = I'll have him say it, I'll force him to say it. or I'll have it said to him (does this make any sense in English?), I'll find someone who can confirm it to him.
> but
> _Glielo faccio dire da qualcuno_ = unambiguous: I'll have someone tell it to him, I'll find someone who can confirm it to him.



I didn't answer this question - yes, "I'll have it said to him" is correct English. It means "Glielo faccio dire da qualcuno" which I think is what you intended.



MünchnerFax said:


> SECOND VERB IS INTRANSITIVE (ie.it does not have a direct object)
> 
> Make him tell her - Fallo dire a lei No, you've been told many times this is wrong. And besides, dire is transitive: how can you say just "ti dico"? Where is the object? "Che cosa ti dico?". Your error here is that dire requires a direct object, whereas you carry on using it without any (which doesn't make sense in Italian). Thus, it should go into the group below and the sentence should be built accordingly.
> Make him speak to her - Fallo parlare a lei (or Faglielo parlare ??) Again, this was discussed in two previous posts: grammatically right but it sounds weird.
> Make him go away - Fallo andarsene Sounds extremely awkward. A native would't use fare + infinitive with andarsene. Correct, 'native' alternative: fai in modo che se ne vada, fallo andare via.
> Make him leave - Fallo partire
> Make him swim - Fallo nuotare
> These last two sentences sound a bit artificial, though.



In English, "to tell" can be used without a direct object if it is implied - "Tell her", "I am telling you", "Don't tell me".

EDIT: I am assuming that the direct object is compulsory in Italian?


----------



## MünchnerFax

Roo Boy said:


> I am assuming that the direct object is compulsory in Italian?


 
That's right. In most cases, referring to an Italian verb as 'transitive' means the object can't be left out, otherwise the sentence would make no sense.
_Ho detto. _(cosa??)
_Ho ascoltato._ (cosa??)
_Ho fatto_. (cosa??)

With these verbs there must be an object. We can't imply it, and even if the object is clear and obvious, we use a pronoun:
_Lo ho detto, la ho ascoltata, lo ho fatto._

If a verb can be used both alone and with an object, it's normally called 'transitivo/intransitivo'. For example, _cucinare_ may be used with or without an object:
_Ieri ho cucinato per sei persone._
_Ieri ho cucinato una zuppa di legumi._
Nevertheless, some dictionaries just classify these verbs as 'transitivi', which I honestly find deceptive.


----------



## Roo Boy

MünchnerFax said:


> That's right. In most cases, referring to an Italian verb as 'transitive' means the object can't be left out, otherwise the sentence would make no sense.
> _Ho detto. _(cosa??)
> _Ho ascoltato._ (cosa??)
> _Ho fatto_. (cosa??)
> 
> With these verbs there must be an object. We can't imply it, and even if the object is clear and obvious, we use a pronoun:
> _Lo ho detto, la ho ascoltata, lo ho fatto._
> 
> If a verb can be used both alone and with an object, it's normally called 'transitivo/intransitivo'. For example, _cucinare_ may be used with or without an object:
> _Ieri ho cucinato per sei persone._
> _Ieri ho cucinato una zuppa di legumi._
> Nevertheless, some dictionaries just classify these verbs as 'transitivi', which I honestly find deceptive.



So the far+infinitive construction depends on whether the second verb is _used _transitively or intransitively in the context.

So:

"Fagli parlare il tedesco" but "Fallo parlare con lei"
"Fagli correre la gara" but "Fallo correre a casa"


----------



## MünchnerFax

Roo Boy said:


> "Fagli parlare il tedesco" but "Fallo parlare con lei"
> "Fagli correre la gara" but "Fallo correre a casa"



Right.


----------



## malaini

Ciao tutti,
Trovo davvero difficile capire la costruzione "far fare qualcosa a qualcuno" e vorrei chiedere il vostro aiuto ... Come si dice in italiano "I couldn't make them send me the package (it was too late)"? Il mio tentativo: Non potevo farglielo spedire (il pacchetto) a me? 
Grazie mille!


----------



## Fooler

Non sono riuscito/a a farmi spedire (da parte loro) il pacchetto


----------



## malaini

Tante grazie, Fooler!


----------



## Teerex51

_Non sono riuscita a farmi spedire il pacchetto_ (or _a farmelo spedire_) _da loro._

This is not exactly the right example for the construction you mentioned, though.


_Gli ho fatto spedire il pacchetto al mio indirizzo di casa. _I made them send the package to my home address
_Le ho fatto fare una telefonata in svedese. _I got her to make a phone call in Swedish
_Ci hanno fatto abbandonare l'ufficio di corsa per un principio d'incendio. _They made us evacuate our office in a hurry because of a fire threat


----------



## malaini

Mille grazie anche a te, Teerex51!


----------

