# Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta



## El Zorro

Ciao amici,

This is a conversation between 2 women. One of the women is looking for a job and her friend is helping her.

The friend - "C'è un opuscolo che voglio farti vedere. Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta. Lo vuoi vedere?"

The use of ce (ci) and qui in the second sentence is what confuses me "Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta."

According to my book the transalations for the 3 sentences are: "There's a pamphlet I want to show you. I have it right here in my purse. Would you like to see it?"

qui means "here". ce (ci) could mean "here", "there", "to us", or "for us", am I correct? My question is would this be a better translation?: "I have it *for us* right here in my purse."

Would this be correct also "L'ho proprio qui nella borsetta."? If I were asked to say "I have it right here in my purse." that is how I would say it.


----------



## neuromatico

"I have it right here in my purse."

"Ce l'ho" is an expression that means "I've got it/I have it", where "ce" refers to something previously mentioned.


----------



## Leo57

Example: 

    Ce l’hai la macchina?   No, non ce l’ho 


When the verb “avere” is used with the meaning of “possess/own” it is preceeded with the particle ce + the pronouns lo, la, li e le.


Hope it helps.
Ciao
Leo


----------



## TimLA

Hi Zorro,
I'm going to chime in here because I also struggle with the issue.
HERE's an old thread on it.

As you know, the sentence can be grouped like this:
(Ce l'ho) (proprio qui) (nella borsetta)

And from what I've been told, and read here on the forum, is that the addition of "ce" in situations such as this adds a little emphasis, and makes it sound more idiomatic (in informal contexts).

I used to write things like:
Mi puoi spiegarla?
But I was told that 
Ce la puoi spiegare?
Sounds more "natural" and idiomatic.

I've tried to use it as much as possible, and sometimes I'm successful.

On of the things to watch out for is the use of "ce" with "fare".
Often it's the combined verb "farcela" which is an entirely different story.

Let's see what the experts say...


----------



## laziale

I would have said me la puoi spiegare or puoi spiegarmela/lo am *I* wrong?
As for ce l'ho *I* thought  ci was only added for sound and it is correct grammar in fact to say l'ho qui etc etc back to the drawing board then?


----------



## baldpate

laziale said:


> I would have said me la puoi spiegare or puoi spiegarmela/lo am i wrong?
> As for ce l'ho i thought ci was only added for sound and it is correct grammar in fact to say l'ho qui etc etc back to the drawing board then?


Who knows where the boundary lies between strictly correct (i.e. formal) grammar and colloquially correct (i.e. informal) grammar? It is constantly shifting. But this (use of ce with lo/la/le/li + avere)) is certainly a difference between what is strictly grammatically correct/elegant, and what is actually said. 

I very much liked the analogy drawn by moodywop, in the thread posted by Tim - the one about the use of "got" with "to have" in English. I am a fairly pedantic user of English, even in speech, but I would almost certainly say : "Have you got change for a Pound?" and not "Do you have change for a Pound?". But I wouldn't write, to a business client for example, "Have you got the necessary finance in place?", rather "Do you have the necessary business finance in place?".

I find the analogy quite apt .


----------



## neuromatico

As I understand it, it's an expression, not a proper grammatical construct, and that the superfluous "ce" stands for "ci", i.e that about which we are speaking.

I would vote for "Puoi spiegarmela?". Tim?


----------



## TimLA

neuromatico said:


> As I understand it, it's an expression, not a proper grammatical construct, and that the superfluous "ce" stands for "ci", i.e that about which we are speaking.
> 
> I would vote for "Puoi spiegarmela". Tim?


 
I'll vote for anything!
To me "puoi spiegarmela" is also perfect.
It's just that I've been told that adding the "ce" in front makes it more "natural"...
The experts are having a Friday night dinner, and I'm sure they'll chime in after they finish!


----------



## laziale

*I*sn*'*t ce la puoi spiegare can you explain it too us? I*'*ve not seen ce used in this way only to reinforce the pronoun used with avere of course I*'*m far from being an expert


----------



## baldpate

neuromatico said:


> As I understand it, it's an expression, not a proper grammatical construct, and that the superfluous "ce" stands for "ci", i.e that about which we are speaking.
> 
> I would vote for "Puoi spiegarmela?". Tim?


Hi neuro!

But in strictly grammatical terms, is it not "lo/la"  (abbreviated to l' in front of ho) which stand in reference to the object of discourse?  I think it is so, because, whereas the "ce" is grammatically optional, the "lo/la" is not.  

Maybe


----------



## neuromatico

Hi bp!

Indeed. That's why I said superfluous. 
Yet, "l'ho" in itself seems incomplete (probably because you don't hear it). I've always thought that "ce" gave emphasis and phonetic polish, and that it stood for "ci".


----------



## El Zorro

Grazie amici.



TimLA said:


> I used to write things like:
> Mi puoi spiegarla?
> But I was told that
> Ce la puoi spiegare?
> Sounds more "natural" and idiomatic


 
This one is a shocker but I would vote for "Puoi spiegarmela?" as neuromatico suggested.



TimLA said:


> On of the things to watch out for is the use of "ce" with "fare".
> Often it's the combined verb "farcela" which is an entirely different story.


 
It may sound crazy but I was able to figure out "farcela". Now that everyone commented "ce l'ho" using the double object pronouns makes a little more sense.


----------



## Necsus

In sentences like 'ce l'ho nella borsetta' _ci_ is an intensifying particle, but nowadays it is indispensable with a pronoun direct object and the verb _avere_, you wouldn't say "L'hai l'opuscolo? -L'ho proprio qui nella borsetta". 
See THIS THREAD as well.


----------



## miri

In Tim's example, though, "ce" is not an intensifying particle: it definitely stands for an indirect pronoun "to us".

Ce la puoi spiegare? = la puoi spiegare a noi? ( where "la" refers to a feminine noun that has been mentioned before, for example "a rule", una regola)
Similar to:
Me la puoi spiegare? = la puoi spiegare a me?
Gliela puoi spiegare? = la puoi spiegare a lui, a lei o a loro?

@ Necsus: I can't find anything wrong with: "Hai l'opuscolo?" "L'ho proprio qui nella borsetta."


----------



## El Zorro

miri said:


> In Tim's example, though, "ce" is not an intensifying particle: it definitely stands for an indirect pronoun "to us".
> 
> Ce la puoi spiegare? = la puoi spiegare a noi? ( where "la" refers to a feminine noun that has been mentioned before, for example "a rule", una regola)
> Similar to:
> Me la puoi spiegare? = la puoi spiegare a me?
> Gliela puoi spiegare? = la puoi spiegare a lui, a lei o a loro?
> 
> @ Necsus: I can't find anything wrong with: "Hai l'opuscolo?" "L'ho proprio qui nella borsetta."


 
Ciao di nuovo,

For Tim's example would it be okay to say "Puoi spiegarmela?" also?
Could anyone explain when one should use an "intensifying particle"?

Grazie


----------



## miri

"Puoi spiegarmela" is perfect, El Zorro!  
I am calling upon Necsus, our excellent grammarian, to speak about "intesifying particles"


----------



## pask46

*Me* *la* puoi spiegare?= puoi spiegar*mela*? (to me-- la/lo according to gender)
*Ce la* puoi spiegare?= puoi spiegar*cela*? (to us)
*Te la* posso spiegare= posso spiegar*tela* (to you, singularl)
*Ve la* posso spiegare =posso spiegar*vela* (to you, plural)

Mi puoi/ci puoi spiegare? is more generic and doesn't straightly refer to one particular thing (me *la*), much rather to a situation, a long story, etc.
Other idiomatic exspression are far more complicated...
Ci sto= sono d'accordo (a fare una certa cosa)
Ci sono=sono qui, sono arrivato
Ci penso=penso a una certa cosa
That "ci" gets three different meanings... 

Well, I think we need (if it doesn't yet exsist) a whole discussion on it..


----------



## miri

Pask, you forgot "giela puoi spiegare?" = "puoi spiegargliela?" (to him, her)  That must be hard to pronounce!


----------



## pask46

miri said:


> Pask, you forgot "giela puoi spiegare?" = "puoi spiegargliela?" (to him, her)  That must be hard to pronounce!


 Whoops... I just edited and missed that again...


----------



## El Zorro

Leo57 said:


> Example:
> 
> Ce l’hai la macchina? No, non ce l’ho
> 
> 
> When the verb “avere” is used with the meaning of “possess/own” it is preceeded with the particle ce + the pronouns lo, la, li e le.
> 
> 
> Hope it helps.
> Ciao
> Leo


 
Amici,

Would this be correct?

"Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta." = "I have it right here in my purse."
"*Ci *ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta." = "I have it right here in my purse *for us*."


----------



## miri

I am afraid it would not, El Zorro.
*Ci* can only substitute a direct object(noi) or the indirect object (dative case) "a noi"

Mio padre ci lasciò quando eravamo bambini = Mio padre lasciò noi (direct object) = My father left *us*

Ci ha spiegato la lezione = Ha spiegato a noi = He explained the lesson *to us



*PS: in my previous post there is a typo "gliela", not "giela"


----------



## Zenof

El Zorro said:


> Amici,
> 
> Would this be correct?
> 
> "Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta." = "I have it right here in my purse."
> "*Ci *ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta." = "I have it right here in my purse *for us*."


----------



## El Zorro

miri said:


> I am afraid it would not, El Zorro.
> *Ci* can only substitute a direct object(noi) or the indirect object (dative case) "a noi"
> 
> Mio padre ci lasciò quando eravamo bambini = Mio padre lasciò noi (direct object) = My father left *us*
> 
> Ci ha spiegato la lezione = Ha spiegato a noi = He explained the lesson *to us*
> 
> 
> 
> PS: in my previous post there is a typo "gliela", not "giela"


 
Grazie Miri.

I am only refering to the case of combining ce with lo, la, li, or le plus _avere_ to indicate possesion. 

My question is if "Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta." = "I have it right here in my purse." then how would you say "I have it *for us* right here in my purse." in Italian?

Mi dispiace  e grazie mille per aiutarmi .


----------



## miri

It is a pleasure! 

In that case you would have to say "per noi": "ce l'ho qui nella borsetta per noi." Even though I can't think of what this sentence could refer to because  there may be better solutions depending on what you are referring to. 
Examples:
A) Hanno preso tutti gli opuscoli!
B) No, il nostro ce l'ho qui nella borsetta
B) No, ne ho uno/due per noi, qui nella borsetta


----------



## giorgian

@El Zorro: *for us* is "per noi", and I cannot think of a case in which it becomes "ci" or "ce".

In a sentence, there is room for at most two adverbs, ci/ce, mi/me, lo/la, etc. 

Usually they are directly translatable to pronouns, but sometimes they are just intensifying particles, as someone said.

So, you could say: L'ho qui nella borsetta, and it would be correct, but it sounds quite old-fashioned to me. Maybe it's used somewhere in Italy, but you'll find it more often in early 1900s.

Finally, you will never find the same particle twice ("ci ce").

So, you won't find Ci ce l'ho qui, or the like.


----------



## El Zorro

Amici.

Spero che io capisci .

Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta. = I have it right here in my purse.

Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta per te/lei/lui/noi/voi/loro. = I have it right here in my purse for you/her/him/us/you (plural)/them.

Ce l'avevo qui nella borsetta. = I used to have it here in my purse.
Ce l'ho avuto qui nella borsetta. =  I had it here in my purse.
Ce l'avrò qui nella borsetta. = I will have it here in my purse. / I will probably have it here in my purse.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Grazie.


----------



## pask46

El Zorro said:


> Amici.
> 
> Spero che io capisci  spero di capire/aver capito.
> 
> Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta. = I have it right here in my purse.
> 
> Ce l'ho proprio qui nella borsetta per te/lei/lui/noi/voi/loro. = I have it right here in my purse for you/her/him/us/you (plural)/them.
> 
> Ce l'avevo qui nella borsetta. = I used to have it here in my purse.
> Ce l'ho avuto qui nella borsetta. = I had it here in my purse.
> Ce l'avrò qui nella borsetta. = I will have it here in my purse. / I will probably have it here in my purse.(all of them)
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Grazie.


 Just wrong in the beginning... 
In effetti hai capito

Bye!


----------



## El Zorro

Grazie a tutti.


----------



## TimLA

Context: I hate grammar. I hate "ci". 

Fortunately, or unfortunately, most of my Italian has been learned by osmosis, based on the kindness of those WR foreros
willing to take the time to correct me. But, given that I'm over the age of 12, I suppose studying grammar...occasionally...is necessary.

This thread (Thank you El Zorro!) has galvanized me to spend the last week looking at the word "ci"
in a variety of sources (Maiden, Zanichelli, Schaum, Google, WR) with a goal of answering one specific question:

"If I see the word "ci", what could it mean?"

I've put together this "table" that has helped me understand it better.
Perhaps it might help others.

"Ci" followed by lo, la, li, le, ne becomes "ce"

*Translation of "ci"*______*Grammar*______________________________*Examples*
us/each other__________Reflexive pronoun of intransitive verb________Ci laviamo - we wash (ourselves)
_____________________________________________________________Ci vediamo presto - we will see each other soon
us____________________atonal form, replaces "a noi"________________Ci hanno scritto - they wrote to us
_____________________________________________________________Cominciammo a preoccuparci - we started to worry
there, here, at,
under, on, between,
toward, through_______locative form, place previously mentioned_______Guarda a sinistra e ci puoi vedere Luigi.- Look left and there you see Luigi.
______________________________________________________________In due ci siamo entrati. -We entered there as a couple.
no translation_________clitic - idiomatic form, with "essere"____________C'è - there is, Ci sono - there are, C'era una volta - once upon a time
no translation_________clitic - idiomatic form, with "volere"____________Ci vuole - it is necessary
no translation_________clitic - idiomatic form, with "avere"_____________Ci ho la chiave (emphasize "chiave"), C'ho una sorpresa per te - I have a surprise for you
no translation_________clitic - idiomatic form, with sentire"____________Sentirci - able to hear
no translation_________clitic - idiomatic form, intransitive "vedere"_______Ci vede - Able to be seen
we____________________idiomatic, with ecco_______________________Eccoci - Here we are!
it, that______________clitic - idiomatic form, credere, entrare, mettere___Ci credo - I believe that, Ci entra - It has to do with, Ci mette - Put it in that
it__________________noun substitution - contro, dentro, sopra, sotto, su__Ci rimase dentro - It stayed inside of it
no translation_________reciprocal pronoun, relating two things___________Ci siamo sempre respettati l'un l'altro - We have always respected each other
on that______________demonstrative, replaces "a/in/su ciò"_____________Puoi contare su ciò - you can count on that
_______________________________________________________________Ci puoi contare - you can count on that
no translation_________emphasis____________________________________Non ci pensi alle conseguenze? You don't think about the consequences?
it/one_______________"si si" not allowed - convert to "ci si"_____________Si si lava - one washes oneself - Ci si lava - one washes oneself
to him/to her__________dialectical forms, a/con lui/lei/loro_______________Non ci esco da molto tempo. I haven't been out with him/her for a long time

Comments/additions/subtractions/modifications would be greatly appreciated from all.


----------



## pask46

Good job, TimLa!


----------



## Necsus

Tim, some observations about your great table:

- _lavarsi_, _vedersi _and _preoccuparsi _are pronominal verbs;
- _volerci_, _sentirci _and _vederci _are procomplementari verbs;
- here, there / locative form - contro, dentro, sopra, sotto, su / Ci rimase dentro - It stayed inside of it
- reflexive pronoun / "si si" not allowed - convert to "ci si" / Si si lava - one washes oneself - Ci si lava - one washes oneself


----------



## TimLA

pask46 said:


> Good job, TimLa!


Thanks!



Necsus said:


> Tim, some observations about your great table:
> 
> - _lavarsi_, _vedersi _and _preoccuparsi _are pronominal verbs;
> - _volerci_, _sentirci _and _vederci _are procomplementari verbs;
> - here, there / locative form - contro, dentro, sopra, sotto, su / Ci rimase dentro - It stayed inside of it
> - reflexive pronoun / "si si" not allowed - convert to "ci si" / Si si lava - one washes oneself - Ci si lava - one washes oneself


 
Thanks Necsus!
So I've read your links, and so my question would be -
Should the pronomial verbs be formally separated from the procomplementari verbs,
or is it reasonable to leave them both under the overarching concept of "reflexive"?

In terms of your third point, are you saying that the "contro, dentro, sopra, sotto, su"
should be included under "locative forms"?
Or can I leave them as "noun substitution"?

I'll add the concept of "reflexive pronoun" to the "si si" comments.

****And now back on track******
Based on this table, is it agreed that the "Ce l'ho proprio qui..." form is
the "clitic idiomatic" form of ci+avere - for emphasis only????
Grazie!!!


----------



## Necsus

TimLA said:


> Thanks Necsus!
> So I've read your links, and so my question would be -
> Should the pronominal verbs be formally separated from the procomplementari verbs, or is it reasonable to leave them both under the overarching concept of "reflexive"?
> E' una vecchia questione che ho sollevato in nel thread che ti ho segnalato, e che è continuata QUI in SI: secondo me non è giusto etichettarli tutti genericamente come _riflessivi_, ma c'è chi è di parere diverso.
> In terms of your third point, are you saying that the "contro, dentro, sopra, sotto, su" should be included under "locative forms"?
> Yes, in my opinion.
> Or can I leave them as "noun substitution"?
> I'll add the concept of "reflexive pronoun" to the "si si" comments.
> ****And now back on track******
> Based on this table, is it agreed that the "Ce l'ho proprio qui..." form is
> the "clitic idiomatic" form of ci+avere - for emphasis only????
> Grazie!!!


Yes, in my opinion:


			
				Necsus said:
			
		

> In sentences like 'ce l'ho nella borsetta' _ci_ is an intensifying particle, but nowadays it is indispensable with a pronoun direct object and the verb _avere_, you wouldn't say "L'hai l'opuscolo? -L'ho proprio qui nella borsetta".
> See THIS THREAD as well.


----------



## TimLA

Come sempre, grazie 2.000!


----------

