# dove io strusciavo i ginocchi



## theartichoke

Hi everyone,

A child is playing under a table while two women are talking. The woman doing most of the talking _sbirciava sotto la tavola dove io strusciavo i ginocchi e giocavo con il gatto_. Is the child shuffling around on her knees, or is she brushing up against the women's knees? Both seem entirely realistic in the context, but I feel like a native speaker will know something I don't about how _strusciare _should be reflexive, or there should be a pronoun in front of it, etc., etc., that will clarify the matter.


----------



## elroy

I’m 99% sure “i ginocchi” can only refer to the child’s knees.  I would be very surprised if it could refer to the woman’s.


----------



## Starless74

I believe it refers to the child brushing against the two women's knees while playing with the cat.
Were it not for the specific setting of the scene, I would've guessed it was the child who shuffled on her knees instead (although _le ginocchia_ would've been more accurate in that case). It really may indicate both in general, but here it's the two women's knees IMHO.


----------



## Necsus

Ciao. Secondo me si riferisce al fatto che la ragazza camminava carponi sotto il tavolo per giocare con il gatto. Quindi strusciava le ginocchia sul pavimento.


----------



## You little ripper!

Necsus said:


> Ciao. Secondo me si riferisce al fatto che la ragazza camminava carponi sotto il tavolo per giocare con il gatto. Quindi strusciava le ginocchia sul pavimento.


I'm not a native but that's how I would have interpreted it , too. 🙂


----------



## theartichoke

Starless74 said:


> I believe it refers to the child brushing against the two women's knees while playing with the cat.
> Were it not for the specific setting of the scene, I would've guessed it was the child who shuffled on her knees instead (although _le ginocchia_ would've been more accurate in that case). It really may indicate both in general, but here it's the two women's knees IMHO.


Well, I'm glad I at least wasn't missing something _completely _decisive about whose knees they were.  Since 5 other people seem pretty sure that the knees in question belong to the little girl, could someone please clarify for me how one can tell? Is there something in the sentence structure? In the choice of verb? Perhaps _sfiorare_ rather than _strusciare_ if the child was brushing against the women's knees? How would the sentence be likely to read if the author had wanted to say that?

My initial thought was that if referred to the women's knees, perhaps because the women are talking about something a child shouldn't hear, and so they were reminded of her presence (which is why the one telling the story glanced under the table) by the fact that she kept brushing up against them. But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed grammatically ambiguous.


----------



## elroy

theartichoke said:


> could someone please clarify for me how one can tell?


For me, it’s the absence of a personal pronoun.  If it were the woman’s knees, I would expect “*le* strusciavo i ginocchi”.

Another example:

Siamo andati Marco e io al bagno.
— Ho lavato le mani. = I washed my hands.
— *Gli* ho lavato le mani. = I washed Marco’s hands.


----------



## Starless74

theartichoke said:


> Well, I'm glad I at least wasn't missing something _completely _decisive about whose knees they were.  Since 5 other people seem pretty sure that the knees in question belong to the little girl, could someone please clarify for me how one can tell? Is there something in the sentence structure? In the choice of verb? Perhaps _sfiorare_ rather than _strusciare_ if the child was brushing against the women's knees? How would the sentence be likely to read if the author had wanted to say that?


I'm sorry, but from my part it's just a matter of guessing. I agree it's ambiguous.  🤷‍♂️ 
If the majority has disagreed with my view, then go for theirs.


----------



## theartichoke

Starless74 said:


> I'm sorry, but from my part it's just a matter of guessing. I agree it's ambiguous.  🤷‍♂️
> If the majority has disagreed with my view, then go for theirs.


Yeah, I was going to do that. I was just happy I hadn't missed something glaringly obvious. (E.g., if it _had _said "le strusciavo i ginocchi" and I'd missed the "le.") Ultimately, it's not terribly important whose knees they were, as the story is about something else altogether.


----------



## Mary49

theartichoke said:


> Well, I'm glad I at least wasn't missing something _completely _decisive about whose knees they were.  Since 5 other people seem pretty sure that the knees in question belong to the little girl, could someone please clarify for me how one can tell?


The text doesn't say that the women are sitting at the table. It says "...tutte e due covavano la stufa a legna...", the little girl was playing with the cat under the table. They are not the women's knees.


----------



## theartichoke

Mary49 said:


> The text doesn't say that the women are sitting at the table. It says "...tutte e due covavano la stufa a legna...", the little girl was playing with the cat under the table.


True. I guess I assumed the table was pulled up close to the woodstove, seeing that they're also drinking mulled wine and eating boiled chestnuts. Presumably they could use a table to put their glasses and the _tazzone _of chestnuts on, especially since they're knitting. But you're right that the text doesn't explicitly say they're at the table, so that's more evidence that the knees are the child's. I've already changed it to that.


----------



## ohbice

theartichoke said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> ... _sbirciava sotto la tavola dove io strusciavo i ginocchi e giocavo con il gatto_.


... _sbirciava sotto la tavola dove *io *strusciavo i (miei) ginocchi e giocavo con il gatto_.


----------



## Fulvia.ser

ohbice said:


> ... _sbirciava sotto la tavola dove *io *strusciavo i (miei) ginocchi e giocavo con il gatto_.


concordo con ohbice, francamente non riesco a vedere nessuna ambiguità: *io* strusciavo i *miei *ginocchi, anche perchè il verbo *strusciare* lo associo a qualcosa da fare al pavimento (non *struscerei* certo le ginocchia della donna).


----------



## Starless74

Ho trovato anch'io il passo completo, cambio opinione e mi associo al gruppo "ginocchia della bimba" (che, con me, credo sia ora al 100%).


----------



## Pietruzzo

Starless74 said:


> I would've guessed it was the child who shuffled on her knees instead (although _le ginocchia_ would've been more accurate in that case).


Vorrei spezzare una lancia in favore di "ginocchi". In realtà ci si può trascinare sul pavimento solo muovendo un ginocchio per volta, per cui il plurale "ginocchi" mi sembra preferibile rispetto a "ginocchia" che considera i due ginocchi visti nel loro insieme.


----------



## EverIvy

Per indicare le ginocchia di qualcun altro avrebbe scritto gli/le strusciavo i ginocchi, o piuttosto contro i ginocchi.
Credo che uno strusci i propri ginocchi, ma che si strusci contro le ginocchia di qualcun altro.


----------



## Flaviam88

Starless74 said:


> Ho trovato anch'io il passo completo, cambio opinione e mi associo al gruppo "ginocchia della bimba" (che, con me, credo sia ora al 100%).


Sounds like it is one knee rubbing up against the other - both belonging to the little girl.


----------



## Pietruzzo

Flaviam88 said:


> Sounds like it is one knee rubbing up against the other - both belonging to the little girl.


Questo è anatomicamente impossibile. Senz'altro la bambina si trascinava per terra muovendo i ginocchi.


----------



## You little ripper!

I can't speak for Italian knees, but English knees can be rubbed/brushed up against each other, and you don't have to be a contortionist. The 'knee' does not just refer to the knee cap but the tendons, ligaments and cartilage surrounding it.


----------



## Mary49

You little ripper! said:


> I can't speak for Italian knees, but English knees can be rubbed/brushed up against each other, and you don't have to be a contortionist. The 'knee' does not just refer to the knee cap but the tendons, ligaments and cartilage surrounding it.


But the girl was under the table, on all fours, and that position doesn't allow the knees to be rubbed against each other, in my opinion.


----------



## ohbice

You little ripper! said:


> I can't speak for Italian knees, but English knees can be rubbed/brushed up against each other, and you don't have to be a contortionist. The 'knee' does not just refer to the knee cap but the tendons, ligaments and cartilage surrounding it.


Non credo che in italia si usi fare questa cosa di strusciare le ginocchia tra loro. Io almeno non ho mai sentito di questo uso.
Si parla di strusciare le mani sulle ginocchia, di strusciare le ginocchia sul pavimento quando appunto si cammina carponi... 
Al limite si _lasciano _(o si_ grattugiano_) le ginocchia sull'asfalto quando si cade, in bici o in moto... ;-)


----------



## You little ripper!

Mary49 said:


> But the girl was under the table, on all fours, and that position doesn't allow the knees to be rubbed against each other, in my opinion.





ohbice said:


> Non credo che in italia si usi fare questa cosa di strusciare le ginocchia tra loro. Io almeno non ho mai sentito di questo uso.
> Si parla di strusciare le mani sulle ginocchia, di strusciare le ginocchia sul pavimento quando appunto si cammina carponi...
> Al limite si _lasciano _(o si_ grattugiano_) le ginocchia sull'asfalto quando si cade, in bici o in moto... ;-)


It was a general comment, not specifically about the OP. You can still rub one knee against the other even if you are on all fours under a table, Mary. I just tried it under my dining table. 😂


----------



## MR1492

Thank you for that visual, @You little ripper! we definitely need a smiley face reaction button here. 😀


----------



## Pietruzzo

Mary49 said:


> But the girl was under the table, on all fours


Questo si capisce dalla lettura del testo completo? La mia idea era che la ragazza fosse piegata sulle ginocchia sotto il tavolo ma con il busto eretto. (That's the ultimate challenge for @You little ripper!  )


----------



## Mary49

Pietruzzo said:


> La mia idea era che la ragazza fosse piegata sulle ginocchia sotto il tavolo ma con il busto eretto.


Non riesco a visualizzare una posizione simile...


----------



## Pietruzzo

Mary49 said:


> Non riesco a visualizzare una posizione simile...


----------



## You little ripper!

Pietruzzo said:


> (That's the ultimate challenge for @You little ripper!


Unfortunately I'm much too tall, Pietruzzo. The child would have to be pretty young to crawl under a table while having the upper part of the body erect.

Do we know how old this child is, theartichoke? 🙂


----------



## theartichoke

You little ripper! said:


> Unfortunately I'm much too tall, Pietruzzo. The child would have to be pretty young to crawl under a table while having the upper part of the body erect.
> 
> Do we know how old this child is, theartichoke? 🙂


You people crack me up.  All we know is that she's old enough to be interested in listening to the rather scandalous tale that her godmother is telling her mother, but young enough that her godmother thinks she might not be listening. My guess is 8 or 9. More important, I think, is the fact that she's playing with the cat. In what position would one be most likely to do that?


----------



## ohbice

Io avrei detto 7


----------



## MR1492

ohbice said:


> Io avrei detto 7



The age is a matter of opinion. My granddaughter is only 6 but she remembers everything she hears and is quite “aware” of what is said around her. Plus, she’s little so I can imagine her sitting under the table (con busto eretto) while playing with the cat.

So, if the child is a bit precocious, it’s quite possible to visualize it. Anyway, that’s just something else to consider.

Phil


----------



## Pietruzzo

Had we not been speaking about a child I would find all this discussion about positions under the table rather amusing, since in my area "strusciare" has an erotic sense, usually


----------

