# Percome



## Gianni2

Please translate.
Il perché e il percome se lo chiede la scienziata.

Grazie in anticipo.
Gianni


----------



## Manuel_M

My attempt(s):

_It's the scientiss who asks herself the why and the wherefore.......or the why's and the wherefore's._


----------



## HairSplitter

Hi I have looked in the dictionary _wherefore _and to me it does not seem to fit _percome_.

I would say:

_who asks herself why and how (or which way?)_

but please correct if it's wrong (if you could maintain the play on word it would be better)...


----------



## Manuel_M

HairSplitter said:
			
		

> Hi I have looked in the dictionary _wherefore _and to me it does not seem to fit _percome_.
> 
> I would say:


 
HairSplitter,

why and wherefore is an English expression...


----------



## HairSplitter

Ah, Very good to know that! Thanks!! 

(Strangely the WR dictionary gives wherefore with same meaning as why. Is it an error? )




			
				Manuel_M said:
			
		

> HairSplitter,
> why and wherefore is an English expression...


----------



## Manuel_M

Hair Splitter:

From Garzanti online:
Wherefore:

*2* _rel._ (_non com._) perciò, quindi, per la qual cosa: _he was angry, - he could not think of it_, (egli) era in collera, perciò non poteva pensarci ♦ _s._ causa, motivo / _the why's and wherefore's_, i perché e i percome.


----------



## HairSplitter

Actually must say that this definition by Garzanti does not help very much to clarify:

Note that saying "*i perché e i percome*" is different from saying "*perché e percome*". In the first one "i percome" means "i motivi", in the second one it means "how".

Am I splitting too much this hair?  


Further:
- may I ask the exact meaning of the very word "*Wherefore*" ?
Is it "why" or "how" ? or "in which way"? or other ?

-What are the "s"? Are they needed?



			
				Manuel_M said:
			
		

> Hair Splitter:
> 
> From Garzanti online:
> Wherefore:
> 
> *2* _rel._ (_non com._) perciò, quindi, per la qual cosa: _he was angry, - he could not think of it_, (egli) era in collera, perciò non poteva pensarci ♦ _s._ causa, motivo / _the why's and wherefore's_, i perché e i percome.


----------



## Gianni2

Thank you all for your replies.  I'd like to add some more of the context because I still don't understand how the whole sentence fits in with the discussion,(today's Corriere's science page) which is about how red fruits and vegetables help fight off cancer.

E' nata così la nutrigenomica, partendo però da osservazioni scientifiche registrate anche molti anni fa. Il ruolo delle vitamine, l'aglio e il cavolo anti-cancro, i segreti anti-aging del tè verde, la soia e il curry protettivi. E poi il rosso (gli antociani e i licopeni) come «scudo contro i tumori»: dall'uva rossa al pomodoro, dalla carota alla rapa e all'arancia rossa. Il perché e il percome se lo chiede la nutrigenomica. E non solo sui cibi che hanno un ruolo positivo


----------



## Manuel_M

HairSplitter said:
			
		

> Actually must say that this definition by Garzanti does not help very much to clarify:
> 
> Note that saying "*i perché e i percome*" is different from saying "*perché e percome*". In the first one "i percome" means "i motivi", in the second one it means "how".
> 
> Am I splitting too much this hair?
> 
> 
> Further:
> - may I ask the exact meaning of the very word "*Wherefore*" ?
> Is it "why" or "how" ? or "in which way"? or other ?
> 
> -What are the "s"? Are they needed?


 
Wherefore has 2 (related) meanings:

1. as noun it means _reason_, _motive_
2. as an adverb it means _because of which_

Now Gianni's original sentence *Il perché e il percome se lo chiede la scienziata could be translated *as 
_*It's the scientist who asks herself why and wherefore*_ or as
_*It's the scientist who asks herself the why's and the wherefore's*_

The second one sounded better to me.

The s's are required to denote the plural. *Why's* and *wherefore's* have the functions of nouns


----------



## Manuel_M

Gianni2 said:
			
		

> Thank you all for your replies. I'd like to add some more of the context because I still don't understand how the whole sentence fits in with the discussion,(today's Corriere's science page) which is about how red fruits and vegetables help fight off cancer.
> 
> E' nata così la nutrigenomica, partendo però da osservazioni scientifiche registrate anche molti anni fa. Il ruolo delle vitamine, l'aglio e il cavolo anti-cancro, i segreti anti-aging del tè verde, la soia e il curry protettivi. E poi il rosso (gli antociani e i licopeni) come «scudo contro i tumori»: dall'uva rossa al pomodoro, dalla carota alla rapa e all'arancia rossa. Il perché e il percome se lo chiede la nutrigenomica. E non solo sui cibi che hanno un ruolo positivo


 
The sentence fits in very well according to me. The scientist has to ask herself why and how come these fruits, vegetables and vitamins have the anti-cancer and anti-aging effect some studies have shown them to possess....


----------



## Gianni2

Manuel,


Thanks so much.  I see now that you explained it perfectly in your first reply to my question, but I didn't study it well enough.  Chi sa il perché e il percome certi tipi guardano ma non vedono quel che sta proprio davanti il naso?  (L'ho scritto bene o ho sbagliato)?
Gianni


----------



## Tommaso Gastaldi

Thank you Manuel. Very clear and useful.

A doubt I have reading the posts is why, after what you say in #9, in the final translation you use, instead, what Hairsplitter has suggested (which has a different meaning from "_why and wherefore"_ as explained in #9) ?


----------



## Manuel_M

Gianni2 said:
			
		

> Manuel,
> 
> 
> Thanks so much. I see now that you explained it perfectly in your first reply to my question, but I didn't study it well enough. Chi sa il perché e il percome certi tipi guardano ma non vedono quel che sta proprio davanti al naso? (L'ho scritto bene o ho sbagliato)?
> Gianni


 
One very slight mistake, I think.


----------



## Manuel_M

Tommaso Gastaldi said:
			
		

> Thank you Manuel. Very clear and useful.
> 
> A doubt I have reading the posts is why, after what you say in #9, in the final translation you use, instead, what Hairsplitter has suggested (which has a different meaning from "_why and wherefore"_ as explained in #9) ?


 
If you are referring to what I wrote in #10, thatw as not atranslation of the original sentence but an explanation. It sounded better in the context. In my opinion, the 2 possible ways of translating  "il perchè e il percome" are very close to each other....


----------



## You little ripper!

Manuel's "why's and wherefore's" is the correct way of translating _il perché e il percome._
Most people do not use the possessive. I think that is because it has become a set phrase.  Both are correct as far as I know.


----------



## Tommaso Gastaldi

Let me explain my remark, altought it can be just a nuance:

_how_: in che modo/i
_wherefore: _per quale motivo/i

these 2 meanings are different (the first one refers to the means you use to do something, the other one refers to the reasons): that is why after you indicated that _wherefore _is the right one to use, it was unexpected (to me) to see that in the explanation you switched to _how._


----------



## Manuel_M

Tommaso Gastaldi said:
			
		

> Let me explain my remark, altought it can be just a nuance:
> 
> _how_: in che modo/i
> _wherefore: _per quale motivo/i
> 
> these 2 meanings are different (the first one refers to the means you use to do something, the other one refers to the reasons): that is why after you indicated that _wherefore _is the right one to use, it was unexpected (to me) to see that in the explanation you switched to _how._


 
Actually I used _how come (_*come mai*_,_ as you know_)_ not _how._ I tend to use the word _wherefore_ only in the expression _the why's and the wherefore's._ It did not seem right to use it in that context. When we write we tend to use sensation to decide whether to opt for aparticular word/expression rather than another one, most of the time. At least I do.


----------



## Tommaso Gastaldi

Yes!! You are very *right*. I missed the _come_ part.   
Thank you!!



			
				Manuel_M said:
			
		

> Actually I used _how come (_*come mai*_,_ as you know_)_ not _how._ I tend to use the word _wherefore_ only in the expression _the why's and the wherefore's._ It did not seem right to use it in that context. When we write we tend to use sensation to decide whether to opt for aparticular word/expression rather than another one, most of the time. At least I do.


----------



## carrickp

It may help if you understand that the entire phrase "whys and wherefores" is an English idiom meaning "thorough questioning" or "thorough explanation."


----------



## Tommaso Gastaldi

Yes actually it's just like in Italian 

Even for us when we say "*il perchè ed il percome"*, actually *percome *does *not* really add anything to the meaning. It's just a way to make stronger the why: make it more "intense" by a repetition. 

Also, I cannot think of any other occasion in Italian where you use the word *percome.*

Can you use _wherefore's _stand alone, without "why" ? From Manuel explanation I would guess so. Perhaps this is the only difference with our "percome"...




			
				carrickp said:
			
		

> It may help if you understand that the entire phrase "whys and wherefores" is an English idiom meaning "thorough questioning" or "thorough explanation."


----------



## ElaineG

Tommaso Gastaldi said:
			
		

> Yes actually it's just like in Italian
> 
> Even for us, when we say "*il perchè ed il percome"*, actually *percome *does *not* really add anything to the meaning. It's just a way to make the why stronger: make it more "intense" by [] repetition.
> 
> Also, I cannot think of any other occasion in Italian where you use the word *percome.*
> 
> Can you use _wherefores _standing alone, without "why" ?


 
Suonarebbe strano.  Comunque, usiamo la parola "wherefore" spesso nella lingua legale (and the prefatory recitals in a contract are often called "wherefore clauses" because these clauses often begin with 'wherefore' ").

Possibly of interest:  http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-why1.htm


----------



## You little ripper!

Tommaso Gastaldi said:
			
		

> Can you use _wherefore's _standing  alone, without "why" ?


 Yes. It means _for what reason or purpose_ but it's archaic English. 
_Wherefore do I receive this honor?_


----------



## Tommaso Gastaldi

“Wherefore art thou Charles ?“   



			
				Charles Costante said:
			
		

> Yes. It means _for what reason or purpose_ but it's archaic English.
> _Wherefore do I receive this honor?_


----------



## carrickp

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Suonarebbe strano.  Comunque, usiamo la parola "wherefore" spesso nella lingua legale (and the prefatory recitals in a contract are often called "wherefore clauses" because these clauses often begin with 'wherefore' ").



I thought it was "whereAS' and "THEREfore" in contracts. Lucky thing no one is counting on me for legal advice.


----------



## ElaineG

That too, we like all the useless multisyllabic words


----------



## You little ripper!

Tommaso Gastaldi said:
			
		

> “Wherefore art thou Charles ?“


Juliet’s plaintive “O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?” had nothing to do with her lover’s location. “Wherefore” means “why” (“for what reason?”) Juliet was asking why the fates had made Romeo part of the Montague family, with which her Capulets were locked in a feud.


----------



## Tommaso Gastaldi

"Oh Romeo, Romeo, perché sei tu Romeo?"

Strange to see how different the English... We say: CAPULETI E MONTECCHI

I am sure Carrick can add something on this.  





			
				Charles Costante said:
			
		

> Juliet’s plaintive “O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?” had nothing to do with her lover’s location. “Wherefore” means “why” (“for what reason?”) Juliet was asking why the fates had made Romeo part of the Montague family, with which her Capulets were locked in a feud.


----------



## carrickp

Tommaso Gastaldi said:
			
		

> "Oh Romeo, Romeo, perché sei tu Romeo?"
> 
> Strange to see how different the English... We say: CAPULETI E MONTECCHI
> 
> I am sure Carrick can add something on this.



I can't add a thing -- you express the English meaning perfectly. As Wikipedia says:
_The play's most famous line is widely misunderstood. The word "wherefore" means "why", not "where", so when Juliet calls from the balcony, "O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" she is asking why his name (by implication, his family's name) makes him an enemy of her family, as the next lines make clear: "Deny thy father, and refuse thy name ... that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."_​There is a Bellini opera called "I Capuletti e i Montecchi" but I didn't know Italian translated the play name that way also.


----------



## zelis

I see on a dictionary that «percome» is equal to «per come». In a phrase like the following one: «[...]: *per come* l'abbiamo ereditato noi, il nostro paese è molto diverso da quello dei nostri parenti, cinquenta anni fa», can I translate «per come» for «as», «such as»?
Saluti!


----------



## Victoria32

Manuel_M said:


> The s's are required to denote the plural. *Why's* and *wherefore's* have the functions of nouns


Manuel, there is a problem... S denotes the plural, yes, but there need not (should not), be an apostrophe there! As in... _"*Why*'*s* and *wherefore*'*s*"_ because apostrophes denote the possessive.
For the rest, perfect! 

Vicky


----------



## You little ripper!

Victoria32 said:


> Manuel, there is a problem... S denotes the plural, yes, but there need not (should not), be an apostrophe there! As in... _"*Why*'*s* and *wherefore*'*s*"_ because apostrophes denote the possessive.
> For the rest, perfect!
> 
> Vicky


The apostrophe would be quite acceptable if you meant the singular *"Why is and wherefore is".*


----------



## Victoria32

Charles Costante said:


> The apostrophe would be quite acceptable if you meant the singular *"Why is and wherefore is".*


Erm, I think that would be rather odd! But despite signs in grocery shops, apostrophes don't belong in  plurals! 

Vicky


----------



## You little ripper!

Victoria32 said:


> Erm, I think that would be rather odd! But despite signs in grocery shops, apostrophes don't belong in plurals!
> 
> Vicky


I did say singular. Obviously in the plural it would not require an apostrophe.


----------

