# Excuse me! I didn't realize that you are Spanish



## SuperMarioBro

*Excuse me! I didn't realize that you are Spanish*
Is this the correct translation:

Scusa! Non mi sono reso che sei spangolo . . .


----------



## nikis

SuperMarioBro said:


> Is this the correct translation:
> 
> Scusa! Non mi sono reso conto che sei spangolo . . .


 

Scusa non mi ero reso conto che fossi spagnolo
Scusa non avevo capito che sei spagnolo

Bye


----------



## Einstein

Also in English I'd tend to use the past: *Excuse me! I didn't realize that you were Spanish.*


----------



## london calling

Einstein said:


> Also in English I'd tend to use the past: *Excuse me! I didn't realize that you were Spanish.*


So would I! _Are_ sounds odd to me here.

Or :

_Sorry! I hadn't realised you were Spanish!_


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hmm, I would have said "non ho realizzato" ...... would this be wrong?
It's just easier than using accorgersi/rendersi conto, is 'realizzare' the same thing or different?


----------



## Sovi

Hi Alex, 
Non ho realizzato is ok ... a friendly way perhaps but correct
Ciao
SV


----------



## PreziosaNonRidicola

Alex_Murphy said:


> Hmm, I would have said "non ho realizzato" ...... would this be wrong?
> It's just easier than using accorgersi/rendersi conto, is 'realizzare' the same thing or different?



It would be acceptable: "Scusa, non avevo realizzato fossi italiano" but it wouldn't sound as natural as "non mi ero reso conto" --- at least to mey ears


----------



## PreziosaNonRidicola

..make that MY ears 



PreziosaNonRidicola said:


> It would be acceptable: "Scusa, non avevo realizzato fossi italiano" but it wouldn't sound as natural as "non mi ero reso conto" --- at least to mey ears


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah, I thought as much! Thanks


----------



## london calling

PreziosaNonRidicola said:


> It would be acceptable: "Scusa, non avevo realizzato fossi italiano" but it wouldn't sound as natural as "non mi ero reso conto" --- at least to mey ears


Do you think that this use of "realise" in Italian may have been borrowed from the more common English usage? I mean, _realizzare_ in Italian is generally used to mean make/do/construct etc. (less so in English),  but nowadays I often hear (but never use!) "realizzare" to mean "rendersi conto, capire".


----------



## Sovi

Hi London... yes, you're probably right... I hear it quite often but I live among people that continuously skip from a language to the other mixing English, Italian, French, German etc...
Ciao
SV


----------



## Paulfromitaly

london calling said:


> Do you think that this use of "realise" in Italian may have been borrowed from the more common English usage? I mean, _realizzare_ in Italian is generally used to mean make/do/construct etc. (less so in English),  but nowadays I often hear (but never use!) "realizzare" to mean "rendersi conto, capire".



You could be right, although this meaning of realizzare is correct:

De Mauro
*Realizzare* - 5 CO rendersi conto, comprendere: _ha realizzato tardi di aver sbagliato_; anche ass.: _non riesco proprio a r._


----------



## london calling

Paulfromitaly said:


> You could be right, although this meaning of realizzare is correct:
> 
> De Mauro
> *Realizzare* - 5 CO rendersi conto, comprendere: _ha realizzato tardi di aver sbagliato_; anche ass.: _non riesco proprio a r._


 
Yes, I checked it out in the various dictionaries, actually, but I still don't like it!


----------



## PreziosaNonRidicola

Ciao London  You are spot on! The word 'realizzare' originally did not have the meaning of 'rendersi conto' -- it was indeed borrowed from English. This phenomenon has a name in linguistics, but I forget  (sitting here racking my brains...)



london calling said:


> Do you think that this use of "realise" in Italian may have been borrowed from the more common English usage? I mean, _realizzare_ in Italian is generally used to mean make/do/construct etc. (less so in English),  but nowadays I often hear (but never use!) "realizzare" to mean "rendersi conto, capire".


----------



## PreziosaNonRidicola

OK, I've remembered!  In Italian we call this 'calco linguistico' . Wonder what that is in English...linguistic calque?



PreziosaNonRidicola said:


> This phenomenon has a name in linguistics, but I forget  (sitting here racking my brains...)


----------



## london calling

PreziosaNonRidicola said:


> OK, I've remembered!  In Italian we call this 'calco linguistico' . Wonder what that is in English...linguistic calque?


Why don't you open a new thread? That way we can all sit here and rack our brains!
Jo


----------



## PreziosaNonRidicola

fatto 



london calling said:


> Why don't you open a new thread? That way we can all sit here and rack our brains!
> Jo


----------



## SuperMarioBro

london calling said:


> So would I! _Are_ sounds odd to me here.
> 
> Or :
> 
> _Sorry! I hadn't realised you were Spanish!_


 
_Are_ sounds odd to me as well, but I was thinking in terms of Italian. The person _is_ a Spaniard, not _was. _Perhaps I'm thinking about it too much, but the use of the imperfect still confuses me in Italian.


----------



## london calling

SuperMarioBro said:


> _Are_ sounds odd to me as well, but I was thinking in terms of Italian. The person _is_ a Spaniard, not _was. _Perhaps I'm thinking about it too much, but the use of the imperfect still confuses me in Italian.


Actually, I think I'd use the imperfect (or the imperfect subjunctive) in Italian as well.

_Scusa! Non sapevo che eri/fossi spagnolo!_
_Chiedo scusa! Non avevo capito che eri spagnolo!_

Natives?


----------



## PreziosaNonRidicola

The subjunctive 'fossi' is the correct form --- although..ahem...not that many natives use it  Most people go for the imperfetto. 





london calling said:


> Actually, I think I'd use the imperfect (or the imperfect subjunctive) in Italian as well.
> 
> _Scusa! Non sapevo che eri/fossi spagnolo!_
> _Chiedo scusa! Non avevo capito che eri spagnolo!_
> 
> Natives?


----------



## bob_leponge-

This may be a surprise but English still has the subjuntive! The reason "are Spanish" doesn't ring true is because it isn't. The subjenctive in 3rd person singular is "were". Which would you say?
If I were king or
If I was king
The former is also subjunctive. Obviously it doesn't work with the other personal pronouns because they use "were" for imperfect already.
So we use the subjunctive in a similar way to Italian and French, when conjecture is in use versus fact.


----------



## Tristano

How about:

Non avevo capito che fossi spagnolo...

?

Tristano



bob_leponge- said:


> This may be a surprise but English still has the subjuntive! The reason "are Spanish" doesn't ring true is because it isn't. The subj*u*nctive in 3rd person singular is "were". Which would you say?
> If I were king  or
> If I was king
> The former is also subjunctive. Obviously it doesn't work with the other personal pronouns because they use "were" for imperfect already.
> So we use the subjunctive in a similar way to Italian and French, when conjecture is in use versus fact.


----------



## Necsus

Tristano said:


> How about:
> Non avevo capito che fossi spagnolo...
> ?
> Tristano


No, con _capire_ non serve il congiuntivo, va bene l'indicativo. Però io lo userei al presente (come già letto all'inizio del thread):
_non avevo capito che sei spagnolo._


----------



## Einstein

bob_leponge- said:


> This may be a surprise but English still has the subjuntive! The reason "are Spanish" doesn't ring true is because it isn't. The subjunctive in 3rd person singular is "were". Which would you say?
> If I were king or
> If I was king
> The former is also subjunctive. Obviously it doesn't work with the other personal pronouns because they use "were" for imperfect already.
> So we use the subjunctive in a similar way to Italian and French, when conjecture is in use versus fact.


I agree that the subjunctive still exists in English, which is why we use the past tense in the hypothetical present: "If I lived in London, I would...", although the difference between indicative and subjunctive is seen only in "to be", first and third person.
However, this is not the point in the present discussion; in English the subjunctive is used in fewer situations and indirect speech is not one of these. You can see this if you use the third person: "I didn't realise he was Spanish". "Were" would sound wrong here.
The point is that we use the past "you were Spanish" and not the present "are" simply because it's in line with the past situation of realising (or not realising). Sequence of tenses.


----------



## london calling

bob_leponge- said:


> This may be a surprise but English still has the subjuntive!
> If I were king
> If I was king


No surprise at all, actually!

This has already been debated in various threads. I personally use it all the time (and have always taught it as well) , but apparently the younger generation doesn't agree with me!

Just one thing: I prefer "I hadn't realised you were Spanish", but I think many people would say " I didn't realise you were Spanish".

By the way, I totally agree with einstein!


----------



## Danieloid

PreziosaNonRidicola said:


> The subjunctive 'fossi' is the correct form --- although..ahem...not that many natives use it  Most people go for the imperfetto.



Nella Grammatica Italiana di Luca Serianni si legge che


> Reggono di norma l'indicativo molti verbi di giudizio o di percezione, quali (…) sapere (…)


Quindi, bene
Non sapevo che sei spagnolo (la mia scelta)
Non sapevo che eri spagnolo (mi piace meno)

Non va bene il congiuntivo
Non sapevo che fossi spagnolo.

Può essere che altri grammatici dissentano, ma ho guardato su altre grammatiche, e questa mi sembra l'indicazione prevalente.

Invece i verbi che indicano volizione, aspettativa, opinione o persuasione vogliono il congiuntivo.
Per esempio

Non sospettavo neanche lontanamente che tu fossi spagnolo.

Sarebbe interessante chiedere a un grammatico se nel nostro caso la negazione costituisce un qualche motivo di dubbio sull'uso dell'indicativo.

Ciao!

EDIT - Ho girato la domanda agli amici di Cruscate, vi farò sapere!


----------



## giovannino

Cito dal Devoto Oli (la cui revisione è stata curata proprio da Serianni):

*sapere *...in frase negativa, con _che _e l'ind. o il cong.: _non sapevo che voleva _(o _volesse_) _andarsene; non sapevo che vivevano _(o _vivessero_) _insieme._

Immagino che lo stesso valga anche per _rendersi conto _e _capire._

Danieloid, potrebbe essere un quesito interessante da porre nel forum di Cruscate (insieme all'altro dilemma: _non sapevo/mi ero reso conto che sei/eri spagnolo_).


----------



## Einstein

> Non sapevo che sei spagnolo (la mia scelta)
> Non sapevo che eri spagnolo (mi piace meno)


E' una chiara differenza con l'inglese. Per me _I didn't realise you are Spanish_ suona strano. La persona sarà spagnola anche adesso, ma nella _consecutio temporum_ ci interessa quello che era vero nel momento del "rendersi conto" e non il fatto che sia ancora vero o meno. Comunque siamo tutti d'accordo che per questa situazione il congiuntivo non serve né in inglese né in italiano.


----------



## beccamutt

Einstein said:


> Also in English I'd tend to use the past: *Excuse me! I didn't realize that you were Spanish.*


 
Just a quick note - is this the past tense?  Or the subjunctive?


----------



## Danieloid

Il sommo Marco, di Cruscate, ha dato il suo responso, che conferma la correttezza dell'uso del congiuntivo nelle negative e nelle interrogative.
E la mia scelta (l'indicativo) era di stile medio-basso! 

Ciao!


----------



## Einstein

beccamutt said:


> Just a quick note - is this the past tense? Or the subjunctive?


Hi beccamut, please take a look at post 24 and see if you agree with my reasoning about the subjunctive in English in _this_ case.


----------



## Tristano

Danieloid said:


> Il sommo Marco, di Cruscate, ha dato il suo responso, che conferma la correttezza dell'uso del congiuntivo nelle negative e nelle interrogative.
> E la mia scelta (l'indicativo) era di stile medio-basso!
> 
> Ciao!



Interessantissimo, grazie!

"Non + capire" mi fa pensare subito al congiuntivo e non all'indicativo...

Interessante anche questo da Marco1971:

Similmente, nella forma interrogativa: Sai se Manuel _sia_ spagnolo? è di registro piú alto rispetto a Sai se Manuel è spagnolo?

Anche dopo "quando" ritengo che ci sia una situazione analoga, ma non ne sono sicuro: "Quando" + congiuntivo...

Tristano


----------



## Necsus

giovannino said:


> *sapere *...in frase negativa, con _che _e l'ind. o il cong.: _non sapevo che voleva _(o _volesse_) _andarsene; non sapevo che vivevano _(o _vivessero_) _insieme._
> 
> Immagino che lo stesso valga anche per _rendersi conto _e _capire. _


Since I said in my previous post:


> No, con _capire_ non serve il congiuntivo, va bene l'indicativo. Però io lo userei al presente (come già letto all'inizio del thread):
> _non avevo capito che sei spagnolo. _


I want to specify, again from Serianni [XIV,51]: 
"Alcuni verbi presentano vuoi l'indicativo vuoi il congiuntivo, con specializzazione di significato: [...] _capire_, _comprendere_ (+ indic. *'rendersi conto'* come atto di pura comprensione intellettuale: 'capivo che anche lei se n'era accorta' Pavese; + congiunt. 'trovare naturale', attraverso una valutazione soggettiva, aderendo effettivamente all'azione verbale: 'per te, che sai giocare, capisco che le americane non abbiano molto senso' Pavese)".


----------



## jepsonclough

Doesn't it have to be _were _because _didn't_ is in the past tense and they should agree?


----------



## Einstein

jepsonclough said:


> Doesn't it have to be _were _because _didn't_ is in the past tense and they should agree?


Exactly! It's what I said in posts 24 and 28 but no one seems to take any notice!


----------



## jepsonclough

I think I must have glazed over at the bit about the subjunctive and didn't pick up the bit about tense at the end of post 24.  You were exactly correct of course.


----------

