# Past participle gender agreement



## AndrewK

Ciao!

I've learnt that if a woman is speaking, she would say "Mia mamma mi ha chiamata e mi ha detta che...." but when searching for the phrase "mi ha dett*a*" in Google, I find only 15.000 results, compared to "mi ha dett*o*", which received over 600.000 results. 

Clearly there can't be 40 times more men writing on the internet? Or do Italian women tend to use the suffix "o" even when they themselves are the object?

Grazie molto in anticipo 

Andrew


----------



## Montesacro

AndrewK said:


> Ciao!
> 
> I've learnt that if a woman is speaking, she would say "Mia mamma(*it's far better to say mia madre. Mia mamma is used in the north, but the word mamma should be used only with a vocative function)* mi ha chiamata e mi ha detta che...." but when searching for the phrase "mi ha dett*a*" in Google, I find only 15.000 results, compared to "mi ha dett*o*", which received over 600.000 results.
> 
> Clearly there can't be 40 times more men writing on the internet? Or do Italian women tend to use the suffix "o" even when they themselves are the object?
> 
> Grazie molto in anticipo
> 
> Andrew


*Y*ou can either say "mia madre *mi(direct object)* ha chiamato" or "mia madre *mi(direct object)* ha chiamata", but you can only say "mia madre *mi(indirect object)* ha detto". 
It's got to do with grammar rules: the past participle can take on the suffix relative to the grammar gender of the direct object.


----------



## gabrigabri

AndrewK said:


> Ciao!
> 
> I've learnt that if a woman is speaking, she would say "Mia mamma mi ha chiamata e mi ha detta che...." but when searching for the phrase "mi ha dett*a*" in Google, I find only 15.000 results, compared to "mi ha dett*o*", which received over 600.000 results.
> 
> Clearly there can't be 40 times more men writing on the internet? Or do Italian women tend to use the suffix "o" even when they themselves are the object?
> 
> Grazie molto in anticipo
> 
> Andrew




Hi, I'm not sure (15 000 results!!), but I think that "mi ha detta" is 100% wrong.
Though I used to think, that also "la ragazza che hai vista" is wrong, but here I learnt that it is ok.


----------



## AndrewK

gabrigabri said:


> Hi, I'm not sure (15 000 results!!), but I think that "mi ha detta" is 100% wrong.
> Though I used to think, that also "la ragazza che hai vista" is wrong, but here I learnt that it is ok.


 
I can't believe this! I found only 25 results searching for the phrase "La donna che hai vistO", but over a thousand for "La donna che hai vistA"!

Do most Italians really say "che hai vistA" even when there is no feminine article in front of the verb?

Thanks for all the help up until now 

Andrew


----------



## AndrewK

No, excuse me, I just found out that "La donna che hai vistA" is taken from the Holy Bible, that's why there were so many results on it.

But anyhow, did you learn why it is okay to write this phrase like this, gabrigabri?


----------



## Stiannu

Because the old rule was that: if the direct object of a transitive verb is put before this verb, then the verb must be declined accordingly to this object.
_Ho visto la donna_ (the object is after); _lei è la donna che ho vista_ (the object is represented by the relative pronoun _che_, so it's before).
_Ho colto le rose. Queste sono le rose che ho colte._
This rule sounds too old-fashioned today; it's still grammatically correct (my teachers at school didn't expect us to use it, but they informed us of its existence), but nobody use these forms anymore. Today, nearly everyone says _la donna che ho visto_ and _le rose che ho colto_.

BUT the rule is still used for personal pronouns, like in _li abbiamo visti_, _ci hai delusi_, _ti ho ricordata_, etc. 
To tell the truth, I thought in these cases this was the only correct form, but in post n. 2, Montesacro said that both forms are possible (_li abbiamo visto_, _ci hai deluso_, _ti ho ricordato _to a female). Mmmm... I'm not sure.

Anyway, pay attention, because the atonal pronouns like _mi, ti, ci_ and _vi_ can have two different functions: they can serve as direct objects for transitive verbs (_mi=me; ti=te; ci=noi; vi=voi_; and in this case, the verb is declined accordingly); or, they can serve as indirect objects for intransitive verbs (_mi=a me; ti=a te; ci=a noi; vi=a voi_; and in this case, the verb is NOT declined).
This explains the first question in this thread. _Chiamare_ needs a direct object (_she called me_) but _dire_ needs an indirect object (_she said to me_).
[*Last clue - don't read if you already feel too confused*: _dire_ can occasionally be a transitive verb and need a direct object, with the meaning of _to define_, _to describe, _or_ to name_. So, _mi ha detta..._ could be possible (but incomplete) with the meaning of _she named me..._, _she defined me as..._ Anyway, a very rare and old-fashioned use  
In fact, putting the sentence "_mi ha detta_" on Google, all you can find is just mistakes made by someone who should have written "_mi ha detto_", except maybe a transcription of an ancient comedy where old Italian allowed this form...]


----------



## AndrewK

Haha I see  A little bit more clever now! Though I would have liked to know how and why both forms with the personal pronouns are possible, when one of the first things you learn in Italian grammar is that the verb changes form according to the personal pronoun in front of it!

Thank you so much Stiannu; your help was excellent! 

Andrew


----------



## anghiarese

I was taught in beginning Italian that the past participle was invariable with  avere in the passato prossimo and only changed to agree when essere was the auxiliary verb.  I should have known that was too simple!


----------



## giovannino

Stiannu said:


> BUT the rule is still used for personal pronouns, like in _li abbiamo visti_, _ci hai delusi_, _ti ho ricordata_, etc.
> To tell the truth, I thought in these cases this was the only correct form, but in post n. 2, Montesacro said that both forms are possible (_li abbiamo visto_, _ci hai deluso_, _ti ho ricordato _to a female). Mmmm... I'm not sure.


 
There's a thread about this in Solo Italiano. Agreement is compulsory with _lo, la, li, le _and optional with _mi, ti, ci, vi:_


_C'è un unico caso in cui il participio va concordato obbligatoriamente con l'oggetto. Ciò avviene quando il complemento oggetto è costituito dai pronomi atoni "lo", "la", "li": "Mi hai portato i libri? Sì, te li ho portati". Con le particelle "mi", "ti", "ci", "vi" in funzione di complemento oggetto l'obbligo di concordanza è facoltativo. E' ugualmente corretto dire, parlando di una ragazza, "ti ho visto" come "ti ho vista". _
(Giorgio De Rienzo, Scioglilingua, Corriere della Sera)


----------



## Montesacro

Stiannu said:


> BUT the rule is still used for personal pronouns, like in _li abbiamo visti_, _ci hai delusi_, _ti ho ricordata_, etc.
> To tell the truth, I thought in these cases this was the only correct form, but in post n. 2, Montesacro said that both forms are possible (_li abbiamo visto_, _ci hai deluso_, _ti ho ricordato _to a female). Mmmm... I'm not sure.


 
I specifically commented on the examples provided by AndrewK: _Mi ha detto/detta_ and _Mi ha chiamato/chiamata._


As for _mia mamma:_ prescriptive grammars label it as unquestionably wrong. As I have already written actual usage in the north deviates from the norm...


----------



## anghiarese

I looked in my text and the past participle agreement with avere with DO pronouns is indeed breifly covered.  I can see where "l'ho", "l'hai" etc. could introduce needless ambiguity so it makes sense really.


----------



## SleepingLeopard

Ciao a tutti,

A phrase in another thread reminded me of a grammar question I often think of and never remember to ask when I'm online. 

I know that the past participles of verbs conjugated with "avere" inflect for gender when you use object pronouns, since _lo, la, le_, and _li _all contract to l' with _avere_.

I broke the handle.
_Ho rotto la maniglia._
I broke it. (meaning the handle)
_L'ho rotta. (la maniglia)_

My question is, for the first sentence, is it _wrong _or just awkward to say:
_Ho *rotta* la maniglia._

I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I couldn't find narrow enough search terms to find a previous thread, and my grammar book doesn't specify it.

Grazie mille


----------



## Alan7075

It is wrong and awkward.
Either "ho rotto la..." or "la ho rotta (l'ho rotta)".

Ciao Ciao


----------



## SleepingLeopard

Thank you very much Alan! That was my suspicion, but I wanted to make sure.

Ciao


----------



## rosi63

I broke the handle.
_Ho rotto la maniglia._
I broke it. (meaning the handle)
_L'ho rotta. (la maniglia)_

My question is, for the first sentence, is it _wrong _or just awkward to say:
_Ho *rotta* la maniglia._

What a difficult question for a native speaker, who knows the sentence is wrong but can't really explain why...... I think that's for the "complemento oggetto" (direct object): if it comes before the verb, you inflect for gender, if it comes after, you don't.
Rosi63


----------



## SleepingLeopard

Grazie anche a te Rosi!

(Gender can be very confusing sometimes to English speakers, since our language doesn't have it!)


----------



## Alan7075

SleepingLeopard said:


> Thank you very much Alan! That was my suspicion, but I wanted to make sure.
> 
> Ciao



If you only knew how many suspicions I have, you'd start screaming 

You're most welcome 

Ciao Ciao


----------



## Angel.Aura

There's also an interesting thread in the Italian Only Forum: here.


----------



## Broca's Area

_Ho rotta la maniglia_ is an archaism, therefore you'll find this construction only in old-fashioned texts.


----------



## SleepingLeopard

Angel.Aura said:


> There's also an interesting thread in the Italian Only Forum: here.


 
Thank you very much for finding this thread for me Angel! It answers more questions than I ever thought to ask!

Ciao 

(Thanks to everyone who answered. I understand much better now.)


----------



## federicoft

Just to add that you can find the gender agreement of past participle also in present-day literary or poetic texts, or when the author wants his character to appear somewhat snobbish or stylishly. It is very rarely used in oral Italian though.

E.g. - _Corsi verso il mare, mi gettai nell'acqua gemendo sulle vacanze che avremmo potuto avere, e che non avremmo avute_.

(Françoise Sagan, Bonjour Tristesse, transl. by Ruggero Sandanieli).
I think the purpose here is to depict the way a snobby girl from an upper-class family would speak.


----------



## Angel.Aura

SleepingLeopard said:


> Thank you very much for finding this thread for me Angel! It answers more questions than I ever thought to ask!
> 
> Ciao



Ciao SL, 
you're very welcome!


----------



## Swordskid

I was told in another thread I opened that you would say:

"Mi sono messa le scarpe"

When the speaker is a woman, but also:

"Me le sono messe"

Which I found really surprising. Does this happen with all the structures of this kind?
Also, what would happen in this cases?

Mi sono detto molte cose. (man)
Mi sono detta molte cose. (woman?)
Me le sono dette. ??

Would this be correct?

Also, what happens when the verb is "fare" and is followed by an infinitive?

Mi ha fatto uscire.
Mi ha fatta uscire? (for a woman)

Thank you very much in advance.


----------



## EtienneLeroux

Buongiorno a tutti! Vorrei dire: Something has been added to my schedule.

a) Qualcosa è _stata aggiunta_ al mio programma. 
b) Qualcosa è _stato aggiunto_ al mio programma.

Qualcosa è femminile (come cosa)?

Grazie!


----------



## King Crimson

EtienneLeroux said:


> Buongiorno a tutti! Vorrei dire: Something has been added to my schedule.
> 
> a) Qualcosa è _stata aggiunta_ al mio programma.
> b) Qualcosa è _stato aggiunto_ al mio programma.
> 
> Qualcosa è femminile (come cosa)?
> 
> 
> Grazie!



"Qualcosa" è un pronome di genere indefinito (o neutro se vuoi, v. qui) ma "concorda per lo più come maschile", pertanto nel tuo caso direi che è valida l'opzione b).

P.S. sul tema delle concordanze nel forum "Solo italiano" c'è un elenco sterminato di lunghe discussioni, nel caso volessi approfondire l'argomento.


----------



## Pat (√2)

EtienneLeroux said:


> a) Qualcosa è _stata aggiunta_ al mio programma.
> b) Qualcosa è _stato aggiunto_ al mio programma.
> Qualcosa è femminile (come cosa)? No.


_E' stato aggiunto qualcosa al mio programma_


----------



## EtienneLeroux

Ti ringrazio, *√2* !

Si po dire "Non ho fame grande, prendo solo _qualcosa picola_"? In questo sarrebe _qualcosa _femminile?

(So, che si dice anche "qualcosa di piccolo")


----------



## Connie Eyeland

Ciao.


EtienneLeroux said:


> Si po[*può*] dire "Non ho fame grande [*molta fame**/tanta fame/una gran fame/molto appetito/tanto appetito*], prendo solo _qualcosa picola_"? In questo sarrebe _qualcosa _[*qualcosa sarebbe*] femminile? *
> No, perché qualcosa non è femminile, come ti hanno spiegato sopra, quindi non si può accompagnare ad aggettivo femminile*
> 
> (So, che si dice anche "qualcosa di piccolo") *Esatto**, si può dire solo così, anche se parlando di cibo, diciamo di solito semplicemente "prendo solo qualcosina"**, senza aggettivo*


----------



## Daisy Marigold

Stiannu said:


> Because the old rule was that: if the direct object of a transitive verb is put before this verb, then the verb must be declined accordingly to this object.
> _Ho visto la donna_ (the object is after); _lei è la donna che ho vista_ (the object is represented by the relative pronoun _che_, so it's before).
> _Ho colto le rose. Queste sono le rose che ho colte._
> This rule sounds too old-fashioned today; it's still grammatically correct (my teachers at school didn't expect us to use it, but they informed us of its existence), but nobody use these forms anymore. Today, nearly everyone says _la donna che ho visto_ and _le rose che ho colto_.
> 
> BUT the rule is still used for personal pronouns, like in _li abbiamo visti_, _ci hai delusi_, _ti ho ricordata_, etc.
> To tell the truth, I thought in these cases this was the only correct form, but in post n. 2, Montesacro said that both forms are possible (_li abbiamo visto_, _ci hai deluso_, _ti ho ricordato _to a female). Mmmm... I'm not sure.
> 
> Anyway, pay attention, because the atonal pronouns like _mi, ti, ci_ and _vi_ can have two different functions: they can serve as direct objects for transitive verbs (_mi=me; ti=te; ci=noi; vi=voi_; and in this case, the verb is declined accordingly); or, they can serve as indirect objects for intransitive verbs (_mi=a me; ti=a te; ci=a noi; vi=a voi_; and in this case, the verb is NOT declined).
> This explains the first question in this thread. _Chiamare_ needs a direct object (_she called me_) but _dire_ needs an indirect object (_she said to me_).
> [*Last clue - don't read if you already feel too confused*: _dire_ can occasionally be a transitive verb and need a direct object, with the meaning of _to define_, _to describe, _or_ to name_. So, _mi ha detta..._ could be possible (but incomplete) with the meaning of _she named me..._, _she defined me as..._ Anyway, a very rare and old-fashioned use
> In fact, putting the sentence "_mi ha detta_" on Google, all you can find is just mistakes made by someone who should have written "_mi ha detto_", except maybe a transcription of an ancient comedy where old Italian allowed this form...]


Thank you, Stiannu for this explanation.  I realize I have been using this "antique" grammatical construction of agreement of the past participle with preceding noun d.o., probably due to my study of French.


----------



## Daisy Marigold

Montesacro said:


> I specifically commented on the examples provided by AndrewK: _Mi ha detto/detta_ and _Mi ha chiamato/chiamata._
> 
> 
> As for _mia mamma:_ prescriptive grammars label it as unquestionably wrong. As I have already written actual usage in the north deviates from the norm...


I thought  one should say _la_ mia mamma; but mia madre.  I was unaware that this was a regional difference.  When it is clear one is speaking of one's own mother, I believe it would be common to say simply "la mamma" without the possessive.  Can the native speakers please chime in on this.  Thanks.


----------

