# I hate having my guests bored



## baldpate

Ciao a tutti,

nel racconto che sto traducendo, una duchessa parla al telefono con suo figlio. Lei racconta come una conoscente noiosa è passata a trovarla poco prima di pranzo, quindi lei (la duchessa) si sentiva obbligata ad invitarla a pranzo.  

La duchessa continua :
"Fortunately, I was alone. I don't mind being bored myself, *but I hate having my guests bored*."

Il mio problema è come rendere quel "... but I hate _having my guests bored_". Sono sicuro che si usa una costruzione del tipo 'far fare', ma queste mi recano sempre problemi.  

Seguendo la massima KISS (_keep it simple, stupid _), ecco il mio tentativo:
"... ma detesto far annoiare i miei ospiti."
Potrebbe essere così semplice??

Grazie per ogni aiuto.


----------



## conigliettapentita

Ciao baldpate!
La tua traduzione mi sembra perfetta.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Detesto che i miei ospiti si annoino.
Your version can work too.


----------



## flamey

Ciao baldplate;

a me la tua traduzione "... ma detesto far annoiare i miei ospiti" sembra abbastanza buona.

Un altro modo potrebbe essere:

"...ma detesto che si annoino i miei ospiti."

In bocca al lupo con la traduzione!

flamey


----------



## conigliettapentita

Paulfromitaly said:


> Detesto che i miei ospiti si annoino.
> Your version can work too.



Hi Paul!
I agree with you, but then I think "detesto far annoiare i miei ospiti" is a little _smoother_ as an expression, than "che i miei ospiti si annoino", which sounds a bit too formal.


----------



## baldpate

Thanks guys!

There is actually a little subtlety in the English text, and I'm unsure which of the translations catches it better (if either).

"I hate having my guests bored" does not mean _quite_ the same as "I hate for my guests to be/feel bored".

In the first phrase, there is the strong suggestion of an unstated agent who is doing the boring.  "I hate having my guests bored _[by a certain boring person whom I am too polite to name]_.  It is more like saying "I hate that someone should bore my guests".

The suggestion of an unstated agent is completely missing from "I hate for my guests to be/feel bored".

Is this distinction present at all in the suggested Italian translations?  Or are they entirely equivalent?


----------



## flamey

Ah!

Secondo me allora sarebbe meglio "...detesto che i miei ospiti vengano annoiati _(da una certa persona...)_"


----------



## Necsus

'Vengano infastiditi/importunati/seccati/scocciati'...


----------



## Alxmrphi

Necsus said:


> 'Vengano infastiditi/importunati/seccati/scocciati'...



I thought those three verbs meant 'annoyed / bothered' in a sense where they are angry, I know *seccare *and *scocciare* certainly have an angry tone somewhere in one of their meanings but I didn't know they could also be used for 'bored' ....

In a sentence like this I honestly would not, and cannot imagine how people can tell the difference if the guests are just bored or angry / irritated.
Does anyone have an explanation that might help me understand better?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

baldpate said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> There is actually a little subtlety in the English text, and I'm unsure which of the translations catches it better (if either).
> 
> "I hate having my guests bored" does not mean _quite_ the same as "I hate for my guests to be/feel bored".
> 
> In the first phrase, there is the strong suggestion of an unstated agent who is doing the boring.  "I hate having my guests bored _[by a certain boring person whom I am too polite to name]_.  It is more like saying "I hate that someone should bore my guests".
> 
> The suggestion of an unstated agent is completely missing from "I hate for my guests to be/feel bored".
> 
> Is this distinction present at all in the suggested Italian translations?  Or are they entirely equivalent?


If you want to keep this nuance I'm afraid annoiare doesn't work, unless you clearly say who's the bore.

Odio quando qualcuno annoia i miei ospiti (I don't like it too much though..)


----------



## brian

What about _Odio avere gli ospiti annoiati_.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

brian8733 said:


> What about _Odio avere gli ospiti annoiati_.


It doesn't work (it doesn't express the same idea), although it's understandable for someone who speaks English and recognises the sentence structure.


----------



## raffica

Riprendendo Brian, si potrebbe dire: "odio avere ospiti annoiati"


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raffica said:


> Riprendendo Brian, si potrebbe dire: "odio avere ospiti annoiati"


In italiano questa costruzione non esiste.


----------



## raffica

Ciao Paul, ne sei certo? A me non sembra sbagliata, ma in caso si potrebbe dire: odio avere ospiti che si annoiano.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raffica said:


> Ciao Paul, ne sei certo? A me non sembra sbagliata, ma in caso si potrebbe dire: odio avere ospiti che si annoiano.



Questo va bene, ma non esprime il fatto che è qualcuno che li annoia, cosa che in inglese si eprime con quella cotruzione di HAVE.


----------



## raffica

Allora, se ho capito bene, funziona la prima proposta di Baldpate: odio/detesto far annoiare i miei/gli ospiti.


----------



## brian

La frase in inglese suggerisce che sia qualcun altro o qualcos'altro--cioè altro che baldpate/la persona che ospita--che annoia gli ospiti, oppure che si annoino da soli, for no apparent reason.


----------



## effeundici

Paulfromitaly said:


> In italiano questa costruzione non esiste.


 
Ma scherzi Paul??

_Odio avere ospiti annoiati (aggettivo)_

Esiste di sicuro e sono sicuro che lo sai anche tu


----------



## Alxmrphi

Si', credo che lui sappia che esiste, ma a quello che lui si riferiva era "_questa come una costruzione per significare l'accezione dell'inglese non esiste in italiano_"

.... vero?


----------



## conigliettapentita

flamey said:


> Ah!
> 
> Secondo me allora sarebbe meglio "...detesto che i miei ospiti vengano annoiati _(da una certa persona...)_"



Mi sembra che questa sia l'unica traduzione che renda in qualche modo l'idea che gli ospiti siano annoiati da qualcuno. Con tutte le altre il senso si perde.

"Non mi dispiace farmi annoiare, ma detesto che vengano annoiati i miei ospiti"


----------



## federicoft

Chiedo scusa, ma la frase:
_"Fortunatamente ero sola. Annoiarmi non è un problema per me, ma detesto che i miei ospiti si annoino"_

non dice già in modo assolutamente esplicito che la causa della noia è l'ospite indesiderato? (per quale altra ragione mai si dovrebbero annoiare?)
E anche la corrispettiva frase inglese, mi pare.

Non sono sicuro di capire la necessità di sottintenderlo, visto che è già affermato in modo solare.


----------



## baldpate

Grazie per i suggerimenti.  

Anche se non sono ancora del tutto sicuro della migliore traduzione (per quel che vale - non molto, lo so - propendo a quella di flamey) la discussione è stata molto istruttivo, e vi ringrazio tutti.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

effeundici said:


> Ma scherzi Paul??
> 
> _Odio avere ospiti annoiati (aggettivo)_
> 
> Esiste di sicuro e sono sicuro che lo sai anche tu





Alex_Murphy said:


> Si', credo che lui sappia che esiste, ma a quello che lui si riferiva era "_questa come una costruzione per significare l'accezione dell'inglese non esiste in italiano_"
> 
> .... vero?



Esattamente.
I had Alex paint the wall.
Ho fatto tinteggiare ad Alex la parete.
Ho avuto Alex tinteggiare la parete  (questo non è italiano)


----------



## miri

Ciao Baldpate,
anche secondo il mio modesto parere, la versione di flamey è quella che meglio ricalca l'originale, mantenendo il riferimento indiretto ed un registro alto.
"Detesto che si annoino i miei ospiti" è l'equivalente impersonale di "Detesto che qualcuno annoi i miei ospiti" ed è ben diverso da "Detesto che i miei ospiti si annoino", che risulta più vago, facendo pensare che ciò che si detesta è che gli ospiti si annoino per qualunque non ben specificato motivo.


----------



## effeundici

Concordo al 100%



miri said:


> Ciao Baldpate,
> anche secondo il mio modesto parere, la versione di flamey è quella che meglio ricalca l'originale, mantenendo il riferimento indiretto ed un registro alto.
> "Detesto che si annoino i miei ospiti" è l'equivalente impersonale di "Detesto che qualcuno annoi i miei ospiti" ed è ben diverso da "Detesto che i miei ospiti si annoino", che risulta più vago, facendo pensare che ciò che si detesta è che gli ospiti si annoino per qualunque non ben specificato motivo.


----------



## brian

Paulfromitaly said:


> Esattamente.
> I had Alex paint the wall.
> Ho fatto tinteggiare ad Alex la parete.
> Ho avuto Alex tinteggiare la parete  (questo non è italiano)



Paul, questo è diverso.

_I had Alex paint_ (*verbo*) _the wall.
Ho fatto tinteggiare ad Alex la parete.

I have bored _(*aggettivo*) _guests. / I hate having bored _(*aggettivo*) _guests.
Ho ospiti annoiati. / Odio avere ospiti annoiati._

Nella frase _Faccio annoiare i miei ospiti / Odio far annoiare i miei ospiti_ si tratta di un *verbo*, perciò la traduzione in inglese sarebbe _I have/hate having my guests *get* bored._

Sono due cose leggermente diverse.


----------



## effeundici

Accidenti alle lingue!!!

Brian, quando scrivi _far annoiare i miei ospiti _intendi _io faccio qualcosa che li rende annoiati _oppure _io permetto che qualcuno annoi i miei ospiti?_


----------



## Paulfromitaly

baldpate said:


> In the first phrase, there is the strong suggestion of an unstated agent who is doing the boring.  "I hate having my guests bored _*[by a certain boring person* whom I am too polite to name]_.  It is more like saying "I hate that someone should bore my guests".



My point is: you cannot use AVERE in Italian like you use to have in English to express the fact there's an agent.
We simply don't have that construction of AVERE.

This sentence "_Odio avere gli ospiti annoiati_." is correct, but doesn't mean there's someone who's boring the guests.


----------



## brian

effeundici said:


> Accidenti alle lingue!!!
> 
> Brian, quando scrivi _far annoiare i miei ospiti _intendi _io faccio qualcosa che li rende annoiati _oppure _io permetto che qualcuno annoi i miei ospiti? _Dipende dal contesto





Paulfromitaly said:


> My point is: you cannot use AVERE in Italian like you use to have in English to express the fact there's an agent.
> We simply don't have that construction of AVERE.
> 
> This sentence "_Odio avere gli ospiti annoiati_." is correct, but doesn't mean there's someone who's boring the guests.



My point is that it means _exactly_ as much as the original English sentence means, _I hate having my guests bored._ This sentence does not imply that there is someone boring the guests; there is no agent implied. That was simply baldpate giving more context.

To put it another way, _to have my guests bored_ *is not the same construction as*_ to have someone do something_.

Why? Because _bored_ is an adjective, not a verb.


----------



## miri

Isn't there a chance that here "bored" is a past participle, Brian? "Having something done" construction? For example: doesn't "I had my purse stolen" mean that someone stole my purse? In the same way couldn't "have my guests bored" mean that someone bores my guests?


----------



## Einstein

miri said:


> Isn't there a chance that here "bored" is a past participle, Brian? "Having something done" construction? For example: doesn't "I had my purse stolen" mean that someone stole my purse? In the same way couldn't "have my guests bored" mean that someone bores my guests?


That's exactly what it means and I can't imagine another interpretation!

I_ hate having bored guests_ means _Odio avere degli ospiti annoiati_ and it's not clear who is responsible for boring them, it could even be a defect of the guests, who are too easily bored!
This is very different from _I hate having my guests bored_.


----------



## brian

Guys, the fact is that there is a _very_ fine line between an adjective and a participle, as can be seen in this thread in EO currently going on. Even in that thread I argue that it's an adjective, not a participle--but the ideas are very intertwined.

In my opinion, it's an adjective here because a verb is implied, and I think that that verb is _to feel_, which is *not* an auxiliary verb:

_I hate having my guests *feel* bored._ <-- _bored_ clearly adjective

Yes, you can argue that the implied verb is _to be_, which is an auxiliary verb:

_I hate having my guests *be* bored._

But even in this case, it's unclear whether it's an adjective or a participle. When someone says, _I'm bored_, it's *clearly* (to me) an adjective, just like _sleepy_, unless you add a _by-_clause of some sort.

So the fact that there is no _by-_clause in our sentence leads me to think it's an adjective, and hence why I said above that in my opinion no agent whatsoever is implied--it simply describes the state of the guests.


----------



## tomzenith

Brian - I can entirely understand where you're coming from, but I'm afraid in this instance I really don't agree with you. I hope baldpate doesn't mind, but here is the complete paragraph of the original text, which provides the original identity (female agent) of our mystery borer:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]"I think he found it early this morning, but, of course, he didn't think of telling the Throgmortons just at first. She came up to me just before lunch--so tiresome, I had to ask her to stay. Fortunately, I was alone. I don't mind being bored myself, but I hate having my guests bored."

[/FONT]





> My point is that it means _exactly_ as much as the original English sentence means, _I hate having my guests bored._ This sentence does not imply that there is someone boring the guests; there is no agent implied. That was simply baldpate giving more context.





> But even in this case, it's unclear whether it's an adjective or a participle.



You're right that this sentence is more than a little ambiguous without context, but it could definitely be read either way. With context, however, we have an agent supplied, and it would seem (to me at least) very odd to read 'I hate being bored' as an adjective and not a pp. The problem with translating this is that this sentence alone has to be able to give at least a hint of this.


----------



## brian

Yes, in that case then it does have a very different _feel_ to it when I read it--because I know "she" is the agent of the "boring."

However, I still stand by my account in the general case. Let me put it this way: when someone says, "I'm bored," do you ever reply, "By whom?" or "By what?" No--you reply "Why?" The reason is that it has an adjectival, not participial, feel to it, just as if someone said, "I'm sleepy."

So the word is very, very adjectival to me unless otherwise indicated by context (like in our example); and even then, it sounds a bit unusual since we're so not used to using _bored_ participially.

But maybe it's an AE/southern AE/Brian thing.


----------



## tomzenith

brian8733 said:


> However, I still stand by my account in the general case. Let me put it this way: when someone says, "I'm bored," do you ever reply, "By whom?" or "By what?" No--you reply "Why?"



But if you were to turn away from a conversation to me and say 'I'm *being* bored', I would know what you meant and would try to save you from it..

The problem is that the sentence in English contains both possibilities - bored as a verb or an adjective. In my opinion, in *this *instance, given the context, the correct reading is as a verb. If we can't have an Italian sentence that preserves the ambiguity, then we need one that comes down on the right side of the fence, no?



> So the word is very, very adjectival to me unless otherwise indicated by context (like in our example); and even then, it sounds a bit unusual since we're so not used to using _bored_ participially.



I'd definitely agree, I wouldn't expect to hear it now. When I first read it I thought it was P.G. Wodehouse, I was wrong, but it's definitely and recognisably of that time.


----------



## brian

No, you're absolutely right. Like I said, this context definitely warrants an Italian sentence like _Odio che i miei ospiti *vengano annoiati*_, which correlates with the English _I hate having my guests *get* bored_, thus showing very clearly that it is a participle.*

So point being: _I hate having my guests bored_ is missing an implied verb. Depending on the context, the verb could be _to be_, linking a subject with a predicate adjective, *or* _to be/to get_ linking a subject with a participle. In our case, it's the latter, which equates to _vengano annoiati_; but without context earlier, I had the _feeling_ that it was the former, which would equate to _ospiti annoiati_ or something similar.

*Actually that still doesn't prove it's a participle since you can have a sentence like _I hate having my patients (get) sick_, where _sick_ is obviously an adjective. But I guess there's no way to "prove" participle without an explicit agent. Let's just say I agree with you.


----------



## effeundici

_In the first phrase, there is the strong suggestion of an unstated agent who is doing the boring_

E questo dove va finire??


----------



## miri

Right, F11!  I hope somebody will answer!

In the meantime, let us try using the same pattern with a different verb:

Mary bores my guests. 
(I don't want to mention Mary) 
I hate having my guests bored. 

                          Mary insults my guests.
              (I don't want to mention Mary)
              I hate having my guests insulted.

Aren't both "bored" and "insulted" past participles?


----------



## brian

In those contexts, yes.


----------



## Einstein

brian8733 said:


> So point being: _I hate having my guests bored_ is missing an implied verb.


I don't think we need to talk about an implied verb. The construction is the same as _He had/got his nose broken in a fight_. It means his nose was broken by someone.
The active version is _to have someone *do* something,_ but
_I hate having my guests bored_ is the passive construction, generally _to have something done,_ which is a form in itself and doesn't imply _to have something_ _*be* done._


----------



## brian

What about:

_I hate having my patients sick for no apparent reason.
I hate having my shoes so tight.
I hate having my room dark.
I hate having my windows closed.
I hate having the lights on when I'm not home.
_
These are all adjectives, and my point was that _bored_ can be either a participle *or* an adjective, depending on context. So in a sentence like those above, without context, it's impossible to tell. Some of us might have one feeling about it, others another, depending on our dialects/idiolects. I personally felt it sounded more adjectival, like a sentence of the form _I am so bored!_ which does not imply any agent whatsoever but rather describes a state, just like _sick_ or _sleepy_.

Regarding your _had his nose broken in a fight_, consider this example:

_He had his hand taped up for the fight._

Again, this is ambiguous: it could mean he had/got his hand taped up just before the fight, or that during the fight his hand was taped up. Obviously, the meanings in the end are the same, but grammatically they are very different (participle in the former case, adjective in the latter case).

Your example with _broken_ is not so ambiguous because 1) you cheated and supplied the verb _got_ which forces it to be a participle , and 2) even without _got_, the semantics of the phrase does not really allow for the ambiguity that my _taped up_ sentence has--who goes into a fight with a broken nose? That is, the meaning is clear because of semantics, not grammar.


----------



## Einstein

Hmm... I don't think we're going to get out of this in a hurry.

Maybe we can go back to the original sentence,


> "Fortunately, I was alone. I don't mind being bored myself, *but I hate having my guests bored*."


and just give the active version:


> "Fortunately, I was alone. I don't mind being bored myself, *but I hate having someone bore my guests*."


Would that be a problem?


----------



## brian

No no, there's no problem there. Like I said to tomzenith above, in *this* context--given the full sentence & preceding sentences--it's clear that it's a participle.

My entire point (and argument) was that, outside of context, it's impossible to tell whether _bored_ is an adjective or a participle and that I personally would generally tend toward adjective--which could be an AE/Brian thing --like I did in this thread before the full paragraph was given.

So in other words, the original _bored_ sentence to me was just as ambiguous as  _He had his hand taped up for the fight._ Upon reading either sentence (outside of context), some speakers might lean one way, others another way; but the fact is that, grammatically, they are ambiguous (and thus can translate to Italian in at least 2 different ways). That's all I'm saying.


----------

