# Da parte di chi?



## sadina

Per favore, qualcuno mi può dire come si dice correttamente




in Inglese..DA PARTE DI CHI???
 ​


----------



## mzsweeett

sadina said:
			
		

> Per favore, qualcuno mi può dire come si dice correttamente
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in Inglese..DA PARTE DI CHI???
> ​


Welcome to WR!!

I think it means " the part by whom" but really more context is needed. English is a funny language.... it can be translated in many ways sometimes.

HIH,

Sweet T.


----------



## sadina

Thank You Very Much...!!!
You are very nice..


----------



## winnie

maybe i'm totally wrong but i'd suggest *'from whom' *only.

da parte di chi hai ricevuto i fiori?

from whom you get flowers?

is it so bad?

thanks!


----------



## Silvia B

I agree with Winnie .. but would it be wrong to simply say:
"from who?"

"from who did you get the flowers?"

Ciao!


----------



## sadina

grazie mille..
il fatto è;che ho appena iniziato a lavorare in una ditta e ricevo mille tel.al giorno da stranieri..e alla fine non capisco più neanch'io in che lingua parlo..in francese o tedesco poi... non ne parliamo!!!


----------



## DDT

sadina said:
			
		

> grazie mille..
> il fatto è;che ho appena iniziato a lavorare in una ditta e ricevo mille tel.al giorno da stranieri..e alla fine non capisco più neanch'io in che lingua parlo..in francese o tedesco poi... non ne parliamo!!!



I just edited the title of your thread in order to allow futur searches about the same topic.
Please have a look at WR rules and avoid "help" or similar in the titles for there are no priority threads here 

DDT


----------



## mzsweeett

Silvia B said:
			
		

> I agree with Winnie .. but would it be wrong to simply say:
> "from who?"
> 
> "from who did you get the flowers?"
> 
> Ciao!


_*From who*_ is incorrect. Although it is slightly shorter... it's incorrect. I can't exactly recall why this is. It has been a long time since I had to really think about these types of grammar rules. Perhaps someone here can recall and explain it. 

Sweet T.


----------



## Isotta

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> _*From who*_ is incorrect. Although it is slightly shorter... it's incorrect. I can't exactly recall why this is. It has been a long time since I had to really think about these types of grammar rules. Perhaps someone here can recall and explain it.
> 
> Sweet T.





 "From who" is incorrect because the preposition "from" takes the objective case object, which would be "whom." 
"Who" is a nominative/subjective case pronoun and therefore only acts as either a subject of a sentence/clause: "Who is at the door?" 
 or as a predicate nominative following a form of "to be": "Tell me who you are." (in theory, "you are who")

 The who/whom rule is one that we English speakers break often.

About "da parte di chi"--my Italian is not so strong, but perhaps it is the same as "c'est de la part de qui" in French. The expression is most often used when a person answers the phone and the caller asks to speak to someone else in the house. It means, "Who is calling?" or simply, "Who is it?" 

 Hope this helps!

 Isotta.


----------



## mzsweeett

Isotta said:
			
		

> "From who" is incorrect because the preposition "from" takes the objective case object, which would be "whom."
> "Who" is a nominative/subjective case pronoun and therefore only acts as either a subject of a sentence/clause: "Who is at the door?"
> or as a predicate nominative following a form of "to be": "Tell me who you are." (in theory, "you are who")
> 
> The who/whom rule is one that we English speakers break often.
> 
> About "da parte di chi"--my Italian is not so strong, but perhaps it is the same as "c'est de la part de qui" in French. The expression is most often used when a person answers the phone and the caller asks to speak to someone else in the house. It means, "Who is calling?" or simply, "Who is it?"
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 
> Isotta.


Wow..thoughts like this fizzle my aging brain!!  LOL!! Thanks for the explanation.  I honestly couldn't remember it.  Fact of the matter is AE is taught much differently than BE or even in Canada. AE is lazy with its rules and lazier yet in enforcing them. I am of a younger generation, yet have had to study harder for the same things the older generation does not.  I have come to learn so much about my own native tongue here from non-english speakers!!  What a gift this place is!!  

Sweet T.


----------



## mirandolina

The grammatically correct form would be
From whom did you get the flowers?

But what most people would say is
Who did you get the flowers from?

Even though they teach you not to put a preposition at the end of the sentence, you will find that in everyday speech it is very common.

For example:
Who did you go to London with?

The more correct form "With whom did you go to London?" sounds a bit awkward and hardly anyone would use it when speaking.






			
				mzsweeett said:
			
		

> _*From who*_ is incorrect. Although it is slightly shorter... it's incorrect. I can't exactly recall why this is. It has been a long time since I had to really think about these types of grammar rules. Perhaps someone here can recall and explain it.
> 
> Sweet T.


----------



## Isotta

Yes, it's true--the correct form can sound awkward sometimes. Still, it sounds lovely and refreshing when foreigners speak more correct English than do most Anglophones!

Isotta.


----------



## Isotta

Ahi, aspetta--

Perché non si usa “di cui”? È possibile usare “chi” dopo una preposizione?

Perdonate la mia ignoranza—ho appena cominciato imparare l'italiano!

Isotta.


----------



## Jana337

Isotta said:
			
		

> Ahi, aspetta--
> 
> Perché non si usa “di cui”? È possibile usare “chi” dopo una preposizione?
> 
> Perdonate la mia ignoranza—ho appena cominciato *a/ad* imparare l'italiano!
> 
> Isotta.



Ciao Isotta, 

puoi usare sia *di chi* (all'inizio della frase) sia *di cui *(come pronome relativo).

Esempi:

Di chi parlate, ragazzi?
Non conosco il cantante di cui (= del quale) avete parlato.

Jana


----------



## JasonNPato

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> _*From who*_ is incorrect. Although it is slightly shorter... it's incorrect. I can't exactly recall why this is. It has been a long time since I had to really think about these types of grammar rules. Perhaps someone here can recall and explain it.
> 
> Sweet T.


 
The easiest way to remember it is to replace it with him/her or he/she?
If it should be him/her, whom is right.
If it should be he/she, who would be right.

I find it easiest to remember that instead of trying to examine the sentence and check for "rules" and all that crap.


----------



## DDT

JasonNPato said:
			
		

> The easiest way to remember it is to replace it with him/her or he/she?
> If it should be him/her, whom is right.
> If it should be he/she, who would be right.
> 
> I find it easiest to remember that instead of trying to examine the sentence and check for "rules" and all that crap.



Great tip, Jason, thanks a million! 

DDT


----------



## Isotta

Grazie a Jana per la risposta, and also to Jason for making mine less rules-y.

Isotta.


----------



## cecil

>>I am of a younger generation, yet have had to study harder for the same things the older generation does not.

That's because we had real teachers (women who would become today scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc., but were limited in career choices in their younger years). Today in the US teachers, for the most part, originate from the bottom 25% of any given class. In addition, the administrative culture in American education promotes athletics instead of scholarship and, even worse, refuses to allow for different ability levels among students. The most common phrase spoken by administrators is "all students are the same." They must ALL be graduated from a university. Ho dovuto sfogare un po'. Chiedo scusa.

cecil


----------



## Isotta

cecil said:
			
		

> >>I am of a younger generation, yet have had to study harder for the same things the older generation does not.
> 
> That's because we had real teachers (women who would become today scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc., but were limited in career choices in their younger years). Today in the US teachers, for the most part, originate from the bottom 25% of any given class. In addition, the administrative culture in American education promotes athletics instead of scholarship and, even worse, refuses to allow for different ability levels among students. The most common phrase spoken by administrators is "all students are the same." They must ALL be graduated from a university. Ho dovuto sfogare un po'. Chiedo scusa.
> 
> cecil



Hmm.   Credo che la risposta di Cecil sia troppo generale. 


 Young at twenty and having attended school in America, I have no concept of Cecil's description of modern American education based on my experience. My American school fostered an unfettered intellectual and academic environment that I have not found elsewhere and that I still miss. 


 As always, it must depend on the individual's experience.


 Isotta.


----------



## cecil

Isotta said:
			
		

> Hmm. Credo che la risposta di Cecil sia troppo generale.
> 
> 
> Young at twenty and having attended school in America, I have no concept of Cecil's description of modern American education based on my experience. My American school fostered an unfettered intellectual and academic environment that I have not found elsewhere and that I still miss.
> 
> 
> As always, it must depend on the individual's experience.
> 
> 
> Isotta.


 
Isotta,

You either studied in a school in an upscale neighborhood or were very far from IL Sud degli USA. My experiences are continuous over a 42-year period.

cecil


----------



## mzsweeett

cecil said:
			
		

> Isotta,
> 
> You either studied in a school in an upscale neighborhood or were very far from *IL Sud degli USA*. My experiences are continuous over a 42-year period.
> 
> cecil


LOL!! Il Sud degli USA!!!! I must say however that I agree with Cecil....Isotta I wish I could have had an English education like that. You had to have attended a private school....at least by your description....In school we were taught things like what Jason had explained....not nearly as detailed as yours. I like your explanation, don't get me wrong on that...we just never had it in school. I never even heard of the subjunctive case in English before coming here. I am almost 30! English is pretty much lazy here in America...fairly well proven by Cecil.

Sweet T.


----------



## Isotta

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> LOL!! Il Sud degli USA!!!! I must say however that I agree with Cecil....Isotta I wish I could have had an English education like that. You had to have attended a private school....at least by your description....In school we were taught things like what Jason had explained....not nearly as detailed as yours. I like your explanation, don't get me wrong on that...we just never had it in school. I never even heard of the subjunctive case in English before coming here. I am almost 30! English is pretty much lazy here in America...fairly well proven by Cecil.
> 
> Sweet T.



Yes, I went to a well-known private school in the South. Still, I wouldn't write off the whole public school system. 

 I also would not suggest that Southerners are less well-educated. The South is vast, as is the North. 

 In terms of speech, I noticed that Southerners are acutely language-conscious and are interested in preserving their colorful speech. I found that many of them were well-versed in grammatical rules and stylistic nuances. They often chose to speak incorrectly for colorful or comedic effect, which led me to believe Southerners are veritable lovers of words. I liked their way of speaking and was surprised to find that the North makes fun of them for the way they talk.

 Anyway, the perameters of this are too broad, and if we continue, we will get into linguistics, and then DDT's capello will be cross with us for our digressions!

 Isotta.


----------



## Manuel_M

I hope you meant DDT's cappello!!


----------



## Isotta

Grazie! 

Isotta.


----------



## cecil

>>In terms of speech, I noticed that Southerners are acutely language-conscious and are interested in preserving their colorful speech.

Isotta,

You're absolutely right on this point--if you consider rap colorful speech.  You're also correct if you're speaking of the "aristocracy" among us, but that can be said of many countries.  As for our public schools, the average high school of about 160 teachers loses about 20 before Christmas--year after year. We've even begun to import Europeans untrained for teaching (most the best teachers are "untrained," but they know their subject). Surely that tells you something.

cecil


----------



## SmokyBear

Rap? What does an urban music style born on the streets of Brooklyn, NY, have to do with southern speech?


----------



## mzsweeett

SmokyBear said:
			
		

> Rap? What does an urban music style born on the streets of Brooklyn, NY, have to do with southern speech?


My dear, one would have to go there to understand. I have lived in many places for my young years....Urban Music has ALOT to do with it. Not all Urban Music comes from Brooklyn, NY either. I find that humorous...is this a common thought about the world? That all rap is borne of Brooklyn? How cute. Anyway, the way in which they speak...is thought to be "cool". The rappers are looked to as role models...grim I know but very true. If the kids find this cool then they do not find the rules for proper speech cool. Many teachers have stopped teaching properly for a more "accepting" approach and speaking/teaching in a more street/slang fashion. Trust me....you have to be around it for a while to understand. This directly correlates to this thread in that _*"da parte di chi"*_ basically means _*"from whom"*_ and not _*"from who"*_ as is commonly said because of _rules_...rules the we use but aren't taught why or don't remember them.  
I hope I haven't confused this.  If I have please send me a PM and I will try to explain better.

Sweet T.


----------



## Isotta

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> My dear, one would have to go there to understand. I have lived in many places for my young age [or "during my youth--I am not sure which you meant]....Urban Music has A LOT [two words] to do with it. Not all Urban Music comes from Brooklyn, NY, [comma after city, state, if the sentence continues] either. I find that humorous... Is this a common thought throughout the world? That all rap is borne of Brooklyn? How cute. Anyway, the way in which they speak... is thought to be "cool." [In American English, the period goes inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic] The rappers are looked to [in high speech, one would use "regarded" instead of "looked to"] as role models...grim, I know, but very true. If the kids find this cool then they do not find the rules for proper speech cool. Many teachers have stopped teaching properly in favor of a more "accepting" approach and have begun [to keep with the parallel structure syntactical rule] speaking/teaching in a more street/slang fashion. Trust me.... you have to be around it for a while to understand. This directly correlates to this thread in that _*"da parte di chi"*_ basically means _*"from whom"*_ and not _*"from who,"*_ as [unclear modifier] is commonly said because of _rules_...rules that we use even though no one has taught them to us, or, having learned the rules a long time ago, we have forgotten them.
> I hope I haven't confused this.  If I have please send me a PM and I will try to explain better.
> 
> Sweet T.



People don't follow all grammar rules, sometimes even if they have learned them. If there were no vulgarisms, language would not evolve into new ones. Speaking incorrectly is value-neutral and is natural. The downsides to speaking incorrectly are the cultural obstacles one encounters when applying for jobs, etc. 

Incorrect speech pervades every corner of America. Sometimes what one might deem incorrect has a linguistic explanation. For example, when someone says "ax" instead of "ask," their vulgarism is not entirely unfounded. In Old English two forms existed of the word, "acsian" and "ascian." The latter won, and now we say "ask," but the other remains a vestigial variant in the language. 

The term "standard English" comes with considerable baggage. If one were to follow every standard grammatical and syntactical rule, one would find that it is very difficult to speak. For example, the sentence, "Eight o'clock is when I want to go," is incorrect because the adverb clause introduced by "when" is being used in a nominative position. But one sounds silly saying, "Eight o'clock is the time at which I want to go." The English subjunctive is dying, and some sentences ending in prepositions no longer raise eyebrows. And it's natural. 

Thus we should remember not to make fun of dialects or of the way the members of this forum speak, because we are not perfect ourselves! Even educated native speakers make mistakes!

Isotta.

P.S. Agli Italiani--le correzioni che vi ho date sono seconda la mia impressione di Standard English, don't worry! And your corrections to my poor Italian are always welcome!


----------



## mzsweeett

Isotta said:
			
		

> Incorrect speech pervades every corner of America. Sometimes what one might deem incorrect has a linguistic explanation. For example, when someone says "ax" instead of "ask," their vulgarism is not entirely unfounded. In Old English two forms existed of the word, "acsian" and "ascian." The latter won, and now we say "ask," but the other remains a vestigial variant in the language.


 I hardly think that if you were to approach someone who says the word "ask" as "ax" that they would undestand your reasoning. They pronounce it that way due to their parents or friends saying it...not historical reasons.


			
				isotta said:
			
		

> The term "standard English" comes with considerable baggage. If one were to follow every standard grammatical and syntactical rule, one would find that it is very difficult to speak. For example, the sentence, "





			
				isotta said:
			
		

> Eight o'clock is when I want to go," is incorrect because the adverb clause introduced by "when" is being used in a nominative position. But one sounds silly saying, "Eight o'clock is the time at which I want to go." *The English subjunctive is dying, and some sentences ending in prepositions no longer raise eyebrows. And it's natural.*


 Exactly....AE is vastly different. You will hardly ever find someone who knows what the heck a subjunctive is... even my 42yr old sister didn't know it until she took Spanish!



			
				isotta said:
			
		

> Thus we should remember not to make fun of dialects or of the way the members of this forum speak, because we are not perfect ourselves! Even educated native speakers make mistakes!





			
				isotta said:
			
		

> Isotta.
> 
> P.S. Agli Italiani--le correzioni che vi ho date sono seconda la mia impressione di Standard English, don't worry! And your corrections to my poor Italian are always welcome!


As you see....there are a good deal of mistakes. Why do I have mistakes? I went to mainstream public school...not private where my education was paid for and much more elaborate. Most public schools do not teach properly!!! I do not know how many ways to say it the same way. I have 3 children in school, and find it hard to understand why they aren't taught at their young age basic rules. 

I did mean *for my young age*...not *during my youth.  *I mean that I am young and have lived in several places, both northern and southern states. So for my young age= to have lived in many places without being old. Get me???

A few of my errors were my brain going faster than my fingers.  Sorry about that one.

You make my short brief thoughts too long and drawn drawn out! I generally speak in shorter terms. Over here, if you get too correct people will tune you out and ask you to say it more basically.

I was not taught High English...just regular run of the mill basic public school English. Anything else I know I have learned outside of school...and a good deal here in WR only recently. Sorry.

Sweet T.


----------



## mzsweeett

Thanks for both the "common man" and "proper" explanations for the correct translation.

I humbly back out of this thread before anymore goes back and forth.  If any have a Q for me send it PM!!

G'nite

Sweet T.


----------



## Isotta

I make many mistakes, too! It's unreasonable to expect otherwise! I just don't like to attribute them to geography. I'd actually love to get rid of semi/unobserved rules. Nobody would stress over the English subjunctive if we got rid of it! No more worrying about commas, relative clauses, hypens, citation style guides...!!!
I'd

         e
                        v
            e
              n                              lov!                to write
                                                  e


a ll 
                                      ovr                         the 
                                         e                                      G E!!!
                                                                            P A

ok, maybe getting a little carried away? 

Respectfully yours,

Isotta.


----------



## SmokyBear

mzsweeett said:
			
		

> My dear, one would have to go there to understand. I have lived in many places for my young years....Urban Music has ALOT to do with it. Not all Urban Music comes from Brooklyn, NY either. I find that humorous...is this a common thought about the world? That all rap is borne of Brooklyn? How cute.


Go where? The southern US? I've been here for 40+ years, since the day I was born. I think I understand southern speech rather well.

Whoever said ALL rap music came from Brooklyn? Not me! All I said was that the genre of music called rap was born on the streets of Brooklyn. I don't know what's so cute about repeating something I saw on a cable TV show about the history of rap. My facts may be wrong, but I assumed it was true when I heard them say that rap started with kids on the streets in Brooklyn. Is it also humorous that jazz started in New Orleans and spread across the country from there? Is it cute that the blues started in the Mississippi delta and spread to Memphis, St. Louis and Chicago?


			
				mzsweeett said:
			
		

> Anyway, the way in which they speak...is thought to be "cool". The rappers are looked to as role models...grim I know but very true. If the kids find this cool then they do not find the rules for proper speech cool. Many teachers have stopped teaching properly for a more "accepting" approach and speaking/teaching in a more street/slang fashion.


Cecil's comment seemed to imply that all southerners speak like rappers. (My apologies, Cecil, if my inference is incorrect.) I'm well aware of the popularity of rap in the south, but I also know that rap is equally popular in the north, west and all over the country. My only point was that rap is not even native to the south, which is the idea I got from Cecil's comment. I didn't say, or even imply that all rap music comes from Brooklyn, only that it is the birthplace from which the genre spread throughout the country. 


			
				mzsweeett said:
			
		

> Trust me....you have to be around it for a while to understand.


Is 15 years a while? I've worked at juvenile court for that long, and I've talked with and listened to a number of inner city kids, as well as suburban kids who are wannabees. So I'm quite familiar with how cool rappers are with kids these days. I'm no fan of rap, but I've seen a couple of kids who seemed as talented at rapping as they were at breaking into cars...well, I guess that's not true. If they had any car theft talent, they wouldn't have been caught and brought to juvenile court!  

Anyway, this whole post is way off subject, I know, and I'm sorry for that. And I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. It just seemed that you missed my original point, which was probably my fault for not communicating it better. My apologies for that! (Do I still get my coffee for the longshoreman thingy? )


----------



## cecil

>>Cecil's comment seemed to imply that all southerners speak like rappers. (My apologies, Cecil, if my inference is incorrect.) I'm well aware of the popularity of rap in the south, but I also know that rap is equally popular in the north, west and all over the country. My only point was that rap is not even native to the south, which is the idea I got from Cecil's comment. 

SmokyBear,

I didn't mean to imply either conclusion, but don't worry about it. I'm just a little surprised that we can talk about an issue that is not directly related to translations. I rather like knowing with whom I'm speaking.

cecil


----------



## lsp

cecil said:
			
		

> I'm just a little surprised that we can talk about an issue that is not directly related to translations. I rather like knowing with whom I'm speaking.
> 
> cecil


Our mod must be on holiday


----------



## cecil

lsp said:
			
		

> Our mod must be on holiday


 
Isp,

L'unica spiegazione. Dobbiamo approfittare dell'occasione. 

cecil


----------



## walnut

Well, DDT is on holiday, but I'm not.
The discussion was language related, responsible and mature.  It went OT, but... it was interesting. I'm keeping this thread where it is, and rely on your contribute, as usual, for future discussions: please respect topics and avoid chatting - it costs a lot of work, as you all know, to maintain a balanced mood in the forums -, and please open a new thread in Culture when a new, general topic pops up.  

Grazie per la collaborazione, Walnut


----------

