# ce - ci - ne



## Alxmrphi

Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it) are treated like accusative pronouns for word-order purposes. (Note that _ci_, the first person plural accusative, is easy to confuse with _ci_, the accusative particle, but they're not the same.

Can someone tell me what this means in English please?


----------



## Jana337

Alex_Murphy said:


> Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it) are treated like accusative pronouns for word-order purposes.
> 
> Can someone tell me what this means in English please?


Te *lo* dirò. _"Lo" is an accusative pronoun (direct object, loosely speaking)._
Me *ne* accorgerò. "_Ne" is where "lo" would be._
Ti *ci* sei abituata? _Idem.
_


> Note that _ci_, the first person plural accusative, is easy to confuse with _ci_, the accusative particle, but they're not the same.


*Ce* l'ha fatto. = L'ha fatto a noi.
Mi *ci* sento bene.

I think they want you to distinguish between the two "ci" but I have no idea as to why they used the words they used.  Oh well, I may be too tired. 

Jana


----------



## Necsus

Alex - have a look at this thread...
Jana - I don't know, maybe it is useful to merge them?


----------



## Jana337

Necsus said:


> Alex - have a look at this thread...
> Jana - I don't know, maybe it is useful to merge them?


I don't think so, the question Alex asked deals with the position of the particles, which is a more advanced stuff than their meaning.

What is your interpretation of the sentence I could not decipher? 

Jana


----------



## Necsus

As I didn't understand very well what the Alex question was, I said him to have a look at the other post because there I said when 'ci' is enclitic (regarding the position of the particle)...


----------



## cas29

Alex_Murphy said:


> Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it) are treated like accusative pronouns for word-order purposes. (Note that _ci_, the first person plural accusative, is easy to confuse with _ci_, the accusative particle, but they're not the same.
> 
> Can someone tell me what this means in English please?


 
accusative case uses nouns pronouns and adjectives to expresse the object of an action or the goal of a motion. (we , he, they, here there)

First person plural accusative "we"
accusative particle "it"

I agree that it is hard to figure out exactly what "ci" means ....for some reason I have not encountered too many problems with "ne".


----------



## pimpiepooh

Alex_Murphy said:


> Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it) are treated like accusative pronouns for word-order purposes.
> "Vieni ad aiutarci?" -> here you use "ci" to indicate the object (complemento oggetto) of the phrase (Who do you have to help? Us)
> "Ho molti cd a casa. Ne porterò un po'" -> in the second phrase, you use "ne" to indicate the object (cds)
> 
> 
> (Note that _ci_, the first person plural accusative, is easy to confuse with _ci_, the accusative particle -> some examples? Maybe with an example I can try to explain the difference, but I don't understand what particle it's talking about  ..., but they're not the same.
> 
> Can someone tell me what this means in English please?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok, with an explanation of examples, can someone tell me what they mean, I will have an attempt:

1)  Pronominal particles :

object pronouns... "Ci laviamo" etc

2)  accusative pronouns ??? (how is an object pronoun, this, whatever this means)

3) 

Ugh I've just read through it again and it makes absolutely no sense to me, surely it must make some sense to someone here??


----------



## pimpiepooh

Alex_Murphy said:


> Ok, with an explanation of examples, can someone tell me what they mean, I will have an attempt:
> 
> 1) Pronominal particles :
> 
> object pronouns... "Ci laviamo" etc -> this is a reflexive form, not an objective one.
> 
> 2) accusative pronouns ??? (how is an object pronoun, this, whatever this means) -> "Vieni ad aiutarci?" or "Ho molti cd a casa. Ne porterò un po'", this is an accusative pronoun (or object pronoun, that are the same thing). "Accusative" is the latin case (do you know Latin? If not, it's a bit difficult to explain) that indicate the English "object". They're exactly the same thing.
> 
> 3)
> 
> Ugh I've just read through it again and it makes absolutely no sense to me, surely it must make some sense to someone here??


----------



## Necsus

Sorry, Alex, I'm not sure to understand...
'Ci' is a pronominal particle, it can be direct (ci ha visto=ha visto noi) or indirect object (ci scrivono=scrivono a noi), then it can also have other meanings, see the post in the other thread.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I feel like a right idiot for not understanding this, lol

Pimpiepooh, can you use different examples, simpler ones and explain in more and simpler detail, I'm sorry!


----------



## Necsus

Alex, I'm feeling like idiot too for not understanding exactly your question..! Can you try to explain it again?


----------



## pimpiepooh

Ok, but you both don't feel idiot  I didn't want this at all 

So, more examples...
"Vieni ad aiutarci?" (Can you come and help us?) -> that "us" is the Italian "ci", it's the object = the accusative case. 
It's the same thing as, for example, "Tom eats the apple" -> the apple = us, though "the apple" is a substantive and "us" a pronoun, but they're both the object of the sentence.

"Puoi telefonarci stasera" is different, because it can be translated, without using the pronoun, as "puoi telefonare a noi stasera", and so it becomes an indirect object (in Italian, complemento di termine). In my opinion, the differences you tried to understand was this.

There is another "ci", for example "ci siamo", "ci torneremo, quella città è bellissima", but that's another thing. It indicates a place, in Italian the complemento di luogo.

I said everything came to mind, I hope that's all and that's clear now! 
If not, ask, there's no problem!


----------



## Necsus

pimpiepooh said:
			
		

> I said everything came to mind, I hope that's all and that's clear now!
> If not, ask, there's no problem!


Well, in that case... welcome to the club!


----------



## pimpiepooh

It's so cool all this! We are speaking English though we are both Italian natives  ! I'm so happy !
Anyway, Necsus (or Nexus??  ) thanks for your welcome!
Did you both understand everything?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well you have to speak English to help me!
Your post did help.
What I got from your post was...

the accusative case = a direct object
so what is an "accusative participle"? = The one that means "here/there" ?

Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it) 
I'm guessing that "pronomial" means "to/of it".

And this sentence:



> (Note that _ci_, the first person plural accusative, is easy to confuse with _ci_, the accusative particle, but they're not the same.


...this means that, although "ci" is easy to confuse with "because they both go before the verb", but "ci" isn't always an "accusative pronoun", meaning a direct object (to us)... but it also means "here/there" ?

I really hope I have the basics of it, here.

We all know "Ci" can be so many different things in Italian.
Is this paragraph just an extremely complicated way of saying 

*"Ci andiamo?" (Do we go there?) = "ci" = accusative participle
"Ci telefoneranno?" (Will they phone us?) = "ci"  accusative pronoun (1st person plural accusative)*

Please be correct! Please be correct!


----------



## Necsus

Ciao Alex, rieccomi qui...


			
				Alex_Murphy said:
			
		

> what is an "accusative participle"? = The one that means "here/there" ?
> Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it)
> I'm guessing that "pronomial" means "to/of it".
> *"Ci andiamo?" (Do we go there?) = "ci" = accusative participle => locative adverb *(=andiamo lì?)
> *"Ci telefoneranno?" (Will they phone us?) = "ci" accusative pronoun (1st person plural accusative)* *=> indirect object* (=telefoneranno a noi)


I'm sorry, but I don't know why you use the term 'accusative', that's the fourth case of Latin declension, in Italian we call it 'complemento oggetto', in English I think it's simply 'direct object', so I don't know what 'accusative participle' means either…
'Pronominal particles' are simply 'unaccented' forms of pronouns (see below), that have function of object.
Well, I'll try now to explain it starting from afar, if my English helps me…

The personal pronouns (pronomi personali) replace (first) names, they can have function of *subject* (soggetto):
*io, tu, lu*i/*lei*/(*egli*/*ella*/*esso*/*essa*)*, noi, voi, loro*/(*essi*/*esse*) - it's often possible to omit them (_Noi restiamo qui_).
Then they have an '*accented form*' (forma tonica), in which they have function of direct or indirect *object* (complemento oggetto o di termine):
*me, **te, lui*/*lei*/*sé* (reflexive), *noi, voi, loro* - they are also used for emphasis; after 'come', 'quanto'; in exclamations; as predicate (_Parlava di noi; Ha chiamato noi [,non voi]; Sono forti quanto noi; Beati noi!; Se voi foste noi_).
And then they have an '*unaccented form*' (forma atona - the monosyllables are not stressed, so they lean _(?)_ on the following word [proclitic], or on the previous word [enclitic, with infinitives, gerunds, and imperatives]), in which they have function of *direct* *object *(complemento oggetto):
*mi, ti, lo*/*la, ci, vi, li*/*le* - they receive the action of the verb directly; in a compound tense the past participle agrees with the direct object pronoun (_Ci volevano ringraziare_);
or function of *indirect object* (complemento di termine):
*mi, ti, gli*/*le, ci vi, loro* - they are always preceded by a preposition, and they usually precede the verb, except 'loro' (_Non ci diede nulla_).
Finally there are combined (double) pronouns (pronomi combinati):
me, te, glie, ce, ve -lo/la/li/le - the final 'i' of indirect object pronouns becomes 'e'; the indirect object pronoun precedes the direct object pronoun (_Avrebbe dovuto dircelo_).
'*Ci*' also is a locative adverb (_ci siamo andati_), a pleonastic particle (_C__'è; Ci sono__)_; a demonstrative pronoun (= di ciò, a ciò, in ciò, su ciò, da ciò - _Ci penserò_); an intensifier in idioms (_Ci vuole; Non ci vede bene_).
I hope it helps, this time...


----------



## Alxmrphi

I wasn't sure of the words but pimpiepooh seemed to understand them so I wanted him to tell me if I was right.
Your post makes perfect sense to me, Thanks! It's just these terms I'd like pimpiepooh to correct me, I might PM him and ask him to come and answer me hehehe.


----------



## Necsus

Okay. Let me know...


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Alex_Murphy said:


> Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it) are treated like accusative pronouns for word-order purposes. (Note that _ci_, the first person plural accusative, is easy to confuse with _ci_, the accusative particle, but they're not the same.
> 
> Can someone tell me what this means in English please?



As no one's actually answered the original question (!), all it really means is that ci/ce/ne are 'attached' to the verb in identical ways to the object pronouns mi/ti/lo/la/ci/vi etc.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok but is this right then:

*"Ci andiamo?" (Do we go there?) = "ci" = accusative participle
"Ci telefoneranno?" (Will they phone us?) = "ci"  accusative pronoun (1st person plural accusative)*


----------



## pimpiepooh

Alex_Murphy said:


> Well you have to speak English to help me!
> Your post did help.
> What I got from your post was...
> 
> the accusative case = a direct object
> so what is an "accusative participle"? = The one that means "here/there" ? No, the one that means "here, there" is not an accusative particle, it's a place adverb, because it indicates a place.
> 
> Pronominal particles _ce_/_ci_ (to it) and _ne_ (of it)
> I'm guessing that "pronominal" means "to/of it".
> 
> "pronominal"=related to a pronoun, so I'll take the same example:
> 
> Vieni ad aiutarci? = Vieni ad aiutare noi? = Can you come and help us? -> this is a direct object;
> 
> "Puoi telefonarci?" = "puoi telefonare A NOI?" = "Can you phone us?" -> this is an indirect object.
> 
> To say it differently, when you translate from English to Italian, you must try to translate using prepositions (di, a, da, in, con, su, per, tra, fra); if the translation needs a preposition it isn't a direct object, but an indirect one.
> 
> 
> 
> And this sentence:
> 
> ...this means that, although "ci" is easy to confuse with "because they both go before the verb", but "ci" isn't always an "accusative pronoun", meaning a direct object (to us)... but it also means "here/there" ?
> 
> Yes, "ci" can also be used to indicate a place, so it can also mean "here" or "there", for example "Ci andremo" = "We'll go there", and when you use "ci" with this meaning, it's not a pronominal particle, but a place adverb.
> 
> 
> I really hope I have the basics of it, here.
> 
> We all know "Ci" can be so many different things in Italian.
> Is this paragraph just an extremely complicated way of saying
> 
> *"Ci andiamo?" (Do we go there?) = "ci" = accusative participle **->* place adverb
> *"Ci telefoneranno?" (Will they phone us?) = "ci" accusative pronoun (1st person plural accusative)* -> in Italian, it's not a direct object (=complemento oggetto), but an indirect object (=complemento di termine -> "telefoneranno A NOI")
> 
> Please be correct! Please be correct!


 

I hope it's clear... Sorry but I didn't use pc during this weekend... So I couldn't answer before 
Ah... I have to correct you, Alex -> "I might pm him -> her"


----------



## Alxmrphi

Sorry, I always assume masculine, as does your language
I officially give up on this topic.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Alex_Murphy said:


> Sorry, I always assume masculine, as does your language
> I officially give up on this topic.



But at least you got your question answered (by me), eh?!


----------



## Akire72

When I was in Junior High School I wondered why the hell my Itaian teacher made us write hundreds of pages of grammatical analysis (analisi grammaticale) and sentence analysis (analisi del periodo). In High School I hated my Latin classes and wondered what would they be useful for... As an adult polyglot I now understand how *wonderful* Italian school was! Without Latin and grammatical analysis now I wouldn't be able to tell an adverb from a noun (I was absolutely shocked when I heard a girl in a UK University do this mistake in a class of Teaching English as a Foreign Language). 

pronominal comes from Latin and stands for *pro nomen*, i.e. in the place of a noun (a particle that replaces a noun), adverb comes from *ad verbum*, i.e. next to the verb


----------



## pimpiepooh

Akire72 said:


> When I was in Junior High School I wondered why the hell my Itaian teacher made us write hundreds of pages of grammatical analysis (analisi grammaticale) and sentence analysis (analisi del periodo). In High School I hated my Latin classes and wondered what would they be useful for... As an adult polyglot I now understand how *wonderful* Italian school was! Without Latin and grammatical analysis now I wouldn't be able to tell an adverb from a noun (I was absolutely shocked when I heard a girl in a UK University do this mistake in a class of Teaching English as a Foreign Language).
> 
> pronominal comes from Latin and stands for *pro nomen*, i.e. in the place of a noun (a particle that replaces a noun), adverb comes from *ad verbum*, i.e. next to the verb


 
  Great answer, Akire! I agree!


----------



## Akire72

Thanks Pimpie...

Alex come hai potuto *prendere* Pimpiepooh *per* un ragazzo, è così ovvio che sia una ragazza!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Akire72 said:


> pronominal comes from Latin and stands for *pro nomen*, i.e. in the place of a noun (a particle that replaces a noun)



Although even the Romans hadn't heard of 'noun phrases' and 'N bars', which are what a pronoun really replaces


----------



## mateintwo

I find it at times difficult knowing which word to use in Italian for *it* in *a general sense*. It seems to entirely depend on the verb that is used and without any obvious reason: “*Lo* so ma non *ci* credo. Smetti*la! *Pianta*la!”. “*Non (ci) riesco a capire perché si deve dire non posso farl*o *oppure no *ci* riesco”.

Since the dictionaries do not show what pronoun to use for a specific verb to express the *general meaning of* *it*, I try to make my own list as I go along listening to TV and reading.

Most verbs is used with* Lo*. For example:
*Lo+*dire/fare/spiegare/accettare/meritare/promettere/immaginare/....... 

For *La *I only wrote down *La+*smettere/piantare/sbrigare.

*Ci* is more common than La and I have written *Ci*+contare/riuscire/capire/riflettere/scommettere/cascare/abituare/trovare

*Lo and Ci* I wrote down for both “provare, pensare” and even “credere” although most often credere is used with *ci. *Do *“crederlo”* and these verbs have a specific use/meaning different when *lo* is used instead of *ci?* or maybe there is a regional difference? 

Also if you see some common verbs missing that require the usage of *“ci “*or* ‘’la” *as a direct pronoun with the general meaning of it, please tell me. (I am not looking for pronominal verbs such as “avercela, godersela” which are listed on certain websites, for example: http://www.locuta.com/verbpart.html (has an extensive listing of pronominal verbs).


----------



## stella_maris_74

Hi Mateintwo,
I am afraid that there is no univocal translation for "the general meaning of 'it'".
You will have to learn from examples as you find them.
As a general rule, 
"lo" and "la" are direct object pronouns, so used when the "it" is direct object of the Italian verb (regardless of what the English one takes).
"ci" is indirect object, and can mean "with it, about it, there", and a lot of other things.

For example, "pensare" takes them all:

ci penso io = I'll see to it
Cerco di non pensarci = I try not to think about it
Come la pensi? = What's your opinion?
Pensi che sia stupido? No, non lo penso = Do you think I'm stupid? No, I don't think so.

"Capire" also takes them all:

L'hai capita finalmente! (la) = You got it at last!
Non riesco a capirlo = I can't understand it.
Non ci capisco niente = I don't understand anything about it.

I could go on listing further exemples, but they would be so many that it would probably confuse you even more!

ciao 

dani


----------



## BlueWolf

mateintwo said:


> I find it at times difficult knowing which word to use in Italian for *it* in *a general sense*. It seems to entirely depend on the verb that is used and without any obvious reason: “*Lo* so ma non *ci* credo. Smetti*la! *Pianta*la!”. “*Non (ci) riesco a capire perché si deve dire non posso farl*o *oppure no *ci* riesco”.
> 
> Since the dictionaries do not show what pronoun to use for a specific verb to express the *general meaning of* *it*, I try to make my own list as I go along listening to TV and reading.
> 
> Most verbs is used with* Lo*. For example:
> *Lo+*dire/fare/spiegare/accettare/meritare/promettere/immaginare/.......
> 
> For *La *I only wrote down *La+*smettere/piantare/sbrigare.
> 
> *Ci* is more common than La and I have written *Ci*+contare/riuscire/capire/riflettere/scommettere/cascare/abituare/trovare
> 
> *Lo and Ci* I wrote down for both “provare, pensare” and even “credere” although most often credere is used with *ci. *Do *“crederlo”* and these verbs have a specific use/meaning different when *lo* is used instead of *ci?* or maybe there is a regional difference?
> 
> Also if you see some common verbs missing that require the usage of *“ci “*or* ‘’la” *as a direct pronoun with the general meaning of it, please tell me. (I am not looking for pronominal verbs such as “avercela, godersela” which are listed on certain websites, for example: http://www.locuta.com/verbpart.html (has an extensive listing of pronominal verbs).



Ci is often used not as direct object. Taking the verbs you listed:
Ci conto! = Conto *su* ciò (I count on it) (while Li ho contati = I counted them)
Non ci riesco = Non riesco *a* fare quella cosa. (while Lo riesco a capire = I can understand it)
Non ci capisco niente = Non capisco niente *di* ciò. (while L'ho capito = I understood it)
Ci ho riflettuto = Ho riflettuto *su* ciò.
Ci scommetto = Scommetto *su* ciò. (while L'ho scommesso, lo means the thing you bet, while ci the thing _on which_ you bet)
Mi ci abituerò = Mi abituerò *a* ciò. (while Lo abitueranno a lavorare sodo = They'll make him get used to working hard)

In the last verb, ci isn't used as _it_ at all, it means _there_. In fact L'ho trovato = I found it.

I know I didn't completely answered your questions, but I hope I've helped.


----------



## cscarfo

After some head scratching, I think I can affirm that they are just idiomatic, so don't expect a formal rule.
"Smettila! Piantala!" or "Finiscila!" are idiomatic. "Smettilo! Piantalo!", "Smetti! Pianta!", "Smetti ciò! etc, do not exist
"Non *ci* credo" can be replaced by the more formal "Non *lo* credo".
"Ci penso io" ("I'll take care of that") is idiomatic. "Lo penso io" doesn't have the same meaning:
Ex. "Ma chi pensa che Giorgio è simpatico?" "Lo penso io"
Almost the same with provare* + ci
*
Provar*ci* is not the same as provar*lo.
*Ex. "Vai alla riunione?" "Non so se ho il tempo, *ci* provo"
"Funziona quell'apparecchio?" "Adesso *lo* provo"

Along the same lines is the idiomatic "Provar*ci *con (una persona)", which is quite different from "Provare (una persona)". 

Ciao


----------



## Momimos

Hi,
actually the italian language is strange sometimes. Yet note that the use of "lo" instead of "ci" with the meaning of "it" is very similar; for both you indicate something you've talked about before, yet please note that in the main cases, for those verbs that express the meaning of "it" with both "Ci" and "lo", there is a slight difference  since "lo" indicates a precise masculine object or person -which turns into "la" when object or person are feminine-, while "ci" is something referred to an action. 
For example if you say"I would like to try this cake" than you would say in english "I would like to try it", which in italian would be "Mi piacerebbe provarlo" and not "provarci"; while if you say "I would like to try palying football" you'd say "I would like to try doing it" which in italian would be "Vorrei provare a giocare a football" "Vorrei provarci" and not "provarlo". "crederlo" and "crederci" is quite the same. "pensarlo" is only referred to a masculine person or an object you're thinking of, while "pensarci" is referred to anything: thinking about doing something, about a situation, about a person.


----------



## Momimos

Hi,
actually the italian language is strange sometimes. Yet note that the use of "lo" instead of "ci" with the meaning of "it" is very similar; for both you indicate something you've talked about before, yet please note that in the main cases, for those verbs that express the meaning of "it" with both "Ci" and "lo", there is a slight difference since "lo" indicates a precise masculine object or person -which turns into "la" when object or person are feminine-, while "ci" is something referred to an action. 
For example if you say"I would like to try this cake" than you would say in english "I would like to try it", which in italian would be "Mi piacerebbe provarlo" and not "provarci"; while if you say "I would like to try palying football" you'd say "I would like to try doing it" which in italian would be "Vorrei provare a giocare a football" "Vorrei provarci" and not "provarlo". "crederlo" and "crederci" is quite the same. "pensarlo" is only referred to a masculine person or an object you're thinking of, while "pensarci" is referred to anything: thinking about doing something, about a situation, about a person.


----------



## solaretermico

Prendo una tua frase per vedere di capirci (!) un po' qualcosa: *“*Non (ci) riesco a capire perché si deve dire non posso farl*o *oppure non *ci* riesco”.

- Non riesco a capire *qualcosa* o *qualcuno* (il greco, perché si deve fare così, il professore quando spiega, etc.)
- Non *ci* riesco. (In riferimento a qualcosa già detta: "Riesci a capire? No, non *ci* riesco." "Prova a fare una torta, *ci* riesci? Sì, so far*la*, *ci *riesco." => fare: transitivo, riuscire: intransitivo)

- due esempi di stella maris 74: 
Non riesco a capirlo = I can't understand it.
Non ci capisco niente = I don't understand anything about it.

"I can't understand it" per sarebbe meglio tradurlo: "non capisco" oppure "non riesco a capire". "Non riesco a capir*lo*" lo userei più per tradurre "I can't understand *him*"
"Non *ci* capisco *niente/un granché*" da un'idea globale, di tutto un argomento che abbiamo comunque già citato (del football, della matematica...)
Ricapitolando:
"Non capisco niente di matematica - Non *ci* capisco niente"
"Quando il professore spiega, non *lo* capisco"
Non so se ti sono stato d'aiuto


----------



## mateintwo

Thanks to all of you for your input. I knew the issue was quite wide and complicated but reading your answers have given me more of understanding. But this is one of the issues that you do not find discussed in most grammar books (if any) and to an English (or Swedish) speaker it is hard to comprehend there doesn’t exist one word only for it.

Of course the most puzzling is that sometimes in Italian you seem to use "la" instead of "lo" per examples given:
Come la pensi? = What's your opinion?
L'hai capita finalmente! (la) = You got it at last
Is this some kind of short way of saying la/questa cosa?


----------



## solaretermico

Quest'ultima domanda è facile: dipende da cosa si sottointende con quel "la": nei casi che proponi come esempio è sottinteso "la questione", "la faccenda", o più semplicemente "la cosa"... tutti termini femminili e quindi: "la"


----------



## Cnaeius

mateintwo said:


> Thanks to all of you for your input. I knew the issue was quite wide and complicated but reading your answers have given me more of understanding. But this is one of the issues that you do not find discussed in most grammar books (if any) and to an English (or Swedish) speaker it is hard to comprehend there doesn’t exist one word only for it.
> 
> Of course the most puzzling is that sometimes in Italian you seem to use "la" instead of "lo" per examples given:
> Come la pensi? = What's your opinion?
> L'hai capita finalmente! (la) = You got it at last
> Is this some kind of short way of saying la/questa cosa?


 
As someone has already said, the difference of use between la/lo and ci is not idiomatic at all. The first ones are direct object pronoun, the second is represents always other complements, and it is a rule. i think that directly translating in English can be misleading
Then we can say that "ci", as not-direct complement, has a lot of meanings and this can be idiomatic.
As you argued when it is used "la", "questa cosa" is meant, and the feminine gender of cosa is maintained. When it is used "lo", it is simply a sort of neuter object, that is equal to the masculine. 
Ciao


----------



## mateintwo

Since the speaker can have different words in his head when saying these phrases would it be right or at least not be misunderstood if I were to say: 

Come *lo* pensi? = What do you think of this problem (il problema) or subject matter (l’argomento)?

L'hai capit*o* finalmente! = You got it at last? You understood finally the problem!

Or is *“La”* so engrained in the Italian language in these kinds of expressions that one should/must always implicitly refer to la questione/la faccenda or another feminine common word?


----------



## virgilio

mateintwo,
              May I add just a thought to the answers given above and to only one of your queries.
To some extent it is a question of what words *actually* *mean*.
For example, you wrote: "“*Lo* so ma non *ci* credo"
Why "ci" with "credo" instead of the expected "lo"?
The verb "credo" goes all the way back to Latin (the language which invented the word "Italia") and it is a combination of two ideas:
(1) "cre" (increase, enhancement) - seen for example in "crescere" - to grow.
(2) dare (to give, to put)
Therefore at its most basic - and perhaps even unconscious -level. "credo" means "I give increase"
We use "believe" as a translation because, when you believe somebody,  you "give increase" to that person - even if only by adding one to the number of people thinking what he says to be true.
Hence an accusative "lo" or "la" would be inappropriate with "credere", which plainly calls for a 'dative' of some kind.

Just a thought.
Virgilio


----------



## mateintwo

Thanks that’s an interesting tale. I “can give increase” *to* it. I am starting to see the difference in the use of *ci* versus *lo/la* after all good answers on this thread.

When you said it is a question of what words *actually* *mean*, it reminded me of Bill Clinton when he so famously or shamelessly (depending on view) said while questioned under oath in the Monica Lewinsky affair: It depends what the meaning of the word *is, is*?

Do you or anyone else have an answer for me regarding the question if I could say:
Come *lo* pensi/ L'hai capit*o* finalmente (with *Lo* standing for *it* in a general sense).


----------



## virgilio

mateintwo,
               If "it" refers to any actual substantive with an established gender (e.g. il ponte, la casa), then it would be "lo" (for "ponte") or "la" (for "casa").
e.g.
A: Dov'è  la mia chiave?
B: La vedo lì sul tavolino

A:Hai visto il professore di Carlo?
B: Sì, lo vidi ieri sera.

However, if "it" means something abstract, such as something just said or an idea just put forward - where no particular substantive (and therefore no particular gender) is in the speaker's mind, "lo" is normally used, which some may claim is masculine but I suspect is actually a relic of the old Latin neuter "illud"

One further postscript to the "cre-do" notion above, the Latin use of "credere" treated the person believed as dative and thing believed as the direct object (accusative). Perhaps some kind native would confirm whether this happens in modern Italian.
In other words, could "Ti credo questo" mean "I believe you when you say this" ?

Thank you.
Virgilio


----------



## francescaf

virgilio said:


> mateintwo,
> If "it" refers to any actual substantive with an established gender (e.g. il ponte, la casa), then it would be "lo" (for "ponte") or "la" (for "casa").
> e.g.
> A: Dov'è  la mia chiave?
> B: La vedo lì sul tavolino
> 
> A:Hai visto il professore di Carlo?
> B: Sì, lo vidi ieri sera.
> 
> However, if "it" means something abstract, such as something just said or an idea just put forward - where no particular substantive (and therefore no particular gender) is in the speaker's mind, "lo" is normally used, which some may claim is masculine but I suspect is actually a relic of the old Latin neuter "illud"
> 
> One further postscript to the "cre-do" notion above, the Latin use of "credere" treated the person believed as dative and thing believed as the direct object (accusative). Perhaps some kind native would confirm whether this happens in modern Italian.
> In other words, could "Ti credo questo" mean "I believe you when you say this" ?
> 
> Thank you.
> Virgilio



First of all let me say how lovely it is to find out so much about my language that I didn't even suspect, thank you!
And everything you say is perfect, but maybe you'd like to know that "ti credo questo" doesn't really exist. 
You can maybe say "In questo (che dici), ti credo" or something like that, and means "About this, I believe you".

"Ti credo" is definitely "I believe you": while "sapere" is only a transitive verb, "credere" can be both a transitive and an intransitive verb, but in this case ... transitive for sure! 
Nowadays we still say "Non lo credo possibile" sometimes (and that's accusative), and in old Italian (we might call it "ottocentesco"), or in some old fashioned book you can still find "Non lo credo".
Does all of this go off the track? In this case, oops, forgive me!


----------



## virgilio

francescaf,
               Thank you very much for your very kind words and also for the information about the use of "credere"
Re "sapere" in Latin "to taste" so perhaps "homo sapiens" should be translated "the gourmet"!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## cscarfo

francescaf said:


> First of all let me say how lovely it is to find out so much about my language that I didn't even suspect, thank you!
> And everything you say is perfect, but maybe you'd like to know that "ti credo questo" doesn't really exist.
> You can maybe say "In questo (che dici), ti credo" or something like that, and means "About this, I believe you".
> 
> "Ti credo" is definitely "I believe you": while "sapere" is only a transitive verb, "credere" can be both a transitive and an intransitive verb, but in this case ... transitive for sure!
> Nowadays we still say "Non lo credo possibile" sometimes (and that's accusative), and in old Italian (we might call it "ottocentesco"), or in some old fashioned book you can still find "Non lo credo".
> Does all of this go off the track? In this case, oops, forgive me!




Francescaf,
my hair is grey, but I don't think I qualify for "ottocentesco" when I say "Non lo credo". It's more assertive than "Non credo", and still largely used.
Ciao


----------



## francescaf

cscarfo said:


> Francescaf,
> my hair is grey, but I don't think I qualify for "ottocentesco" when I say "Non lo credo". It's more assertive than "Non credo", and still largely used.
> Ciao



Davvero? Ma allora devi essere un aristocratico!  Dici anche "Mi sono destato bene questa mattina"? Sto scherzando! Mi fa piacere che si usi dalle tue parti. Io non credo di averlo mai sentito dire...
Ciao!


----------



## Giannaclaudia

cscarfo said:


> Francescaf,
> my hair is grey, but I don't think I qualify for "ottocentesco" when I say "Non lo credo". It's more assertive than "Non credo", and still largely used.
> Ciao


 

Concordo. Anche con i miei alunni, in classe, mi capita di rispondere:  "Non lo credo proprio!";    sarà perchè mi tingo i capelli che mi illudo di avere un linguaggio ancora utilizzabile nel 21° secolo?


----------



## cscarfo

Grazie, Giannaclaudia. Al bar hai un caffè pagato.
Ciao


----------



## solaretermico

Since the speaker can have different words in his head when saying these phrases would it be right or at least not be misunderstood if I were to say: 

Come *lo* pensi? = What do you think of this problem (il problema) or subject matter (l’argomento)?

L'hai capit*o* finalmente! = You got it at last? You understood finally the problem!

Or is *“La”* so engrained in the Italian language in these kinds of expressions that one should/must always implicitly refer to la questione/la faccenda or another feminine common word?

Do you or anyone else have an answer for me regarding the question if I could say:

Come *lo* pensi/ L'hai capit*o* finalmente (with *Lo* standing for *it* in a general sense).[/quote]

Riprendo un discorso lasciato qualche giorno fa...
Da italiano non dico mai "Come lo pensi" ma "*Cosa* *ne* pensi" (del problema o di una qualsiasi cosa... Pensare non implica tanto un "come" ma un "di chi/di che cosa" 
A parte il verbo "pensare", negli altri casi "L'hai capito/Come la vedi/Come la faresti, etc..." mi vengono in mente mille sfumature a seconda dei casi..! 
- "Ce l'hai fatt*a*!" sempre e solo al femminile;
- "Come *la* vedi? (la questione/la faccenda/questa situazione)" generalmente al femm. a meno che non si stia parlando chiaramente di un fatto maschile che vada sottolineato. " Ma tu come *lo* vedi *Mario*? A me sembra preoccupato..."
- "L'hai capit*a* finalmente!" idem come sopra: di solito al femminile a meno che... "Fatto! L'ho capito finalmente! Questo testo era davvero complicato."

Ricapitolando (e da parlante, senza pretese dogmatiche): mi sembrerebbe che il femminile si usi più spesso e comunque nei casi generici. Il maschile solo in casi specifici se si vuole sottolineare un certo argomento, quando questo sia maschile. 
Spero di essere stao utile 
Sergio


----------



## virgilio

solaretermico,
                  E aggiungiamo a "Ce l'hai fatta" e"Come la vedi?" anche "Smettila!"
Suppongo che si sottintenda un nome femminile, forse "faccenda" o "cosa".
Quando sento dire "Smettila!", mi viene in mente la frase americana "Knock it off!"
Mi è sempre parso che in questo contesto "it" sia un disco fonografico.

Cosa se ne pensa?

Virgilio


----------



## mateintwo

solaretermico said:


> are un certo argomento, quando questo sia maschile.
> Spero di essere stao utile
> Sergio


 
Thank you solaretermico for specifically addressing my follow-up question.

I have no problems understanding the logic in using *lo* or *la* as pronoun when it clearly stands for a masculine or feminine noun. And in other situations if unsure I can always spell it out:
Che (ne) pensi di questa storia. Finalmente l’hai capito bene il problema!


----------



## solaretermico

Ritengo che siano in pochi a sapere cosa si sottintenda di femminile in frasi idiomatiche come: "Ce l'hai fatta", "Smettila!" o il più diretto "Piantala!". Io, sinceramente, non lo so... ma so che si usano così.
Credo che al di là di queste frasi fatte e intoccabili, ci sia un'area più elastica ("L'hai capita/o" "Come la/o vedi?") che, pur venendo usate generalmente al femminile, in contesti specifici possono prendere il maschile, e quali possano essere, indicativamente, questi contesti abbiamo provato a definirlo...
Credo che a questo punto non ci resti che analizzare caso per caso ragionandoci sù insieme. Sempre disponibile


----------



## badbadger

Hi, 

I am sorry to resurrect an old thread but I am still having a little trouble with the use of "ci"!

I understand the use as a direct object, an indirect object or as locational marker but it is some of its other uses that have me a little confused.  

For instance, why is it used in the sentence:

"ce l'ho"  -  "I have it"?  The "lo" or "la" is obviously in place of the "it" depending on whether the "it" is masculine or feminine, so what is the "ci" doing there?  And am I right that it is a "ci" though invariably appears as a "ce" because it precedes either a "lo" or "la"? 

Also, is the above "ci" the same use of "ci" as in "non ci posso credere"?  

And finally, if the "ci" is used roughly as "it" which i presume it is in the above "I can't believe it", it is an "it" that replaces what it is that can't be believed.  How does this "it" differ from the "lo" preceding "lo so" when saying that you know what has already been said?  

Thanks for any clarification...

Nick


----------



## Leo57

badbadger said:


> For instance, why is it used in the sentence:
> 
> "ce l'ho" - "I have it"?
> 
> Also, is the above "ci" the same use of "ci" as in "non ci posso credere"?
> 
> Nick


 
Hi there
This might help: 

Ci con avere :-
Nella lingua parlata, *ci* si usa anche in altre espressioni: 
Dov’è *la mia camicia a righe*?
Io non *ce l’*ho.

and....

When *ci* is used with certain verbs, the verb can acquire a somewhat different meaning:-

Crederci = to believe in something
Credevano nell’amicizia, e ancora ci credono.
(They belived in friendship and they still believe in it.)

Entrarci = to have something to do with
Una volta m’interessavo molto; adesso non c’entro più.
Once I was very involved/interested; now I have othing to do with it.

Metterci = to take time
Anni fa ero a scuola in dieci minuti; adesso ci metto mezz’ora.
Years ago I'd reach/get to school in ten minutes; now it takes (me) half an hour.

Pensarci = to think about it (of it)
Pensi ancora alla gioventu? Non ci pensare più.
You're still thinking about (your) youth? don't think about it anymore.

Rifletterci = to think something over
A volte agivo automaticament; adesso ci rifletto.
At times I acted automically; now I think it over.

Sentirci = to be able to hear
Addesso sto meglio; ci sento.
Now I feel better; I'm able to hear.

Vederci = to be able to see
Accendete le luci; non ci vedo.
Turn on the lights; I'm not able to see/I can't see.

Volerci = to take (time, space, etc.)
Ci vogliono mille metri per fare un chilometro.
It takes one thousand metres to make one kilometre.

and....

*Ci *si usa anche con verbi seguiti dalle preposizioni *a* _pensare a_ / _credere_ _a_
*Su* (contare su) *con* (parlare con, giocare con) e in questo caso significa
*a/su/con questo, a/su/con lui/lei/loro*:-

Hai pensato *a* dove andare in vacanza quest’estate?
Si, *ci* ho pensato, ma non ho trovato niente che vorrei veramente fare.

_Giochi_ spesso a tennis *con* Paolo?
No, non *ci* gioco quasi mai.

Ciao
Leo

_(Note: Taken from two grammar books, so if some of the sentences/examples are a little strange, you know why. Apologies if some of the accents are wrong.)_


----------



## badbadger

Hi,

Many thanks for the reply.  However, I was really wondering what part "ce" plays in the sentences with "avere", seeing as the "it" part of "I have it" is the "lo" or "la".  So why isn't it just "l'ho"?  I know it isn't just that, but I am wondering why exactly?  

Many thanks...


----------



## Paulfromitaly

badbadger said:


> Hi,
> 
> Many thanks for the reply.  However, I was really wondering what part "ce" plays in the sentences with "avere", seeing as the "it" part of "I have it" is the "lo" or "la".  So why isn't it just "l'ho"?  I know it isn't just that, but I am wondering why exactly?
> 
> Many thanks...



Let me give you some advice: do not try to always translate literally or word by word between English and Italian: sometimes it works alright, some other times you get it totally wrong.
The use of Pronominal particles is really hard to understand and learn for foreigners and hard to teach for Italians so I believe this is one of the situations where you have to memorise how it works and not mull over it too much.


----------



## BobdiChicago

Good advice (as usual) Paul. In this specific case (ce l'hai?, non ce l'ho, etc...) my Italian teacher explained that it just sounds better to have the "ce" than to not have it; so it used.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

badbadger said:


> Hi,
> 
> Many thanks for the reply.  However, I was really wondering what part "ce" plays in the sentences with "avere", seeing as the "it" part of "I have it" is the "lo" or "la".  So why isn't it just "l'ho"?  I know it isn't just that, but I am wondering why exactly?
> 
> Many thanks...



I've heard "ci" used to refer to "*here*".

"Non ce l'ho"  = I don't have it (here)
"Non ci vedo" = I can't see (here)
"Non ci sento" = I can't hear (here)

That's just how they say it in Italian...


----------



## francescaf

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I've heard "ci" used to refer to "*here*".
> 
> "Non ce l'ho"  = I don't have it (here)
> "Non ci vedo" = I can't see (here)
> "Non ci sento" = I can't hear (here)
> 
> That's just how they say it in Italian...



How interesting!!! I have never heard it before, but it seems to make a lot of sense! It would be lovely to get help from some linguist and find out how it came to be "ci" and not "qui"...


----------



## kc1005

Ciao! Provo a chiarificare l'uso di "ce" e "ne" quando si usa con il verbo "scendere". Pensavo che fosse necessario usare "ne" con "scendere". Per esempio "Scendine" per "Get down from there". È anche possibile dire "scendici"? Se è possibile, qual è la differenza di cosa significano in inglese? È possibile che mi sbagli, ma credo di aver visto entrambi "scendine" e "scendici" a una volta o l'altra. 
Grazie.


----------



## Necsus

kc1005 said:


> Ciao! Provo a chiarirmi l'uso di "ce" e "ne" quando si usano con il verbo "scendere". Pensavo che fosse necessario usare "ne" con "scendere". Per esempio "Scendine" per "Get down from there". È anche possibile dire "scendici"? Se è possibile, qual è la differenza di significato in inglese? È possibile che mi sbagli, ma credo di aver visto entrambi, "scendine" e "scendici" a una volta o l'altra.
> Grazie.


Per quanto entrambi grammaticalmente corretti, direi che nella lingua quotidiana difficilmente si usano, si dice quasi sempre "scendi da lì/là" o "scendi dal(la) xxx".  Comunque 'scendine' vorrebbe dire 'scendi da lì', 'scendici' invece 'scendi lì'.


----------

