"Mi avrebbero preso per pagliaccio."

Translation:They would have taken me for a clown.

November 16, 2013

18 Comments
This discussion is locked.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Gio657680

Si', usiamo questa espressione, con l'articolo indeterminativo (indefinite) 'UN" . Never heard this expression without the article.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/RudahFonse

This is clearly an expresion in english, do the italians use it as well. because in portuguese we dont use it


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ackworth

Why is there no indefinite article in the Italian version?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SimoneRavo

for me is more correct "mi avrebbero preso per UN pagliaccio"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/degironc

I agree with SimoneRavo because "pagliaccio" is used as a noun. while if it were an adjective like "mad/pazzo" it would go without article


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/itastudent

In my opinion, you could say that with or without article. They are both correct.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Gino818251

It's ridiculous. There is almost always an article, even when there is not an article in the English translation. I cannot understand why there would not be an article here and I can't begin to think how a rule could apply if there even is one.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/annaliezze

'They would have made a fool of me' sounds much more natural in English.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Cleonice5775

There's a difference between 'being made a fool of' and 'being thought a fool'...so I disagree. "They would have taken me for a fool." Or 'they would have thought me a fool' would be would be natural -- but these days that's pretty formal -- so I'd go for "They would have thought I was an idiot.." as what a 'regular' phrase might be.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/PATRICKPIZ1

there are a couple ways to write your expression. 'prendere in giro' or 'prendersi gioco'

this sounds like perfectly good english to me. and would be more evocative of the emotional cost expended. there are a billion and a half english speakers in the world and around 800 million are native speakers. you can't possibly know what would sound 'more natural' except for your own limited part of that community.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SaraMeadowflower

Thank you. It makes sense now!


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/zebburkeconte

I don't think that is what this means (it is a natural way of saying something else). The English translation used here by Duolingo is (clearly) a turn of phrase not universally understood even by native speakers. "To take (someone) for (something)" means to think they are that thing.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/GermaineLee

Maybe it means sarcastically something like: They would have thought that I made a clown of myself ?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DaConqTech

Inner me..."PENNYWISE"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Christoph.R

"Mi avrebbero preso per pagliaccio." is "They would have taken me for a clown." but when I was asked for "They would have taken me for a clown." the correct answer is "... per UN pagliaccio." WHY?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Marita135728

There are two different sentences on this topic one with the article and another without it. "Mi avrebbero preso un pagliaccio" or "Mi avrebbero preso pagliaccio". Which of these is correct and please can you be consistent.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/BobAKABuffy

Interesting that six years ago it's showing as correct without the UN but now it is not. How does that change over time?

Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.