1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Io credo che sia venuta per …

"Io credo che sia venuta per vedere me."

Translation:I believe that she came to see me.

December 6, 2013



Sia is the auxiliary verb - the third person subjunctive conjugation of "essere".

"essere venut(o/a/i/e)" basically means "to have come".

If this sentence was, for example, the simple "she came" it would translate to "è venuta" but since we need to use the subjunctive tense instead of essere becoming "è" it becomes "sia".


I'm also asking about "vedermi" Isn't that the usual form of "to see me"


Yes, vedermi is the unemphatic form. Vedere me is the emphatic form. It allows combinations with other words.

  • vedermi → vedere me
  • vederti → vedere te
  • vederlo/la → vedere lui/lei/quello/quella...
  • vederci → vedere noi / vedere te e me...
  • vedervi → vedere voi / vedere te e lui... vedere voi e lei...
  • vederli/le → vedere loro/quello/quelle/essi...


Note that in translating the subject of sia, there are various options because the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person are all sia in the singular.

However, the meaning excludes the 1st person. The second person is virtually always supplemented with the pronoun tu in the subjunctive and is thus unlikely. It must thus be third person. It cannot be "he", because of the feminine agreement. If it were a polite Lei form, then the pronoun would probably have been included, but it is a possibility. The only remaining possibility is "she" -- or at a stretch "it", if some non-human expressed with a feminine noun might have "come to see me".

So, the best translation is "she came", but a deferential and feminine "you came" is possible.


Note that a polite "lei" is a possibility only if it refers to a woman. If "lei" refers to a man it requires a masculine participle: "che lei sia venuto"


Sorry i just realized that that's exactly what you said :)


Shouldn't "she" be suggested for "sia" if that's the only translation that will be accepted for that word?


"Venuta" >feminine form of the past participle of the verb "venire".


Okay, so then why is the "sia" there or necessary? What does it mean and what is its use?


The 'sia' is there to denote the subjunctive form of the verb. That form is used because the sentence expresses the opinion that 'she came to see me', which is one of the primary functions of subjunctive verbs


I don't know enough English to explain this. I understand the Italian because my Portuguese language is similar. I can only clarify is that "sia" is the present subjunctive of "essere"( to be) . Sorry!


Sou Brasileiro, Teresinha. Será que vc poderia me explicar o sia, por favor? Obrigado ;)


"Sia" corresponde ao nosso subjuntivo "que eu seja, que tu sejas" etc...Em português acho que fica melhor usar o verbo ter em vez de "ser". Assim: Creio que ela tenha vindo me ver. Espero ter ajudado. Estou a disposição.


Obrigado!!! Ajudou sim :)


There is no true subjunctive in English, so it can be difficult to understand. It's like the "if I WERE" cases as compared to I was


You have the wrong end of the stick. Sia is just è in the subjunctive.


why is it not "per vederme"?


Yes, I feel as if this should be the construction, but I'd like a confirmation from a native Italian speaker.


Or maybe both are correct but perhaps "per vedere me" just puts the emphasis on "to see ME" as a disjunctive pronoun


The male voice elides and mis-stresses everything!!! What's the point?


I don't believe that this is the correct translation....it doesn't contain the expression or the meaning of the conjunctive sentence...it should be as a sense of belief that the person was to come and see me...could be that English just doesn't have the option of correctly explaining such a concept...


It can be conveyed simply by stressing the word "me" with the voice. In Italian this is done also, but the pronoun has to change form to allow it.

One can also rephrase it as:

  • "I believe that it was I whom she came to see."
  • "I believe that it was me that she came to see."
  • "I believe that I'm the one she came to see."


......was to come and see me.... is like supposed to come and see me.. ..that is a conditional thought if am correctly getting your point. Will it be true to think that there is some or complete overlap between subjunctive and conditional in the domain of expressing non factual( meaning non indicative)?


What in this sentence suggests "you" came to see me.


How come it's "came" to see me and not "had come"?


Had come = came should be accepted

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