- Forum >
- Topic: Italian >
- "The women have belts on thei…
"The women have belts on their skirts."
Translation:Le donne hanno cinture sulle gonne.
59 Comments
why is "le donne hanno cinture sulle sue gonne" incorrect? it's "their" not "the"...
Remember that possessives change depending both on the possessor and what they possess:
- the girl's shoe: la sua scarpa
- the girl's shoes: le sue scarpe
- the women's shoe: la loro scarpa
- the women's shoes: le loro scarpe
Though in this case, it's clothing, so the possessive can be left out, since "the" implies "their".
1193
Aaahhhaaaaa, - thank you!
As the skirts (in most cases) obviously belongs to the women wearing them . . . we do not need to specify this!!! Therefore we drop the loro(/their) part of the sentence . . . got it!
Now I only need to remember and implement it . . .
- 1164
No she had the sue correct, it's just a question of whether it's necessary, or even if not necessary, still correct usage?
I put loro in. place of sulle in this sentence and they said it was wrong. Why was loro wrong? This is confusing.
- 1193
I'll try to help, - even if I am not sure what you wrote . .
The women have belts = Le donne hanno cinture
on their skirts = sulle (su+le) (loro)* gonne
* When the owner is considered obvious Italians usually skip the possessive.
In this case it would be considered strange if the women had belts on somebody else's dresses, - so 'their', (le loro), is skipped and only 'on the skirts', (sulle gonne), is kept .
- 1126
Would "Le donne hanno cinture sulle LORO gonne" be incorrect? Is that "loro" unnecessary or actually wrong?
I'm wondering about the same thing. Is it that wrong to use "loro" or is the second answer wrong because it uses "nelle" instead of "sulle" for "on their..." ?
It's so dispiriting when you get a difficult translation correct and you're marked wrong for a silly typo: le donne hanno i cinuture sulle loro gonne.
yes, I know. I´m just confused because in French you add "de" - literally, you say "I don´t have [any] of the belts". Like there´s a set of all belts and from those, you don´t have one. I think there´s a similar construct in Russian called the partitive genitive.
But thank you for answering so quickly :)
Well, for starters, there's a possessive for that, so you don't need "di" in this case. "sulle loro gonne" would be a correct phrase in Italian. However, there's also the matter of clothing and such not needing a possessive at all, so this sentence is the natural way to say it.
Wow, I put in possessive articles and they tell me Another Translation is without! Come on now, where's the skill in that?
- 1628
Did you get it wrong with the possessive pronoun?
I assume your answer included sulle loro gonne.
Correct woud be: Le donne hanno cinture sulle sue gonne. Right?
- 1482
DL accepts "le donne hanno (le) cinture sulle (loro) gonne" with or without words in brackets.
It's supposed to be "le loro gonne" not "le gonne" cause it means "the skirts" not "their skirts" . L' aggettivo possessivo is missing here.
Duolingo has literally never mentioned the word "hanno" to me before. Why is it just showing up randomly now in my strengthening exercises?
I agree with the translation to Italian, where the 'their' is implicit. This is good Italian, but not generally the Duolingo approach.
In the Italian translation, the possessive is left out, nthough it is included in English, German, Norwegian... Strange.
- 1193
As the skirts (in most cases) obviously belongs to the women wearing them we do not need the possessiv article in Italian.
Ho is "I have" hanno is "they have". Since this is plural women, you need they It's not the same.
Hanno is the conjugation used for plural 3rd person. They is understood if another subject isn't given. You have a subject, the verb must still agree.
- 1193
I think it would have to be 'su le loro gonne', - but when it's considered obvious (normally with body parts, clothes, accessories) you can/should drop the possessive.
If you e.g. 'give somebody a hand' or somebody is wearing glasses it can normally be consider it is your hand and their glasses. (And would it not be worth noting if it's not your own hand you are offering?)
