"He adds that his machine is black."
Translation:Lui aggiunge che la sua macchina è nera.
Thank you both, I finally understand that it depends on the verb. I was confused due to this example: "Ho parcheggiato la macchina" that f.formica once gave (it was about another subject in the tree), but this is logical that in his example the verb (and maybe the situation itself) is what lets you omit the possessive pronoun.
By the way, this is not unique to Italian. In Hebrew (that I think it will be very hard to argue that it is similar to Italian :)) we also omit the possessive in those cases because it is a bit redundant (and also with clothes). I wonder how it is in other languages.
Yes, it mainly depends on the action, but also the general context may play a significant role:
- Ho venduto la macchina. = I sold the (my) car.
If this sentence was spoken by a car dealer, it may not be his personal car, but "the car" that had been mentioned in a previous sentence.
Yes you're correct, in this specific case there are neither an action that can suggest possession like 'parcheggiare' and some previous information about the owner that could allow the omission in short. The situation or better, the real situation, is important especially in the spoken language, in which we don't have to specify all the details being in front of our eyes and so you could omit 'sua'.
As for Hebrew, it is a very particular language, some day I would like to study it...by the way, really there are some links between Italian and Hebrew :), not only some words borrowed (e.g. sabato => latin sabbatum => hebrew shabbat) but also the particular Judeo - Italian languages (dialects), that were born from the meeting between Italian/italian dialects and Hebrew language. Do you know them? If you are interested read here:
and this is an article (in italian) in which there are many Hebrew-Italian words:
The Jewish-Roman dialect used to be one of these languages.
But it would not be comprehensible to a Hebrew speaker (it is basically an old form of Roman dialect), nor fully comprehensible to a Roman speaker, either, because it is spangled with many corrupted Hebrew words, such as mangkodde (from maot = coin, meaning "money"), pachadoso (from pached = fear, meaning "fearful", "afraid"), macomme (from maqom = place, meaning "toilet"), and so on.
A few of these words were adopted in the Roman dialect too, with some further corruption, such as paccheta (from pached = fear), or cascerro (from kasher = fit for use, meaning "pleasant", "enjoyable", or tareffe (from taref = unfit for use, meaning "bad", "unpleasant").
But the Jewish-Roman dialect is now virtually extinct, and in the Roman dialect spoken today these words are no longer used, nor understood.
I can affirm that the words you gave translated correct to Hebrew, except for mangkodde ? I just learn that maot (מעות notice the ע sound) is coin in very high language. I don't now how mangkodde should sound.
The Hebrew wikipedia (about Judeo - Italian languages) also suggests Axalare (x=ח sound) - to eat (אכל) and Gannaviare, like ganav - to steal (גנב)
I just learn that maot (מעות notice the ע sound) is coin in very high language.
According to the research I made, it is a biblical word for "small coin". Most of the Hebrew words that belong (or belonged) to the Jewish-Roman dialect entered the speech of the local Jewish community through religious celebrations, so many of them are old words. Roman Jews changed the sound of ayin into 'ngk', i.e. 'ŋk', as in mangkodde. When someone was sad he was said to have a tescinkabbeavve face (from tish'a be-av ), or ill fate was called sciangkerangkà (sha'ah ra'ah = evil time).
Mangkodd' a Purimme was the the coin that children received as a gift on the day of Purim. So by metonimy it was also used with a meaning of "money".
I can tell you that modern Hebrew (that was reinvented by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in the 19th or the 20th century, not so long ago) is mostly based on old biblical words that sometimes changed their meaning (the new invented words comes from American English due to their great imact on our politics and culture). It is very rare for an educated Hebrew native speaker to find an old word that s/he could not recognise, but there is a chance that the meaning has changed (like makom. Maqom I guess is like the Arabic Kuf. Biblical hebrew and maybe this dialect had it, in modern Hebrew it is totally regular English k. Makom used to meant time. Today it means place. Maybe some of the dialectic words that you gave based on the biblical meanings).
I think that the advantage that Hebrew was considered almost extint for almost 2000 years is that it could not develope so much to the point that the first form cannot be understood today. I heard, that old forms of English is maybe unreadble to natives (of course I only base this on what I heard, I will be happy to be corrected), and maybe even Shakespeare will be difficult for them (people in Israel tend to say this, even the media says it, I will be happy to find an answer from a native speaker).
Another language that I heard (by the media) that its old form can be read and understood by today speakers is France. The media told that this is a really hard language to spell, due to the fact that the old pronunciation changed, but the words still writen the same. This is an advantage for today readers that can understand Molière (this is a link for this interesting review, she speaks Hebrew but there are Franch subtitles if you find this interesting and know France https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQCr0KK89pI).
By the way, how hard is old Italian literature for modern speakers? Do Italians (average Ievel or expert) can read/understand it?
Lastly, I can add that there is a debate in the Hebrew form in duolingo if Biblical Hebrew is really understandable (and not just readble) for Hebrew speakers, especially for non religious, like myself (that were taught about the bible in schools for many years but of course find themselves less reading it), due to the changes in the meanings of the words (in addition to slightly diffrent grammer rules). There is no clear answer in my opinion.
how hard is old Italian literature for modern speakers? Do Italians (average Ievel or expert) can read/understand it?
It can be very hard, especially poetry. For instance, in a standard printed edition of Dante's Comedy the length of the explicatory notes can greatly exceed that of the poem itself, not only because of the highly symbolic meaning of many verses, which requires a clue, but because of several obsolete words, or the complex construction of the sentence. Such difficulties progressively decrease in works from the following centuries.
Old prose is slightly less difficult than old poetry; in Giovanni Boccaccio's Decameron (only 30-40 years later than Dante's Comedy), an average Italian native speaker could comprehend the gist of most sentences (yet failing to understand some words without using explanatory notes).
But a non-native speaker may likely encounter a few obstacles even in a late 1800s-early 1900s novel, because of vintage words or expressions that are now no longer used, (and therefore not taught in a language course).
Actually I never heard about this dialect.
Yiddish (apparently also called Judaeo-German) was the most spoken language by Jews in Poland and Germany (and other places) before world war ||. It is still used by very orthodox-religious Jews in Israel and also in NY (they are called Haredim - חרדים, not all the Haredim speak Yiddish).
Ladino (apparently also called Judaeo-Spanish) is also known, but is not so used (I never met personally someone who speaks that). Israelis that want to have a Spanish (and I think also Portuguese) citizenship, need to know Spanish OR Ladino.
Other dialects are not known, at least not as general knowledge.
sabato actually was very confusing at first, we have the accent in a different place (Shabàt vs sàbato)
I've started to read your link, it is really interesting. Most of the events there are told as how our culture knows them. There might be some differences, but I want to search a little before I can claim that.
Interesting topic GidiZisk. Usually when translating from English into Italian, the possessive adjective is omitted if it seems unnecessary, that is when the adjective can be implicit considering an obvious object of possession (body parts, dresses and other personal things in general) but also if the owner is evident from the context (i.e. type of action that suggests possession or at least some previous indications about this):
I broke my leg. = Mi sono rotto la gamba (it's clear that it's my leg)
Put on your coat! = Metti il cappotto! (it's clear that it's his coat, he doesn't put on my coat)
I'm doing my homework. = Faccio i compiti. (it's clear that I do only my homework)
I put some water in my glass. = Ho messo dell'acqua nel (mio) bicchiere. (it's clear that it's my glass only if I already gave some information, 'I'm eating at the table' for example, 'to put...' is too generic)
I think that sentence is a little similar to my last example, even though 'car' could be a personal object, undoubtedly. In fact we don't know if this person are speaking of his car or of another car saying Lui aggiunge che la macchina è nera. (what car?), unless there are previous indications. But certainly when you are speaking in your real life and there is a more precise context you could omit 'sua'. Probabily without this precise context Duolingo preferred to avoid your solution.
In this case it is necessary to specify whose machine is the one spoken of, because there is no context. Without the possessive adjective, the sentence may refer to someone else's machine, e.g. a device that has been seen somewhere.
I wonder whether the "machine" in the English sentence refers to a device or to a car (i.e. a wrong interpretation of the Italian macchina).
In other sentences the translation was both car and machine. If the sentence was about "car", would it be correct to omit the possessive, because it is assumed that there is one car per person usually (in other examples duolingo omitted the possesive)?
No, not even in this case, because without a context, the car being spoken of could be anyone's car. Only if the verb suggests that the car (or the machine) belongs to "him" the possessive is usually dropped:
- Disse che aveva lasciato la macchina qui vicino. = He said he had left the car (his car) nearby.
But the verb "to see" does not infer that the car belongs to anyone in particular, nor indicates which car is being spoken of, unless a possessive or another type of adjective makes this clear (la sua macchina, quella macchina, la nuova macchina, etc.).