What has "cio" added to the meaning of this sentence? It doesn't seem to show up in the translation.
This one is weird to me. And I've seen the phrase "tutti quello che ho da dire" used more…which seems like it would be the same thing.
Isn't "quello" already translating as "that"? What he's asking is why the new word is used.
I guess I didn't explain that very well. Duo gives the translation as "That is all I have got to say", but English lets us leave out words that Italian doesn't, so the function of "ciò" isn't apparent in that translation. In order to see the function of "ciò" we have to be wordier and expand it to "That is all that which I have to say." "Quello" matches the first "that" and "ciò" matches the second "that". That (quello) is (è) all (tutto) that (ciò) which (che)...
Does Italian really need that many different words for "that". I like italian but it has very little logic in lots of situations.
The same role 'to' has in English: it's to introduce one type of implicit relative subordinate sentence (proposizione subordinata relativa implicita). In layman's terms, the subordinate sentence extends the meaning of the noun with a verb instead of an adjective. Another example is "Ho molto da fare": I have a lot of things to do / I'm very busy.
Thanks. But don't we say
Vado a vedere la mia nonna (I go to see my grandmother) and not
vado da ...?
It could be "vado da mia nonna" but grammatically that's a different thing; the difference is that in "vado a vedere" the subordinate completes the meaning of "andare" with its destination, while in "cose da fare" the subordinate completes the meaning of "cose" in the same way an adjective would. Just as an adjective it's not fundamental in the sentence: "Quello è tutto ciò che ho" (that's all I have). Some sheets of paper are called "carta da scrivere", and I could ask you "Hai della carta da prestarmi?" (do you have any paper to lend me?). There are a lot of subordinate sentence types, so I'm not sure I'm not forgetting any, but I think that this kind of construct is always used to specify that things can or must be object to the action indicated by the verb.
Could I understand the "da" as adding purpose to the infinitive? Like a subordinate adverbial clause of purpose, except that it doesn't have a finite verb but an infinitive?
Sounds more like "all that I have to say" vs. the "That is all that I have to say"... Though I'm still struggling with the whole "cio che" vs. just "che" in this type of construct. I'm not totally sure why "Quello è tutto che ho da dire." would not be o.k.
It is wrong; it's hard to explain why, but you just can't apply a relative pronoun to "tutto". It would feel as if you were speaking of a specific "all", but all is everything, and can't be specific. You can say "tutto ciò che", "tutto quello che" and so on.
I am not getting the use of "ciò" here, the necessity of it. I have read all the posts, but it's just not clicking. :-(
Does anyone else think the audio is strange here? The emphasis on ciò che sounds wrong to me, and there's an unnatural pause after it. Anyway I reported it.