"Mi hanno presa."
Translation:They caught me.
86 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Is it like this:
In passato prossimo, when the auxiliary verb essere is used as helper, the past participle agrees with gender and number of the object. Singular = o/a, plural = i/e. Essere is also conjugated to match gender and number
In general, when the auxiliary verb avere is used, the past participle is the same no matter the objects gender and/or number. Only avere is conjugated to match gender and number.
However, when a direct or indirect pronoun precedes the conjugated avere, the past participle also has to match gender and number. But is that the gender and number of the subject or the pronoun?
More or less, but it's a little more complicated than that. When the auxiliary is avere and there is a 3rd person direct object clitic or (usually) "ne" the participle must match its gender and number (and not the subject's as with essere); if there is any other direct object clitic such concordance is optional; for any other clitic there is no concordance. The case of "ne" is a little special as there are some rare cases where the concordance is not used.
"Gotten" is not only "used" (per omigo) or "acceptable" (per Soglio) - it's the standard past participle of "get" in US English. According to the site I checked (http://grammarist.com/usage/got-gotten/) it fell out of favor in British English by the 18th century - still a long time ago, but not quite so far back as the Middle Ages! (The grammarist also said that this is a usage that Brits particularly hate - though it's not clear why, since it was originally part of British English!)
The -en participle ending was once standard in England but was already dying out during the 17th century. The printing press and early dictionaries, culminating in Samuel Johnson's somewhat quirky dictionary in 1755, helped to seal its fate.
However, the Pilgrim Fathers had sailed in 1620, taking 'gotten' with them to the promised land, along with many other words and forms which continued to be used there, whilst English in England moved on.
Although the English place 'gotten' as somewhere between quaint and cringeworthy, we happily use 'forgotten', 'bitten' and 'written', and many other remnants, without a second thought.
Hi 3-pipit - Good to hear the US angle on this. I would want to stand by assertion on gotten existing in the Middle Ages though, this being roughly taken to be around 1000-1543 so contemporary with Middle English . Ah, I see, I did rather give the impression that I thought it had died out then too - didn't mean to imply that. Thanks for the correction. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gotten I see that David Crystal, the prolific writer on languages generally and varieties of English in particular, considers it to be "probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical differences" Interesting! http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/gotten.html
On another post I gave references from: MIT, U of Michigan, Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries. And of course Soglio has given M-W. So, yes "gotten" is the US version of the past participle of "get" . Not, to be confused with the expression: "I've got plenty of money" meaning "I have" in both US and GB.
I'm confused on this one. I marked "They have gotten me" and "They got me" as correct translations and got marked wrong. This comment page lists "They have gotten me" as correct, but the lesson itself said the correct translation is "They got me." I am reporting this but can someone tell me whether both are right or not?
The first thing I thought when reading the sentence was someone being taken for a job, breaking the good news to her friends; but if it were an Indiana Jones movie, I could totally see it as meaning "I've been captured!", though perhaps a little more formal than "they got me".
❛They have me caught❜ is actually a valid sentence; however, it is a somewhat archaic and slightly aristocratic way of expressing that they have me cornered or trapped. So not yet actually caught and thus incorrect in this context. You're only likely to hear this in a film/book set before the twentieth century - e.g. something like The Scarlet Pimpernel.
SteveKillick: YES, gotten is correct as a past participle. Someone has gotten sick, not someone has got sick. The latter sounds as though one's not had a day's worth of education in his life. To use 'got' as a past participle is like using any other simple past tense form such as 'ate,' 'did,' etc. which sadly you'll hear a lot: I shouldn't have did that, I shouldn't have ate it, etc. So to answer your question about 'what does 'gotten' mean for gawd's sake, it means I for one have gotten sick and tired of users like yourself who claim sole authority over how English should be spoke(n). It may have be(en) the king's English once upon a time, but your king was beat(en) back in the day and you for one should move on. To say you've got(ten) me upset by your arrogance is an understatement.