"to be turned into" in English means "to become". That is not the problem I have. My problem is, in what way is "diventare" an transitive verb?? Obviously, the word "become" doesn't mean anything on its own until it brings the object after it. So why "Siamo diventate donne" not "Abbiamo diventate donne"? Arhitoehwig This has been my nightmare of all time, as well as the preposition for infinitives....
To check if any verb is transitive, try this:
To your question - diventare is intransitive verb and its other properties (from which you can figure why it uses essere) can be found here:
It doesn't help. And it isn't an attribute (the attribute as a function in the sentence is usually an adjective, not a noun). This is a noun and its function in the sentence is that of a predicative noun - what did we become? Like an object, but not really an object. :o) I think you were partially right.
diventare is not a transitive verb and neither is become. As the prefixes indicate, they suggest "of X comes Y." I see that you are embarked on Korean. In Korean, Y is marked with the nominative, not the object, particle: "Kim-ssi nun shiin i doysssumnida 'Mr. Kim became a poet.' In Japanese, Y is marked with the non-transitive particles "ni" or "to". In Latin, one says "Brutus rex factus est" 'Brutus became the king, where the first three words are all marked nominative.
I still don't understand why "siamo" is used and not "abbiamo." Although I speak English very well, I couldn't tell you the difference between a gerund and a participle, let alone some of the other terms that show up in these discusions, like "transitive" and "nominative." Those classes were so boring I fell asleep! Guess I'll have to dig up my old 9th grade English textbook; although I would much prefer just a simple explaination to my question. "In English," please!
English only has one verb that it uses to form its compound past tenses: 'have', so it doesn't matter what the verb means, English uses 'have'. This means it makes no distinction between verbs with objects after them: we have eaten (an apple); she has bought a car; he has seen a movie, etc. and verbs that don't: we have gone (to the zoo); she has been (in school); we have become women, etc. Other languages however use "to be" in addition to "have" for this purpose. In those examples above which involve verbs and objects Italian generally will also use 'avere', like English. But unlike English, in the other examples that don't involve objects, Italian uses "essere'. The point to remember is that when 'essere' is used this way, it means 'have/had/etc' just as much as 'avere' does, because English only uses one verb to form its compound past tenses and that is "have". So 'abbiamo comprato una mela" and "siamo diventate donne" both translate as 'we HAVE...bought an apple/become women". If it helps at all, you might be familiar with older English/Biblical English where 'to be' was in fact used, before giving way to "have": 'X is risen,' 'is cometh,' etc. Even colloquially today, you might still hear someone say: "Is the dough risen yet?" instead of "has the dough risen yet". Why? Because you can't "rise" anything like you can e.g. bake, see, buy, eat, drink something -- verbs which would use 'have' to form their past tenses because objects are involved.
I'm afraid, rcpjenn, that just about every language you or I are likely to learn has a lot more grammar than English, and some knowledge of grammatical terms is immensely useful in learning these other languages. I went (a long time ago!) to what might be called a "grammar school", and even there I don't remember learning English grammar! But we did learn Latin, which has an awful lot of grammar, and that helped me a lot in coping with grammar in other languages.
We are I have become women? Because it doesn't make any sense. For this verb the auxiliary verb is essere, not avere. So 'ho' is out for two reasons. One, it's the conjugation with 'I' not 'We' and Two, it is from avere and not essere. The literal translation for the correct answer "Siamo diventate donne" is 'We are become women' but that's not the way English would say it, so we use 'We became women' is the best translation. Or 'We have become women' even though in Italian they use essere (to be) rather than avere (to have) as the auxiliary verb with this verb.
Ariaflame: I disagree on one point, but I think it's an important one. You can't think or translate 'essere' when it's being used as an auxiliary as "to be". That's plain wrong and it'll get people into trouble. Italian like other languages uses both 'avere' and 'essere' as auxiliaries for the compound past tenses (German is another notable one). Since English on the other hand only uses "to have" regardless of which verb is being put into those past tenses, it only has ONE way to render BOTH of Italian's two auxiliaries: avere and essere: They BOTH mean 'to have' when they're functioning as auxiliaries. So to say the translation of "Siamo diventate donne" is "We are become women" is absolutely misleading and will only lead people to misinterpret and mistranslate future sentences involving essere in the compound past tenses. "Siamo" does NOT mean 'we ARE" in THIS sentence- rather it means "we HAVE". because that's the only option English has to express compound past tenses.
Actually there are instances where 'to be' is used in sentences similar to that. They're mostly archaic and used in poetry and so forth but they're not unknown. There's a discussion on the topic here http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/are-become-v-have-become.1183700/
Though the meaning when we use 'have' is often slightly different to the one when we use 'be'
tjablo1976: See my & others comments above regarding 'essere' as an auxiliary verb in English. ALL the forms of 'essere' (to be) must be translated as forms of "to have" in English when they are functioning as helping verbs for the compound past tenses and that's because English only uses one auxiliary for all of its verbs and that auxiliary is 'to have'. So yes, in this sense, 'siamo' means 'we have' too, because that's the only way English has to translate it. Another example: Siamo ragazzi = we ARE boys, but Siamo andati = we HAVE gone. You can't say "we ARE gone."
tjablo...Yes, precisely. When expressing Italian compound past tense constructions into English you never have to worry about what auxiliary verb to use -- it'll always be a form of 'to have' since that's the only auxiliary English uses. I see you're studying German too, and it's the same situation there: 'sein' vs 'haben', with the same 'resulting translation' in English, namely a form of 'to have' + past participle.
carolfair - see my comment to Cangurina just above. 'diventate' DOES mean "become," but as a past participle, so it's not used in the present tense, it has to be used with an auxiliary to generate a past tense. If you use it alone, it'd be like saying in english: I seen it or she done it. You're using a past participle as a conjugated form of the verb and you can't do that. Now if the translation is 'became' fine, b/c the perfect tense can be translated either as "We have become" or as "We became".
Sue, I tend to agree that the two terms are 'pretty well interchangeable' but would add that 'lady/ladies' strikes me as restricted now to certain stock phrases, in which 'woman/women' would not be synonymous: ladies room (public restroom); ladies and gentlemen; Lady Vols/Tigers/Huskies (female athletic teams); Ladies! (direct address, e.g. ...please follow me!), etc.
Perhaps I am showing my age! I would certainly find "becoming ladies" quite normal speech, especially in relation to teenagers or "young ladies". I am Australian, so am aware that usage in America differs, and perhaps to some extent British usage may differ - but age is probably a major factor. Part of the diminution of the English language!
What is wrong with duolingo - how is thay a useful sentence to learn? These are ridiculous examples. I was going to recommend this app to some family, but honestly, i am less and less impressed with every example. Particularly as the tips included to 'teach' you the present perfect only include the verb endings and difference between the auxiliaries avere and essere, nothing about irregulars, etc. So disappointing.