On the listening exercise it is pronounced "l'animal", without E at the end. I live near Venice and I am so used of Italian words ending without vowel, that accepted it as a form of the word... For example here are the towns of Preganziol, Marcon, Dosson, Casier; my local colleagues bear family names like: Zanin, Trevisan, Scomparin etc. ...
Ok I'm confused abt the grammar.
If I remember correctly the sentence, 'mi vuoi auitare?' means 'Do you want to help me?' It cannot mean 'Do you want me to help' because 'mi' cannot be the subject of 'aiutare' without using the subjunctive in a subordinate clause.
Why is the object pronoun allowed to be the subject of 'colpire' in this sentence without using a subordinate clause?
If anyone with more knowledge could explain I'd really appreciate it. Thanks
I'm not an expert in Italian grammar but this is how I understand it:
The full sentence would be "Io l'ho visto colpire l'animale." The object pronoun isn't the subject; the subject has simply been left out.
There is a rule in French that if the object pronoun comes before the verb, the verb has to agree with that pronoun, and I think this is what is happening here in Italian simply due to the placement of the object pronoun.
Hi kwesiquest, thanks, you're right about the verb agreement. That is happening but I don't think it's effecting what I'm referring to.
The subject of the sentence at large is "I." as that is the subject of "saw"
"...him hit the animal" is an objective clause, as it is acting as the object to the verb "saw." But the subject of the objective clause is indeed "him" as it is "him" who is doing the hitting. If the subject of the objective clause were left out then you wouldn't know who it was that was doing the hitting.
The Direct object acting as the subject of the objective clause is completely normal in English. What's confusing to me is why the Italian allows it here, but doesn't allow it with ''mi vuoi auitare?''
I feel like maybe it's simply be a matter of expressing uncertainty?
This is a really interesting question. This type of construction is typically for the so-called verbs of perception (verbi di percezione). this verbs are verbs that describe perceptive processes (sentire, udire, osservare, guardare, notare, fiutare, vedere etc. = (hear, feel, smell etc.).
This kind of verbs are transitive and asks for (1) an object, (2) an object with attribute or (3) a subordinated clause (noun clause) or (4) an infinitive clause.
(1) Ho visto Marco.
(2) Ho visto Marco stanco.
(3) Ho visto che Marco si è stancato tanto.
(4) Ho visto Marco mangiare tanto. (Ho visto mangiare tanto Marco). (= Ho visto Marco che mangiava tanto).
In this case the direct object of the verb of perception is also the subject of the infinitive clause "mangiare tanto". or like above: "colpire l'animale". The usage of this direct object in front of the infinitive is specific for this type of verbs. Other verbs (e.g. in causative sentences) can only use the object after the infinitive:
(Marco ha fatto uscire il cane; The sentence: Marco ha fatto il cane uscire, instead, is WRONG.)
Using a direct object pronoun as in the sentence above you have to put it to the verb it refers to, i.e. to the verb of perception.
L'ho visto colpire l'animale.
I hope it's clear now and that I it was possible to understand my "rusty" English, if not don't hesitate to ask.
Grazie mille sandra, la tua conoscenza è incredibilmente preziosa.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying verbs of perception have different grammatical rules from other verbs.
So, can you check this for me?;
- I saw him hit ... = L'ho visto colpire ...
- I want him to hit ... = Voglio che lui colpisca ...
- I know that he hit ... = So che lui colpisca ... (?)
- I told him to hit ... = L'ho detto colpire (?)
- I said he hit ... = Ho detto che lui colpisca (?)// or // L'ho detto colpire (?)
Is there any situation where you would use the subjective like this : "L'ho visto che lui colpisca ..." would that be used perhaps, if you couldn't remember?
I try to respond:
correct (L'ho visto colpire).
correct (Voglio che lui colpisca) or future: (Voglio che lui colpirà)
I know that he hit = So che lui colpirà (I would translate it with a verb in the future; but if you want to use the present tense you can't utilize "colpisca" because that's the subjunctive and "so" (I know) is not a verb that asks for the subjunctive. (because it doesn't express uncertainty).
I told him to hit = L'ho detto di colpire (dire qualcuno di fare qualcosa)
Ho detto che lui colpisce (without subjunctive mood). = I said (that) he hits...
Gli ho detto di colpire = I said to him to hit
Please, pardon my intervention, but there are some imperfections: 1 correct 2 correct (but: "voglio che colpirà" doesn't exists in Italian and is absolutely incorrect, if I want him to hit the target, he hasn't yet shot and therefore it is already a form of implicit future) 3 So che (lui) colpì (only simple past). If you say: I know that he hits=so che lui colpisce. If you need the future: I know that he will hit=so che colpirà 4 Gli ho detto (dissi) di colpire (oppure ho detto (dissi) a lui di colpire) 5 What did you say? I said he hit the target (dissi che colpì il bersaglio) 6 L'ho visto che lui colpisca is incorrect and has no mening. 7 rljones' clause to the bottom. Your translation is literally correct, but it's much more natural for us Italians to say: Ho visto l'animale che lo colpiva, or: ho visto l'animale colpirlo.