Translation:I want a boat to take me far from here.
Amen to that. Subjunctive died a death in the English language for a reason!
"I want a ship that will take me far from here"
What's a ship in Italian? (Who wants a BOAT to run away ? :P )
Though logically one may want a ship, "barca" refers to a smaller boat. The Treccani dictionary defines it as having "dimensioni limitate": http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/barca1/ If you search for images of "barca mare" (to weed out the pictures relating to Barcelona's soccer team), you can get an idea of what falls into this category.
Ship is nave. However, a couple of lessons ago, barca was translated with shio .. such inconsistencies really spoil all the fun .. For today I will continue with babbel
I agree. should be either one actually - and when talking the audience would get the same meaning.
"I want a boat that take me far from here." is an alternate "correct" answer. That's not sensible English.
I'm afraid "that take me" is an example of the moribund English subjunctive. A long time ago we used to have such a tense (technically it's a mood not a tense, but we don't really want to bother with technicalities here, do we?).
Anyway, this lovely subjunctive only exists in such expression as:
- "God bless you" (instead of "God blesses you", which would be "good" English"far be
- "Far be it from me" - instead of "It is far from me"
- "God save the Queen" - not saves
- "If it please the court" - not pleases
It's these last two that show the subjunctive's most identifiable feature - the missing -(e)s in the 3rd person present, and which explains why "I want a boat that take me far from here" can be considered perfectly acceptable (if a tiny bit old fashioned and - let's be honest - pretentious...!
Two of those seem examples of something else altogether. Isn't it a wish/request that god bless you or save the queen?
And I think the sentence in question is more "I want a boat that will/could take me far from here"; I don't think it would be 'a boat that take me far from here', under any circumstances.
(Unfortunately, I don't know any of the correct grammatical terms at all, having been taught nothing about the syntax or grammar of my own language since elementary school.)
Voglio una barca (I want a boat) che (that) mi porti (it takes me) lontano (far, far away) da qui (from here). The changes needed to 'make' it into English are: 1) 'it' is understood, 2) 'that takes me', or, 'to take me' have the same meaning in the context of the sentence, so either gives a correct translation.
'che' can mean either 'that' or 'which' I have been marked incorrect for using 'which' when this is perfectly good English grammar!
You might look into the formal use of "which." It's actually distinct from "that," in that "which" is non-restrictive. More info from Grammar Girl: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that
I love it. I'm 66 years old, trying to learn Italian and also having to relearn English. I guess it's called duo lingo for a reason. :D)
Yes, for an 'are' verb you take the 1st person of the present tense, lop off the 'o' and add an 'i' for the io, tu, lui, lei and Lei forms; then for the noi, voi and loro forms you add 'iamo', 'iate' and 'ino respectively. So for regular 'are' verbs, like portare, the present subjunctive and the present indicative are the same for the tu and noi forms.
Have a look at the subjunctive guide at Https://www.duolingo.com/comment/8783716
Hope this helps :)
Now I understand where subjunctive is applied, thanks to you and many other comments in DL.
omg, that was the CLEAREST answer I have found. thank you for responding in such a way.
Faaaaaaaaaar, away, this ship is taking me faaaaaaaaar, away, far away from the meeeeeeemories, of the people who care if I live or diiiiiiiie!
Isn’t "che" a relative pronoun here? I don’t see why you need the subjunctive...
The English is expressing a wish, dream, possibility, not a certainty. The subjunctive is perfect for that sense. An English version which more closely matches the Italian would be: "I want a boat which could (or might) take me far from here."
Although they mean the same thing, the sentence says '...da qui' which is literally 'from here'
Shouldn't "to take me" be mi portare? How should I know when to use the infinitive and when "to" is implied?
Can someone help me understand why we can't say "bring me far from here", given that "to bring" is one of the definitions of "portare"? What am I missing? Thanks
"Bring me" usually has the meaning of asking for something that is at a distance to be brought to you.To quote songs (not as modern as Muse Starlight above)- Bring me Sunshine, Bring me my chariots of fire. However, you could say "bring me to something" as in "it would bring me to tears"- but there is not much physical movement . I cannot think of a situation where bring me....and...from would be used, other verbs would be used to convey the movement away .Hope this helps.
Sorry-- I guess my initial post wasn't really clear. I'm a native English speaker, so I understand the use of bring in English. And while "take" is probably more exacting, I often hear (and say, myself) things like "Could you bring this over to your uncle's house?" My question with regard to the lesson is essentially why Duo has translated "portare" as "take", when there is the verb "prendere" for that. I was puzzled that, while they used "portare" they wouldn't accept "bring" as a translation. My husband is a native Italian speaker, and he thought that was odd, too, as he would have thought "bring". Oh, and I gave you a lingot for your effort to respond, but mostly for your profile photo, which I think should get some kind of award. ;-)
Technically portare in this case probably means to carry or bear, but take is an adequate synonym in this case. Bring doesn't work because you bring to but you take from. If you wanted the boat to bring you to a tropical paradise, then bring would be appropriate, but it is specifically being taken from here, the origin point is what it is relative to, so it's take, not the destination where bring would be appropriate.
I tried "I want a boat that would take me far from here," and it wasn't accepted. Why not?
It's a fine distinction, but the "would" introduces a conditional or potential aspect to the boat's ability to take you. The conveyed meaning is pretty close, but since part of the exercise of Duolingo is to match grammar to meaning, it marks this sentence incorrect.
"Would take me" would be the translation of a different sentence in Italian (Something like " … che mi porterebbe … ").
What is the mood of "porterebbe"? I too was thinking of subjunctive as "may" or "might" - indicating a degree of uncertainty or removal from reality (indicative). That is the usage in Koine Greek, so is the subjunctive in Italian significantly different?
"Porterebbe" is in conditional tense ("would take"), but conditional (with its indication of potential but not certainty) is often paired with subjunctive, which indicates a hypothetical situation that may not exist.
More & better info here: https://italian.yabla.com/lessons.php?lesson_id=508
I thought that the English "could" can indicate the subjunctive mood. It isn't necessarily past tense. So why doesn't DL accept "I want a boat that could take me far from here."
I said ship, you wanted boat. Ship and boat are pretty much interchangeable in this context. If I want to go FAR away, I would take a ship. A boat might take me across the bay, but to cross the ocean, I want a ship. PLEASE fix!
What if I say "I want a boat that can take me far from here". I got marked wrong for this.
Give me a boat that can carry two And both shall row, my love and I</pre>