Both audio versions sound to me like "li parlo". If it is important that the the only correct answer be "gli parlo" it is duolingo's job to (a) make the audio unambiguous and/or (b) provide a context which makes the meaning clear. For the ten thousandth time I try to get through to duolingo what needs no linguistic knowledge whatsoever: meaning must come from context, not from words alone. So, e.g., the prompt might be (A) I meet him in the park; gli parlo." OR "L'incontro nel parco; I talk to him." You don't need any more context than that, and it doesn't matter what language it's in. But YOU MUST HAVE A CONTEXT BEFORE YOU CAN HAVE A MEANING.
I know this is an old comment but I just want to say that in the updated audio recordings the difference in pronunciation between li and gli is clear to me. So apparently Duo does care what we think :) .. it's just A LOT of work to revamp entire language courses.
You can use the dictionary in Duo to look up the words li and gli and the difference is obvious. Well done Duo!
According to the Oxford Italian Grammar & Verb: "gli"as an indirect object pronoun can be either singular or plural in the 3rd person. Therefore it could be translated: I talk "to him" or "to them". Am I wrong?
It's not "proper" Italian, but it follows the same shift of pronouns that made "lui" and "lei" take the place of "egli" and "ella"; it's a more recent shift though, so perhaps duolingo prefers not to teach it. Apparently the Treccani dictionary (http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/gli2/) not only supports 'gli' for 'loro', but also for 'le', which is an even more recent shift.
It's not "proper" Italian…
Dante Alighieri, Giovanni Boccaccio, Giovanni Villani, Giovanni Della Casa, Galileo Galilei, Pietro Giordani, Antonio Cesari, Giovanni Verga, Alfredo Panzini, Massimo Bontempelli, Vitaliano Brancati, and Cesare Pavese — to name a few — would disagree with that assessment.
…but it follows the same shift of pronouns that made "lui" and "lei" take the place of "egli" and "ella"…
How could it possibly be the same shift? In one case, direct-object pronouns allegedly took the place of subject pronouns; in the other, a plural pronoun allegedly took the place of a singular pronoun.
I say “allegedly” because neither is actually true. Comparisons of different editions of The Betrothed have shown that egli and ella are not replaced by lui and lei, but rather by null subjects.
Gli, meanwhile, is etymologically a merger of two different forms of the Latin demonstrative pronoun ille: illi (dative singular) and illis (dative plural). It is thus just a coincidence that gli looks the same in the singular and plural.
Illi and illis were also both gender-neutral, which is why gli is, and always has been, used with both masculine and feminine referents, regardless of number. (This was, incidentally, mentioned by the Treccani definition you linked to, so you should have known that.)
Let’s also not forget that using gli with a feminine referent is obligatory when it is followed by the clitic pronouns lo, la, li, le, or ne. The Italian for, “I gave it to her,” is, “Gliel’ho dato,” not, “*Le l’ho dato.”
By the way, I’m surprised prescriptionists don’t insist it should be, “L’ho dato a lei,” the same way they insist you say, “L’ho dato loro,” for the plural. The logic is the same: Use a stressed pronoun instead of an unstressed one.
Oh, I know where it comes from, but I also know what is acceptable and what isn't in proper Italian: when I was a child we were taught that egli, ella, esso and essa were the only 3rd person subject pronouns, that there was no indirect clitic pronoun for loro, and that the only indirect clitic pronoun for "her" was "le". Whether that was right or wrong doesn't matter: in a formal setting using "gli" for "loro" might cause a frown or a polite correction, while even in a colloquial setting using "gli" for "le" can cause people to consider you ignorant and uneducated. This other article has a more extensive discussion: http://www.accademiadellacrusca.it/it/lingua-italiana/consulenza-linguistica/domande-risposte/uso-per
Oh, I know where it comes from…
You clearly don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be talking about imaginary shifts.
…when I was a child we were taught that egli, ella, esso and essa were the only 3rd person subject pronouns, that there was no indirect clitic pronoun for loro, and that the only indirect clitic pronoun for "her" was "le". Whether that was right or wrong doesn't matter: in a formal setting using "gli" for "loro" might cause a frown or a polite correction, while even in a colloquial setting using "gli" for "le" can cause people to consider you ignorant and uneducated.
So basically, you’ve been taught a bunch of lies and now you pretend they are true? And why should I care if ignorant and uneducated people think I’m ignorant and uneducated?
This other article has a more extensive discussion: http://www.accademiadellacrusca.it/it/lingua-italiana/consulenza-linguistica/domande-risposte/uso-per
I’m familiar with that article. It fully agrees with everything I’ve said here, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here.
I don't understand why can Gli also mean him? For me Gli is plural, it confuses me.
Refer back to the clitic matrix - gli strumenti is one hat but parlo is not an Object --, hence gli take on the clitic hat - indirect (him or them)
I had to read your explanation many times but I get it. Thanks. Honestly this section is HARD.
i feel your pain - this is the first lesson section where i've been completely lost. i don't understand this stuff at all, and with no explanation or rules provided, i'm not sure i ever will. how is "gli" suddenly "to him" when in all previous lessons it was a plural "the"? i'm still not clear on when the plural "gli" is preferable over "le" or "i", and now i have to figure out an entirely new usage?? i'm so confused and discouraged right now. :'C
I've attached a useful chart for the various pronouns that may help clear up the confusion. The columns are: Subject, direct object, indirect object, tonic, combine, reflexive.
Here's another link that may help explain:
The second link turned on the light for me. Awesome, thanks so much. Frustration level reduced exponentially!
Wow! I already had this link,I mean website(in saved pages); thanks a lot for showing us the entrance of this dark cave :D
Horrible audio: The fast version sounds like 'mi parlo', and the slow one sounds 'vi parlo'. I wrote the latter one (which, obviously, wasn't accepted), but I had had to listen to it at least 20 times!!!
why do they say "li sento" and "gli parlo"? what is the difference btwn li and gli there?
Why is the indirect object used? Is "him" not the direct recipient of the action?
Wouldn't "I am talking to him" be "Gli sto parlando"? I'm confused when to use present tense versus present progressive.
If the "la" in Italian sentence means "her" then how is the right sentence with a male person?: "I love him?" Is it then in the same logic "Io le amo?"
The translation is "I am talking to him". Why is "talking" the translation? Is that not "parlando"? "I talk to him" is also accepted, but I just want to absolutely clear why both answers are allowed.