"L'ho conosciuta in Francia."

Translation:I have met her in France.

June 28, 2013

This discussion is locked.


I know that you cannot use have met when referring to a specific time in the past e.g. I have met her last week.

I don't know if it applies to a specific place, but
'I have met her in France'
sounds incorrect to me, and would be much better as
'I met her in France.


I agree. Although 'I have met her in France' is a correct word for word translation, 'I met her in France' is much better English usage, and more closely matches the Italian meaning.


Actually, prossimo passato can be translated into any of three ways:
I met ..
I have met ..
I did meet ..

Now those are possible translations; there are exceptions, like the one I listed above e.g. l'ho trovato ieri .... can mean
I found it yesterday .. or
I did find it yesterday .. . but it cannot mean
I have found it yesterday

So I wonder, if a similar exception applies when talking about a specific meeting of someone at a certain place, like the Italian sentence that is given to us ...

the rule that I am questioning or seeking is actually an English rule, I just dont know if it applies like it does to the 'past time exception' ...


Meet? = incontrare. I can meet someone but I still not "know" him. I can "know" someone but i have never met him. Why???


"Incontrare" meets to "meet up", and "conoscere" in the passato prossimo means "to meet for the first time".


If this is true... then why does Bocelli sing "La prima volta lo incontrata" in his famous song Vivo per lei ;)


How do you know that it's not 'I met HIM in France' rather than her?


Easy, once you know what to look for. A past participle after a form of "avere" agrees with a preceding direct object pronoun. In this example, "conosciuta" gives the clue.


I thought when a past tense verb goes with avere it never changes from -ato -uto -ito ?


This is the exception. You have to provide the gender for "l' " because it's hidden. LA ho conosciuta.


so, "i met him" is translated as "l'ho conosciutO"?


Doesn't it change because "l" is a direct object pronoun? So it changes "conosciutA" to indicate that this object is feminine, HER.


So why isn't the translation I got to know her in France accepted?? Conoscere means know, right?


"Conoscere" in the passato prossimo means "to meet for the first time".


What would be the translation for 'I knew her in France'


"I knew her in France" Isn't that OK or have I missed something? Will report if I get the nod from you friendly knowledgeable folks.


l'ho conosciuta implies that it was a single event, i.e. 'meeting her.' For 'knowing her,' which happens over a period of time, you would use the imperfetto, i.e. 'la conosceva.' I hope this helps.


Yes it does - by sheer coincidence I ended up hitting the imperfect yesterday and looking up its usage. But your answer to a specific question sticks in the head more than general grammar rules - many thanks - lingot given.


I put "I got to know her", which is better English. Alternatively one could use "I met her..." I have met her is translationese, unless in a rare context , like refuting someone who claimed you'd never met her there.


I wrote I had known her in France but it was rejected..... can't find anything about conosco relating to meeting ??????


"Conoscere" in the simple past changes meaning slightly. It's "to meet for the first time".

Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.