"He had had some problems."
Translation:Lui aveva avuto dei problemi.
Can someone confirm for me that this is correct?
aveva avuto = had had
era stata = had been
I believe that's correct. The first could have as its subject either 'he, she, or it' while the second would have to have a feminine subject, either 'she' or 'it' referring to a feminine noun because of the 'a' ending.
"era stato" as the standard form with the ending varying according to the subject I think
era stata = has been because era is the 2nd form of essere. to be 2nd form is has been. this is my opinion.
Because 'ha avuto' = 'HAS had' not 'HAD had'. It'd be present perfect (the auxiliary is in the present tense + a past participle). 'Had had' is past perfect in which the auxiliary is in the simple past tense + a past participle and it's used to describe a past action that happened prior to some other past action. "He had had (or He'd had) some problems, before he won the lottery."
Thanks. I didn't realize that Italian had that distinction as English does. Have a Lingot.
MAP---because 'avevo' is "I" not "he". It's the wrong form of the auxiliary.
i don't understand this sentence very well, althought i passed it, why is translated to english as "he had had" i never heard a sentence like that doesn't makes much sense
maybe it makes sense if you replace the second "had" with a synonym like "owned" or "experienced"... he had experienced some problems. I'm not a linguist so I cannot explain it grammatically, but it is definitely proper English.
In English we would rarely use the past perfect in a simple sentence. It's usually used to show that something happened further back in the past than something else, in a complex sentence, e.g., After we had eaten, we went to the theatre.
English does not have an imperfect tense, so it is not an exact translation. As most everyone is saying, we do not use the 'had had' option much.
Margaret: No imperfect tense in English? The imperfect tense is synonymous with the simple past and English doesn't have it?
All well and good and agreed, but to say that English doesn't have an imperfect tense is just not correct. Telling that to someone learning English is misleading and will only confuse them.
Laura, I believe it's because 'qualche' is always followed by a singular noun -- e.g. qualche giorno, qualche volta -- even though you'd translate it as a plural: a few days/ a few times. What you'd want here if you're going to use a plural noun is 'alcuni problemi' I believe. I'm not a native speaker so you might want to check that out, but I believe that's correct. Another point is there's no qualcho, qualcha, or qualchi. It's always qualche + a singular noun = a plural.
Yes, but thankfully that was in the distant past in a galaxy far far away. Now he has has has has has has has has some new problems!
I would recommend a review of the English past perfect tense and when it is used as a first step. The trapassato prossimo will make more sense to English speakers if they understand the English past perfect tense first. I am not saying that applies in your case Lucas, but I have noticed that many people on this forum apparently do not use past perfect tense at all in their day-to-day English and so find the trapassato prossimo more difficult or even meaningless as a result.
The other complication with Italian that it uses either avere or essere as the auxiliary verb, and the inflection of the past participle, if any, depends on which auxiliary verb is being used for a particular verb and what the rules are for inflection of the participle based on either the subject or preceding direct object. It is therefore important to know what auxiliary a verb takes and what the rules are for the inflection of the participle when using that auxiliary. Generally a transitive verb takes avere and an intransitive verb takes essere, and some verbs take either according to whether it is used transitively or intransitively. The auxiliary for a particular verb can also be obtained from verb conjugators such as the following:
roman: thank you! I couldn't agree more. You've said it all very well. -- And I won't even get into why learning a foreign language's compound past tenses is so difficult for many Americans when you routinely hear things like "I could have (coulda) went, if she would have (woulda) came. Yes (Yeah) I shouldn't have (shouldn'ta) did that. But at least I seen her." Trust me it's not the foreign language in many cases that's difficult, it's the lack of understanding and awareness of how our own language works that's the problem.