Translation:I feel that I have to demonstrate something to them.
Just stick to the context and you will always find a clue. "Sentire" in italian means both "to feel" and "to hear".
So, you need to understand from the context if they are talking about their feelings, or about something they can perceive with their sense of hearing.
I agree, this sentence could go both ways, like they heard ahead of time that they would have to prepare a demonstration.
Question seconded... Can anybody help? It's a pity how the higher levels are devoid of users :)
Concerning the italian phenomenon of grammatical truncation, see http://italian.about.com/od/linguistics/fl/italian-truncation.htm
to annagh5, carolbaker and arrotino, I believe the answer to all of you would be the same. I believe that if you are using sentire in the sense of feeling, feel like, etc then it should be used in the reflexive. Sentire alone can also express emotions but also come out as to perceive something with the senses, so would be appropriate in this case
That's a clear and concise explanation; thank you. For the longest time I had thought that the non-reflexive form meant "to hear" and that sentirsi was used for just about everything else. Checking my dictionary, I find far more examples for sentire than for sentirsi.
Is the "di" really necessary - Leaving it out would be I feel I have to demonstrate.... means the same?
Sentire di = hear about. Now I'm really confused.
Is it possibile to say "Io sento che devo dimostrare qualcosa a loro"?
"io sento che" expresses a feeling/emotion and so has to be followed by the subjunctive mood
Well, CreMark (native) wrote in this topic: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/1070474 " 'Sento che devo dimostrare loro qualcosa' is perfectly acceptable in italian", so I guess "che" doesn't always imply the subjunctive mood. Another example I have (from a song) is "Amore è quello che sento". However, I've heard that people don't use the subjunctive very often nowadays and maybe that is the answer. Please, tell me if you are a native Italian speaker, because I don't know what to believe in.
I'm not a native speaker, but you are correct that the issue here is that the subjunctive is falling out of use. It's kind of like how an English speaker can say, "If I was a rich man," and be considered correct, despite their incorrect grammar. You can get away in Italy without ever using the subjunctive in conversation, but in writing, you want to use it if you want to sound educated. And since we're learning the language, it should be learned the correct way.
Although locals are indeed using the subjunctive less, most people agree it is bad grammar. I hear the subjunctive all the time and so we should know how to use it correctly
No. "Sento che" requires a conjugation of some kind (in that case, the subjunctive). "Che" in that sense can't be followed by the infinitive.
I did use a conjugated form, "devo" instead of "dovere". And I am not that sure that "che" always needs to be followed by the subjunctive.
In the way that "che" is being used here "Sento che/credo che/penso che/sembra che/etc." it is always followed by the subjunctive (and generally a change in the subject of the sentence). The only way around this is to use "di + infinitive".
Ok so the pattern i see is that they take off the 'e' at the end of the infinitive whenever it comes after 'di'?
I think it has more to do with coming before another infinitive. It just makes the words flow better, and it's a bit of a holdover from archaic Italian. If you read Dante, you'll see that infinitives are almost always used without the "e".
"Dover" is the infinitive form "to have to" ("I have to"/"I must" is "devo"). In Italian "Io sento di" is followed by an infinitive verb.
This verb is irregular in English because we have the first person "I must" but we don't have an infinitive form like Italian does ("to have to" is the closest).
How is this different (i.e., dovere ....) from the construction "avere da...." that also conveys "have to do something" ?
I've never seen that construction in Italian. Where have you encountered it?
lots of places..dictionaries, textbooks, etc...ad esempio...ho molto da fare ...ho da pagare la bolletta. avere followed by da means have to do. i think avere da = Dovere, but I am not sure if it has the same weight or meaning.
I've literally never seen that construction translated that way. "Ho [molto] da fare," means "I am [very] busy," not "I have to do something." And I can't find any instances of "ho da pagare" anywhere. The "avere da" construction is sometimes used in subordinate clauses, like "Non vuoi sentire cosa ho da dire," but "have to" isn't functioning in the sense of "must" in that sentence.
It really seems like you're confusing this with the Spanish "tener que", which does have that meaning. But "avere da" just isn't used the way you're trying to use it.
thanks for your detailed explanation. However, my Sansoni dictionary says that avere followed by da is equivalent to dovere and means "to have to do something". maybe other native speakers could comment. I am asking only to determine if This is a correct use of this form or if it may have a Different meanlng or may be regional Or outdated,
Carino Franco I am not a native speaker and would not have thought ho molto da fare was "have to " but I have just checked my Oxford Paravia dictionary which has a whole paragraph on exactly that so I believe you are right. another example was " Ho da scrivere un relazione. I have to write a report. Also the negation, non avere che da can be replaced with dovere Non avevi che da dirmelo You should have told me
I went ahead and dug deeper online, and I found this forum thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/avere-da-verbo.1082596/
The short version is that it can take on a similar meaning to "dovere" in some regions, but it's considered very poor grammar. You can get away with it in speech, but it's not preferable.
Nerevarine.., Thanks for your interesting link below. It seems that there is a range of opinion on the use of "avere da". I did not get from the discussion on the link you provided that it is poor grammar as you suggest, but it seems to be a milder version of "must do" relative to "dovere". For example in English, one saying "I have to go to the post office" might mean that I need to go there for some not too important reason, but it is not essential or mandatory (maybe to buy some stamps) Whereas, "I must go to the post office" implies a stronger reason to go there (e.g., My mail is being held up and i have an important letter to retrieve). I suspect the same distinction may hold in Italian. between "dovere" and "avere da" Nonetheless, thanks again for digging into it.
Because that would mean "to the them". "Al" is just an elision of "a il".
Because it's bad English. You wouldn't use the present progressive tense for this kind of sentence.
It can, but it's probably better translated as "duty" or "obligation" (a bit stronger than "responsibility"). It's similar to "il potere", which can mean "power". However, this sentence is unambiguously using "dovere" as a verb, and there's no translation of the noun form that would make sense, even if the article had been correctly attached..
Comments (and the 'correct' answer) indicate that this is 'i feel' rather than 'I hear' - but how then would you write 'I hear that I have to demonstrate...' etc? Which Italian verb would you use if not sentire?
I took the liberty of making a litteral translation I feel a duty to show something to them. And of course itt was wrong
That's not the literal translation when "dovere" doesn't have an article attached. It only becomes a noun when it's treated as one in the sentence; otherwise, it's a verb.