"Non li ho voluti."

Translation:I have not wanted them.

July 8, 2013

This discussion is locked.


I would also like to know why it is voluti and not voluto? I keep seeing examples of participles changing to match the gender/number when they are being used with avere, but the information I have read on this elsewhere suggests this should only happen when the verb essere is used? It is very confusing!


I found out! So it is because whenever you have a direct object pronoun in the third person (lo, la, li, le), you have to match the past participle to that pronoun. Since "li" means "them (masc.)", the past participle "voluto" must match "li". So, there you have it: "Non li ho voluti". (This is the case with either essere or avere.)


I confirm this, and I want to underline that it works for pronouns only, with a stereotypical example:

Non ho voluto gli spaghetti. Non li ho ho voluti.


For pronouns only? Or is the rule more along the lines of "for preceding direct objects", like in French?


What happens if you have essere+a clitic? Which one does it change to?


Pronouns take precedence. So either with essere or avere, the past participle must match the object pronoun in gender and number.


But you actually will never have essere + object pronoun, since essere is for intransitive verbs which, by definition, can't have a direct object.


could I also translate it as 'I did not want them?


I suspect that 'did not want' (simple past tense) is used much much more than 'have not wanted' (present perfect tense) The latter may fit a few contexts, but mostly it's the mark of a non-native speaker. Duo repeats this fault in lots of other examples too; probably someone who thinks avere always means 'have', which isn't so in compound tenses.


Yes, that works as well.


'I have not wanted them' sounds more like a continuous behaviour rather than a present perfect action.. Although I agree with the literal translation 'I did not want them' sounds more immediate.


Answer: i have not wanted them. Humm, this does not sound right.


Iagree, more like I did not want them


Can I hear that "Non gli ho voluti." is wrong?


This is becuase gli is an indirect object. Your translation means "I did not want to him", which doesn't make sense. Indirect objects answer to whom or for whom, whereas direct objects answer who or what. So in this case, What do I want? NOT To whom do I want?


OK, I can infer that it cannot be "gli", but must be "li". Or rather I could if my Italian were already stable enough. But can I hear it? Is there an audible difference or does it sound exactly the same (and should sound exactly the same if pronounced properly)?


Basically, "gli' is more gutteral. It has a sound that is created farther back in the mouth, whereas "li" would sound just as it does in English. It takes a fluent speaker to demonstrate the difference.


For me the sound is made initially with the tip of the tongue at the front of the palate and then rolls to the sides of the tongue at the sides of the palate to blend in the y bit


So there is an audible difference, but it is rather a small one. Maybe a bit bigger than the difference in English pronunciation between "n" and "m". Yes?


I think it's more like " li"= straightforward "l " sound, and gli more like a combination of "l" and "y"


FAO Bunny 2013, yes thats the one, madrelingua do the bologna courses , online italian are affiliated and do the online, excellent, also listening exercises http://onlineitalianclub.com


Thanks so much for the link to the free lessons. Great resource!


I have also had some Skype lessons from them


Why is it "voluti" instead of "voluto"? I thought that participles didn't change gender/number when used with avere.


They do when there is a pronoun involved


I did not want them


I did not want them sounds more natural.


Actually that sentence in english sounds bad. I did not wantvthem just sounds better but matters liitle as we are talking italian.


Unfortunately that is not something a native English speaker ever says. We would always say "I didn't want them".


Doesn't "li" also mean ""you"? But when I put "I have not wanted you," it was marked wrong. How should I say "I have not wanted you" then?


Volere requires a direct object (pronoun that answers 'who?' or 'what?'). So, you must use the second person singular object in order to say "I have not wanted you." You would need to say "Non ti ho voluto." You might be thinking of 'gli' which sounds the same but means 'to you' instead. 'Li' only means 'them' (masculine).


Grazie. Here is a lingot!


Non li ho voluti. The "li" already indicates masculine/plural, why than "voluti"? Either "Non li ho voluto" or "Non l'ho voluti". Who can comment on this?


You have li m. Pl. So the past particle must agree in gender and number with the pronoun


I have not wanted them .. just doesn't make sense out of context .. if you added 'since yesterday' or some sort of time clause


Voluti. The speaker pronounces his 'i' sounds like 'e' sounds.


Isn't the intent of translating to make something (anything) foreign meaningful? If after you translate it, it is still not comprehensible then isn't the translation a failure?


While a verbatim translation is "I have not wanted them.", a more proper day-to-day English translation would be "I didn't want them." ("didn't" is a contraction of "did not")

Using a more proper day-to-day English translation helps in the learning process.


Non li ho voluti = literally a simple past. Passato prossimo i did not want them


Why doesn't it become 'non l'ho' ?


I imagine because if contracted it would be impossible to differentiate between li and lo


I assumed it was implied by 'voluti' as opposed to 'voluto'?


this is a poor translation. this is not a natural sentence.

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