1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Non c'è voluto molto perché …

"Non c'è voluto molto perché si perdessero."

Translation:It did not take much for them to get lost.

July 30, 2013



I think you mean idiomatic. Ci vuole means It takes or requires: http://www.wordreference.com/iten/volere . C'è voluto would be the passato prossimo.


I don't understand where the è in c'è voluto comes from, because it's not present in ci vuole at all. (also because the auxiliary verb of volere isn't essere, but avere so it makes even less sense for this è to appear...)


You are right, volere would take the auxiliary avere. The verb volerci, however, requires essere. Verbs ending in ci and si, such as aspettarsi, use essere as the auxiliary verb.


It's also worth pointing out that volere takes essere when it is followed by an infinitive which would take essere in the present perfect - sono voluto andare: I wanted to go. Other modal verbs (potere, sapere, dovere) do this as well.


I don't understand this sentence at all.


Can someone please explain this usage of perché?


I was wondering the same thing. Apparently, 'perché', followed by the subjunctive, can also mean 'in order that':



per = for, che = what. For what? For them to lose themselves haha.


My view of the literal meaning;

non c'è volute molto = "It did not want/need much" = "not much was wanted/needed"

perché = "in order that'. If you consider the literal translation of perché to be "for that", i.e., per che, then it's not such a stretch.

si perdessero = "they lost themselves" = "they caused themselves to become lost/to be lost".

Putting it all together in a literal sense, "It did not want/need much for that they caused themselves to be lost."

A lot of reflexive verbs can make sense if you put them in terms of: "[I/you/he/she/we/they] caused [my/your/him/her/our/them]self/selves to be [past participle of verb]".


The only thing this analysis misses is that the pronominal verb perdersi means "to get lost". See LoopySquirrel's earlier comment, and BrucePlumb's later one. Thank you, Jeffrey!


Please remove this useless, misleading and not helping to learn sentence.


I strongly disagree. I didn’t understand this sentence at first. There were very interesting things to learn from it. The expression “ci vuole” I have seen before but this was the first time to see it in past tense. “Perché not only means “why” or “because” but also “in order that” or “for” when followed by the subjunctive. “Perdere” (to lose) becomes “perdersi” (to get lost). Excellent sentence to study.


Some are here not to lose hearts, others are here to learn a language... :)


So literally: "There was not much want for that they lost themselves"?


No, that's what you would think at first, but read the other comments for an explanation. You can learn a lot of important expressions from this one sentence alone.


What's wrong with "It didn't take much for them to lose themselves" ?


'To lose yourself' is something different than 'to get lost'. There is an overlap in some cases, but not in this case.


It's more idiomatic indeed. E.g. italians say 'ci vuole tempo' meaning 'it takes time/will take time'. But it's so devastating that Duo gives me more difficult stuff during Strengthen skills practice instead of putting it into the lesson in the first place!


This is really difficult because it is a colloquial expression with no indication of the meaning anywhere.


wow. This must be axiomatic. Voluto?


I think you mean "idiomatic"

"axiomatic" means that the logic obeys very fixed rules which allow only one result.


The only thing that bothers me here is DL translating "perdere" with "to get lost" when it is used in the sense of "to lose".


perdersi = to get lost;


Why not "It didn't take much for them to lose themselves"?

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