"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.

July 30, 2013


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...)

September 12, 2017


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.

June 10, 2018


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

February 7, 2014


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.

January 19, 2019


Ditto that

April 23, 2017


I don't understand this sentence at all.

August 17, 2015


Can someone please explain this usage of perché?

February 18, 2014


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


February 28, 2014


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]".

February 6, 2017


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

March 24, 2015


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

October 24, 2017


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!

March 14, 2018


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

September 10, 2018


wow. This must be axiomatic. Voluto?

July 30, 2013


I think you mean "idiomatic"

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

February 6, 2017


Thank you

July 30, 2013


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".

May 21, 2014


perdersi = to get lost;

July 3, 2014


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

March 30, 2018
Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.