"Noi scriviamo agli uomini."

Translation:We write to the men.

August 1, 2013



Since gli uomini is the men, would that make agli uomini - to the men? I put "We write to men" as the translation and it was marked incorrect.

November 26, 2013


You're not writing to any men, but a specific group - "the men". "We write to men" would be "Noi scriviamo a uomini"

November 26, 2013


"agli" = "a gli" so "agli uomini" directly translates into "to the men" (the preposition and article merge)

May 31, 2014


Why not "We write the men"?

September 12, 2015


At least in the Australian version of English, we don't "write (a person)" but "write TO (a person)". The former seems to be acceptable in America.

September 2, 2018


Right on bro !

September 23, 2018


It's acceptable English. The indirective object in English is observed from word order, and the "to" is often understood. In a sentence like, "He wrote his parents last night," I teach my students to ask questions: "Who wrote"? He did...He is the subject. "Wrote what?" ...a letter or some form of communication. That's the direct object, in this case, unspoken but understood. "Wrote to whom?" ...to his parents. That's the indirect object, with "to" understood. In German, the noun gets an ending to indicate its use...English jettisoned all endings but the genitive, now called "possessive"...'s or s'.

September 25, 2018


I also wonder why "write Anna" is accepted but "write men" isn't. Does it sound so strange to English native speakers? That people down-vote Sampaio.Marcelo's question seems to indicate that it does. Is it because of the plural?

February 3, 2018


why isn't it agl'uomini? Like dell"uomo -- dropping the vowel

May 11, 2016


It should be. This is an error that will, I'm sure, be corrected.

April 3, 2018


That's what I put down

March 28, 2019


It accepted a similar answer for a similar question before

March 28, 2019


We're writing the men...the "to" is redundant in English, and therefore optional. I had an argument with an English teacher who claimed that one could never have an indirect object without a direct object. I won the argument with this sentence. (It's cheating...I know. The direct object is understood...we wrote a letter or a note.)

April 3, 2018


You can't count on translating "da" with the same English word every time.

August 1, 2013


So 'agli' is more like "a gli"?

March 12, 2014


Exactly like 'a gli', it's a contraction. In Italian the contractions don't use an apostrophe as they would in English. There are several common examples in Italian - de + i = dai, de + lo = dallo, in + lo = nello, in + il = nel, a + i = ai, a + le = alle etc

March 12, 2014


Thank you, NobleJohn and here a Lingot for you.

Give that man a Lingot.

December 3, 2014


Why does the definition of dallo include "for", but it is not accepted as an answer?

August 1, 2013


Because it's meaning changes with context and we use different words to express those meanings in English.

October 13, 2013


is it pronounced 'womoni' or literally 'u-omini'

February 7, 2017


Something like Womini, but not womOni :)

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