"He has saved me a place."
Translation:Lui mi ha tenuto un posto.
now it's right.
i wrote: lui mi ha salvato un posto
and got it right.
why is "ha tenuto un posto per me" wrong? Or is it? Any native italian speakers out there?
well, it isn't wrong, but it isn't the correct translation: it's the same difference between "he saved a place for me" and "he saved me a place"
why can it not be "Lui mi ha tenutA un posto", since I am female? Surely it should agree, such that either tenuto or tenuta should be ok?
"tenuto" inflects according to the object of the sentence: it is masculine because "posto" is masculine. "Mi" is not the direct object of the verb (it means "for me") so it doesn't influence the participle's gender.
Also, the participle often doesn't inflect when it is part of transitive, active, present perfect verb form: "Ero stanca, lui mi ha tenuto sveglia"/"ero stanca, lui mi ha tenuta sveglia" (I was tired, he kept me awake) are both used in Italian.
The gender distinction is not optional with passive forms or intransitive verbs (essentially, those that have "essere" as auxiliary verb) "She went home" = "è andata a casa", "This house was built 20 years ago" = "Questa casa è stata costruita 20 anni fa".
I had not noticed the fact that "mi" was the indirect object, hence my confusion. It is perhaps obvious, since "posto" is clearly the direct object, but I should have taken more time to think through the sentence in English as "He has saved a place FOR me", such that it would be obvious that "me" was dative.
Has anyone else felt that storming rage of blazing fire when you're on the last point with no hearts left and you get it wrong, but you actually knew it?
Could someone tell me when hearts are awarded? There is no explanation I can find on the site
Why is mi ha tenuta un posto pinged as wrong? Assuming that the speaker is a woman, and that the ending of the past participle changes to match the gender of the clitic.
it is wrong because the direct object of the verb is "un posto" and it is masculine "mi" is for to me so it doesn't affect the participle.
I see. Thank you for taking the time to answer. Just one tiny niggling thing (and as a possible return favour) in English it would be "he kept a place for me" rather then "to me" (prepositions are a useful nuisance, since as useful they might be, they are also often false friends when you try and translate them directly from one language to another - as I am finding to my cost, time and again)
You're right! Furthermore in English there are two direct objects, so it's even more difficult to distinguish, in Italian (where a verb can take only one direct object), the different parts of speech
"Mi ha risparmiato un posto" is wrong. Why? Is "risparmiare" used only with actual physical things?
"risparmiare" means the opposite of "spend" if you buy something cheap "risparmi soldi", if you don't diddle, "risparmi tempo" etc. But you can't "risparmiare un posto" as long as you can't spend a place.
The direct object pronoun precedes the verb. "Ha mi..." puts the direct object pronoun after the verb, which is incorrect.
This is correct, except that in this sentence "mi" is the indirect object, as "un posto" is the direct object.