1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Non l'ho sentito arrivare."

"Non l'ho sentito arrivare."

Translation:I have not heard him arrive.

August 16, 2013



Why is it incorrect to translate this as "I didn't hear her arrive"? Wouldn't that also be "Non l'ho..."?


"I didn't hear her arrive" would be L'ho sentita.

This happens because past participle has to agree in gender and number with the direct object preceding the verb avere.

check this http://italian.about.com/od/verbs/a/italian-verbs-past-participle-direct-object-agreement.htm


Good link. Very helpful. Thanx.


Grazie mille per il Link. Adesso capisco molto meglio


No, because is "sentito" , not "sentita"


"I did not hear him arrive" is a better translation. The current answer is too literal and sounds awkward in English.


Duo didnt accept it from me 6/2019


The Present Tense in this sentence is correct and not awkward. Both Present Tense and Simple Past tenses are correct here, only context can determine which one to use. Also, notice that US speakers tend to use Simple Past in some contexts where UK speakers would use Perfect Tense.


I don't know about anyone else, but to me, this is an award translation to English. While perhaps a grammarian might disagree, "I did not hear him arrive," would be a better translation.


Both are correct translations. Only context can determine which English verb tense to use. Also, in some contexts where a UK speaker would use Perfect Tense, US speakers tend to use Simple Past.


You can also use "arriving"


Why is "I did not hear him come" wrong?


DL is making a distinction between 'arrive' and 'come' (venire). Picky I know.


Ah. Boy, that is picky! Thanks!


"I did not hear him arrive" would be fine


Can someone explain me what is wrong with: "I have not heard him to arrive"


(American) I don't know the exact grammatical reason, but I will try to see if I can explain it.

When we say something about observing someone else's behavior, we leave off the "to". They don't "to verb", they just "verb".

So we don't "hear him to arrive", we "hear him arrive". We don't "see her to dance", we "see her dance". We don't "feel it (the ground) to shake", we "feel it shake".

Hope that helps.


Because an infinitive verb preceded by a verb of sense (to see, to watch, to hear, to feel) has no "to" in English. Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/verb-patterns/hear-see-etc-object-infinitive-or-ing


Im doing fine with past participle for the most part. I understood sentito meant "heard him" but im still not clear on what we gain from the l'? Can anyone try to take that on?


"lo" (shortened to l' because of the starting vowel sound of the next word) means "him" here. The sentence would be incomplete without it.


Why not I did not hear her arrive?

I was taught that the past participle can optionally match the direct object pronoun but I guess not. People are saying on this forum that is has to match the clitic.


As explained in previous comments, the past participle must agree with the direct object if the latter precedes the former. It is not optional.


This might confuse someone in English. Does it mean "never" or "I did not hear him arrive" (recently)


why "i didn't hear you arrive" is not correct?


Because the direct object is "him", not "you".

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