1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Ho acqua nello zucchero."


"Ho acqua nello zucchero."

December 18, 2012



This sentence is pretty straightforward to translate, but it doesn't seem very plausible to me.... Thoughts?


What if you accidentally get water in your sugar bowl?


It's plausible. Why can't you have water in the sugar?


I suppose... it just sounded a little strange.


I thought it should be the other way around. "I have sugar in my water."


It's a lot more common that way, but the reverse can be said about people who use too much sugar in their beverages. :D


excellent!!!! thanks! So is this a sarcastic phrase? Been to Italy a couple of times, so I think it's very plausible for it to be used this way, they like to bite people like that.


I think they keep repeating "nello zucchero" in different contexts, because with the vocabulary we have for now, there really are not that many chances of using "nello". There simply is not any other way to teach us, how that word works.


In any case, it would be better as: There is some water in the sugar.


They seem to have a problem with stuff in their sugar.


A number of us have complained when people are extremely literal in their translations leaving us with non-sense as the final product. So my effort is always to translate less literally and have it make sense in the language that is the final product. Could be a trick sentence to make sure we are paying attention but I'd rather people think about making sense!


Possibly, they are not just people. Partly they act like robots. Who do you think they are? I think, some people participate, but not regularly, whereas everybody knows of the fact that regular relationships are more wholesome..


"Ho"=there is???


No, "ho" is "I have," but the translation is a paraphrase (I would guess in an effort to make the sentence sound more natural in English).


When does one know to use "nel" as opposed to "nello?"


I agree with trollreign. in + il --> nel in + lo --> nello in + la --> nella in + l' --> nell' Just to add to the list, "lo" precedes masculine words -- it's la zebra, etc. -- that start with an "s" followed by any consonant (often called "s impura"), z, x, "gn" (lo gnocchi), or I believe "gli" when it acts as one sound (confirmation, anyone?). Hope that helps


C'e means there is , I feel like the use of ho is not right here.


This is just a dumb sentence. Authors should find another way to present these words.


Why not "ha" for "there is" like an unspecified third person singular? "ho" is the only correct use?


It's just not commonly done in Italian. I believe that if you said "Ha acqua nello zucchero," a native speaker would ask who has it. I think the idea with "ho" is that it's like if I said "You have something on your shirt" to mean "There is something on your shirt" -- it's only relevant to the immediately present person. However, the discussion seems to be about how natural it sounds to say "I have water in the sugar" -- it seems like a strange utterance. "There is water in the sugar" ("C'è acqua nello zucchero") seems like a better alternative.


The sentence is grammatically correct, but, as italian, I assure you no one would ever use it. We'd rather say "C'è dell'acqua nel contenitore dello zucchero" or "Lo zucchero si è bagnato"


Why does "Ho acqua," that is, "I have water,"also correctly translate into "There is water?" Why wouldn't that be "È l'acqua," or something like that?


The usual (and probably better?) translation would be c'è dell'acqua, but to answer your question, think about "You have something on your shirt." It really means that there is something, but it uses "have" in a more passive way than you often see it.


Why not: "io ho acqua nello zucchero"?


That is a grammatical alternative to the sentence given. In Italian, explicitly stating the subject pronoun (io, tu, lei/lui, etc.) is not required but allowed. In some cases, it's best to state it (if it's not clear who/what you're referring to), but here "ho" unambiguously means the speaker is doing the action (the speaker has water in the sugar), so it's not necessary to specify that "io" is the subject.


Though "Io" is not necessary because it is implied in the verb, using it shifts the focus of the sentence toward the person doing the action, rather than putting the focus on the action. For instance, the difference between "Scrivo" vs "Io scrivo" is that in the prior you are saying that I write (something), whereas in the latter you are saying that you yourself write (something).


Could we say "I have sugar water" ??


what about " I have water in the sugar"?


When pronouncing "ho" or "ha" is the H silent? Sounding more like "oh" and "ah"?


Italians do not pronounce h in the beginning of words. They are even leaving it out. So for example horrible is orribile in Italian, but there are many more similar things.


Just to elaborate, the "h" is NEVER pronounced in Italian. At the beginning of a word, yes, it is totally silent. But when it occurs in the middle of a word, it generally modifies how other letters sound. E.g., "gnocchi" sounds like the English word "key" at the end, but the ending of "Fibonacci" sounds like the beginning of the word "cheese". So in my example, the h causes "gnocchi" to have a hard /c/ sound.


I wrote as a translation "I have water in my sugar" and it was correct. Though, there is no possessive article. Something note-worthy!


I think they've just been using using this to help us choose between in, nel, nello, etc. because lo zucchero is memorable - even though it doesn't make too much sense in ordinary conversation.


Why would you need this sentence. I think perhaps something has got lost in translation!


I understand they taught "zucchero" so they could teach about the usage of 'Lo', but what a strange sentence :)


I got it right, but who ever says this?


This sentence is stupid.

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