- Forum >
- Topic: Italian >
- "Non è necessario che tu mett…
"Non è necessario che tu metta fuori la mano."
Translation:It is not necessary for you to put your hand out.
97 Comments
649
According to lucertola100's comment below, it is apparently a British English idiom.
As such, I say tsk, tsk, ending the sentence with a preposition, Brits?
Everything GermanLehrer has said is true, but let me add one cogent point:
It is a myth that one should not end a sentence with a preposition.
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition
- 649
It's really too bad DL doesn't have emoji. My virtual tongue was firmly in my virtual cheek when I made that comment. I also agree with you both, but especially that it is not wrong to end a sentence with a preposition.
GScottOliver: tsk,tsk -- "out" here is not a preposition, it's a verbal complement. The prepositional phrase would be "out your hand" which makes no sense-- "out" as I said is a verbal complement and as such it can be placed alongside the verb: "It's not necessary to PUT OUT your hand" or at the end as DL has it: "It's not necessary to PUT your hand OUT." In other words it's not restricted to a pre-position as it would be (or should be) if it were truly functioning as a preposition. Here's another pair of sentences to illustrate what's happening. "I climbed up the ladder" & "I picked up my son". On the surface they look as though they're behaving the same way structurally: 2 prepositional phrases at work. But if that were the case you'd expect the same thing to happen if you re-arranged elements: "I climbed the ladder up" & "I picked my son up." In the first sentence you can't place "up" at the end because it's functioning as a preposition and must remain fixed for the prepositional phrase to make sense. In the second sentence 'up' is not functioning as a preposition, therefore it doesn't have to remain in that pre-position and can be placed at the end without a change in meaning, precisely because it's not functioning as a preposition but rather as a verbal complement.
GScottOliver: Here's another pair to illustrate what I said below: "The runners ran up the hill" & "The runners ran up the score." If you were to re-arrange "up" you'd get: "The runners ran the hill up" & "The runners ran the score up." Obviously only the second makes sense and that's because in the first sentence "up" is functioning as a true preposition, indicating direction "up the hill" and is fixed in its position. In the second sentence it's not acting as a preposition at all, but as a verb complement; thought of another way, the verbs in the two sentences are "ran" in the first sentence, where? "up the hill" (prepositional phrase), whereas in the second the verb is "ran up", what? "the score." (verb + complement).
- 416
I've never come across this phrase as an idiom. But it makes perfect sense to me literally in relation to bus transport. There used to be in the UK (possibly still is in London) a distinction between compulsory bus stops and request stops. At the former the bus has to stop. At the latter it only stops if someone puts their hand out.
So if you put your hand out at a compulsory stop the driver or conductor might well say "There is no need for you to put your hand out."
Of course, the same distinction may not apply in Italy!
If that's true, why on earth would we be learning a British idiom in Italian? It would be nonsensical in Italian, then? As for the English grammar, it's perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition. It was some monk who tried to prescribe that one shouldn't, but he was importing a rule from Latin that makes no sense for Germanic languages, including English.
I'm ashamed to say that I pasted it into Google Translate and it gave the right answer. It does quite good on the subjunctive questions.
Sounds like it might mean begging or asking for favors. But that's probably in English.
Second time round and I got it wrong. I put "It is not necessary that you put up your hand" thinking a teacher might say that to older teenagers when they get to a certain stage it school. Next time I'll go back to Google Translate.
Putting OUT your hand sounds like the teacher is going to hit it with a ruler...
I put the same answer for the same reason. Especially since "put up" is one of the translations of metta
How is using Google Translate in this way going to help you learn Italian?
English idiom would be to "to hold your hand out" which means to ask for charity. DL doesn't accept this as a translation however.
The only time I ever got asked "to put my hand out" was to receive a punishment, by being hit with a ruler, by the teacher. Since people don't normally ask for punishment, the sentence sound very unnatural in english. DLs use of subjunctive present english translations, is punishment enough to native english speakers. I hope Italian learners doing the reverse tree don't get the idea that it OK to speak like this in English...
Where I come from you have to put out your hand to stop a bus, but it is not necessary to put out your hand to stop a tram because they stop at every station. This would seem to be a situation where the Italian phrase would be useful.
Googling "mettere fuori la mano" there are lots of examples that indicate putting your hand OUTSIDE of something, such as a window. In that context this makes sense.
Yes putting your hand outside something would be fine but putting you hand 'out'? I thought it might mean begging!
I think duo might be referring to the old days when we used to put our hands out to indicate a right or left turn in a vehicle.
I agree. One would not want to put one's hand outside a train window if there is a chance it will strike a tunnel wall.
But in that case you wouldn't tell someone that it's not necessary to do it, you would tell them not to do it.
I suggest that this sentence be removed altogether, as it doesn't make any sense in English, and no one really knows what it means in Italian
"It is not necessary for you to put your hand outside" correct as at March 2017. Politely suggesting that it would be best if the driver not trail his or her hand out of the car window. (A traffic offence in Australia if not actually signalling.)
I also answered this (because I didn't realize until I read the comments that "mettere fuori" was a set construction meaning "to set out" or "to hold out"), and I'm a little disturbed that it was accepted. Though thank you for making SOME sense of it, anyway!
- 100
The closest idiom I could find is "mettere le mani avanti" = "cautelarsi contro ciò che è spiacevole".
While this might be excellent idiomatic Italian (I wouldn't know) it is actually distracting from the lesson in hand; ie. learning the subjunctive tense. Only in my humble opinion, of course.
I am English and have heard the phrase "you don't need to put your hand out" many times. In English it means you don't need to get involved to help with someone else's problem. For example, a conversation might go like this: "My brother is in real trouble!" "Well, you don't need to put your hand out." Whether the same idea works in Italin, I don't know.
That's strange. I am a native English speaker, but Scottish, and it is a phrase I have never ever heard used in Scotland. We would say "You don't need to put yourself out" in the context lucertola100 has suggested.
That would mean that you don't need to do extra work in America, but I think that's the same idea.
American here–for us that would be "lend a hand." I'd understand if someone said "put your hand out" in this context, but it's not what we'd say.
Congratulations. Of the many comments here I think your explanation of the English meaning is the best. Now would some native Italian please confirm whether the Italian has the same idiomatic meaning of not needing to help? Or is it just a literal translation? I am constantly looking for interesting expressions and their equivalents so does Italian have its own idiomatic way of saying this?
I would also say "It is not necessary that your reach out your hand". That seems equally good to me, but I am not British!?
I thought this expression might have to do "going out of one's way," because WordRef/Collins shows that "fuori mano" means "out of the way."
See this link for phrases that call for the subjunctive tense in dependent clauses. One of them is 'È necessario che...' They list 11 others. http://italian.about.com/od/verbs/a/italian-verbs-present-subjunctive-tense.htm
Would a translation of "It is not necessary to put your hand out of the way" make better sense?
You don't need to put the hand outside. I was allowed that, though it sounds gross. Something like the monkey's paw perhaps.
The Monkey's Paw ... a short story that gave me nightmares when we read it at school! Haven't come across it for decades!
- 595
It means to me that tbe speaker is fed up with who they are speaking with and would rather not shake their hand.
why is the sentence "Non e necessario che tu METTA fuori la mano" and not "Non e necessario che tu METTI fuori la mano?
Metta is congiuntivo presente, metti is indicativo presente. Indicativo is for stating facts, congiuntivo is used to be polite, to express opinions, to describe things that may-have-or-may-not-have-happened-that's-not-the-point, among other things. So, in this sentence, congiuntivo is used because the speaker is not stating the other person really, in fact, did something (put out a hand).
Also see the link I posted above. Some expressions are always followed by verbs in congiuntivo mood, é necessario is one of them.
I translated the phrase as "It is not necessary for you to put out your hand." and DL rejected it giving me the correct solution "It is not necessary for you to put your hand out." Any comments, please.
I keep getting it wrong because in Australia we say "to put up your hand" which means I write put out your hand instinctively as it's closer...
barbara...It definitely should have been, since it means the same thing.
is it because you wrote it's rather than it is? Duo seems to have a problem with contracting words
Alex, Yes, that's it -- I mean that is it -- when you do that, it gives the folks at Duo contractions.
I think that might be the first time I have got something right! I always write out everything in full to be on the safe side, a lingot for your support!
Is this an idiom that means "You don't have to lend a hand?" 4 years of chat here, but still no answer on that, unless I missed it.
That's right. "It is not necessary to put your hand out." and "It is not necessary to put out your hand." are both fine sentences.
Another way of saying the same idiom in English is "You don't need to put yourself out" meaning you don't have to go to any trouble to help.
This translation is very stilted and formal. It would be more natural and mean exactly the same to say You don't need to put your hand out.
collbymenning: I believe that when articles of clothing or parts of the body are concerned, AND the reference is clear, then Italian uses the definite article rather than the possessive adjective. German's the same if you're familiar with that.
I'm sorry but I disagree with the English translation. A more accurate translation would be "I is not necessary that you put out your hand". Also, why is it "la mano" rather than "la tua mano"?
Someone commented on your last question a little lower down. When something is not likely to belong to anyone else they don't bother to specify with a possessive adjective. There's another sentence on DL about a pocket which also causes confusion.
DaveVelo1: I think DL's translation is fine, as is yours. I think both of them sound natural and are grammatically correct. As for your question, in Italian (as in German e.g.) the possessive adjectives are commonly omitted with parts of the body (and articles of clothing) unless the context is unclear. In this example, think of it as: who else's hand would someone be told it's unnecessary to put out?
DaveVelo1: In that case you'd specify "its hand" -- 'la sua mano' to refer to the mannequin.
The lousy part of the sentence is the use of the word "put". The next level down would be "do". I am pretty sure that there is a better word as "put" for every context.
BTW, DL accepts "It's not necessary that you stick out your hand."
I guess you are just living up to your name, but I'm afraid you are hyper-correcting. In the context of begging, for example, "put out your hand" is actually more natural and idiomatic than "stick out your hand."
Hello Tolong!
I wont guess why begging comes to your mind when you read ".. stick out your hand", but I am afraid for you it has some kind of negative connotation.
It's not about finding better words for "stick" but better words for "put". When I tried "stick" instead of put this was in my mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIAu7KPWco4 - so, hello again ;) .
In the context with begging the better phrase might be "put the tin can out" (more idiomatic) or "hold the hand out" (more natural).
About hyper-correction: Each of us molds language. That can be actively or passively (just by ignorance). We can leave it to extremists, to companies like Google, to propaganda, to dogmatic religions to shape the language for us in their interests, or we can protect our language and handle it with care for it's the basic tool we have to think, to communicate, to understand others and to express ourselves, to negotiate peace instead of letting money or weapons "talk" (say bribe, fight and kill). Yes, you might be right being afraid that I "hyper-correct", at least that it might happen sometimes while trying to find my way through foreign languages like English, Italian. It's a bit trial and error, "vallen en opstaan" Dutch for "to fall and stay up again" I probably run too fast too often, but I think that's not the worst thing one can do in a learning environment.
I don't know if you are pretty new to DL or if you just made a new account, but participating in the forum, is a great way to get to know the quirks and the possibilities of a language. Thank you for your response!
Well, you have missed my point, but you've done it with an amusingly condescending mixture of non sequitur and self-congratulation. So thanks for that.
To use" it is not necessary" is not good English and I doubt anyone would say it. My translation would be "you do not have to"
Akudznam...Context is everything. Standing alone as it does, it's hard to imagine where you'd hear or say this. So some scenarios: Beggars on a street or hitchhikers. Someone says "it's not necessary to put out your hand" ...people will still give you money or a ride.
WHY do you make so many errors, so frequently without the student being able to report them?
How can it be that I am punished for translating "la mano" by "the hand"? DL is more of a game with its own rules rather than a program to learn a language!
don't know if it was ever laid out here, but in most Romance languages, 'the' + 'a body part' always means 'yours', and also whose hand would you be talking about anyway?
