I think Italians just like the sound of putting ci in the front of verbs that don't need it just to mess with us
Since "Ci" means "us" wouldn't it be better the other meaning of tentare: "to tempt" The whole sentence would be: "They have tempted us."
Or at the very least "They have tried us". The interpretation here eliminates "ci" completely.
I sympathise with you since I went for "they have seduced us" (think of Italian politics) but on reflection aren't both of our attempts ruled out by the fact that "tentato" would have an ending to reflect the plural in us - which I take to be a direct object? Someone please pop along and put us both out of our misery with a bit of quick guidance.
The ending of tentato wouldnothelpin this case -- with ci as "us", adjusting the ending of the past participle is only optional, not mandatory...
This is news to me - I thought it was a rule? Anyone care to comment on benczup's comment? Someone has marked ben' down without appearing to say why (I find this incredibly unhelpful and it comes across more as a put-down than a valid contribution - like folk/boring teenagers who think it cool to say "yeh-right". No disrespect to you ben' - anyone care to answer my question on ben's point?
This sentence is quite difficult and most of the comments are not really helpful. But the problem is that the translation of DL is wrong (IMHO, I'm not a native speaker)
The problem is that the verb tentare (synonym of provare = to try, to attempt) is used with di:
- tento di spiegare (I try to explain)
(the pronominal particle "CI" DON'T replace constructions with DI)
tentare qualcuno (to tempt someone; to lead into temptation) used often in religious contexts. Il diavolo tentò Gesù. But also to express that someone is tempted to do something that he should not do). Vuoi mangiare un biscotto? Non mi tentare!
tentare constructed with a = lasciarsi tentare a fare qualcosa (let one self be tempted by someone/something to do something) or "tentare al male"
colloquial: actions/things that one wants to do (that attracts) but that don't seem to be easy, appropriate or legal: È un idea che mi tenta, Il progetto mi tenterebbe.. (sentirsi tentato DI fare qualcosa.
So - on my opinion - there is no way that we have in this sentence the pronominal particle CI; it can only be the direct object pronoun Ci (us) And it's impossible that it can be translated "try" (synonym provare) because with this meaning it's always "tentare di"
Ci hanno tentato = They have tempted US.
Unfortunately it's a verb that also the Italians use often in a wrong way.
But as always maybe it's better to ask a native speaker!
As someone said, probably if "tentare" had assumed the meaning "to tempt", it would have probably been "ci hanno tentati", although it doesn't sound too bad to say "ci hanno tentato" (probably due to the similarity with the expression "ci hanno tentato di...").
As a result, I feel the best translation could probably be: "They have tried". So, what does "ci" mean in this case??? I think it doesn't mean nothing, as you can read on Treccani dictionary (see 3); verbs like "sentirci" or "vederci" work in the same way. The only thing I'm not really sure is if "tentarci" does really exist (I usually use "provarci" in this way).
This was my source: Una grammatica italiana per tutti, Edilingua, p128. "Il participio passatp puoi cambiare se i pronomi diretti sono mi, ti ci , vi. Esempi. A: Anna, ti ho visto ieri con Marco vicino al centro commerciale. (si puo ache dire: ti ho vista). ..."
I definitely thought it was going for "They tried us" as in "they tried our services" or "they tried out our fighting skills" or something akin to that.
I guess I just don't understand why it wouldn't be L'hanno tentato vs. Ci hanno tentato.
Since "tentarci" is not listed as one of the idioms, am I to assume that "ci" here is meant to stand in for a prior referrent? If that's the case, this is simply unfair. Without a context, "They tried it" would be translated "L'hanno provato" or "L'hanno trovato" as they suggested...
I'm still not sure I understand. Does 'ci' mean 'it' in this case, as in "They tried it."?
The "ci" here is an intensifier, reinforcing the fact that they really did try. Other examples: Ci hai fame? Non ci vedo.
I read the ci as meaning "at it" or something like that, so it's like "they tried at it/they had a go at it"
Why can't it be 'They tried' ? Many times in the translations of this section I have dropped the "have" because it didn't sound right in English. And I feel like the same would apply in this sentence. 'They have tried' and 'They tried' means essentially the same thing imo. Thoughts?
I wrote 'They have tried us' and was marked wrong. If 'ci' is used to refer to a previous statement, give us the previous statement. Since that is not possible in this forum, then just use 'ci' as a reflexive or as 'us' and put an end to this frustration.
Something very wrong here DL surely?:
and was told that I was wrong.
Correct answers given as either:
@ They tried it.
or •@ They have tried.
Now at first, looking at the first correct answer I thought it could have been because I had missed out "it" but then the second supposedly correct answer doesn't have "it" either!!!
Can a DL mod please pop along to sort/clarify this? it's clearly driving us all barmy. I've tried and tried and tried to understand it :(
Is it really that wrong? 3.5 million hits on Google suggests it's used quite a lot.
"hanno", 3rd person plural of "avere": they have - in Italian the subject pronouns often can be left out, since they are part of the verb conjugation. All forms of avere (io ho, tu hai, lui/lei ha, noi abbiamo, voi avete, loro anno) are different, so there is no potential for confusion and thus no need to add io, tu, ...