"Volevo passarti a prendere dopo scuola."

Translation:I wanted to come get you after school.

October 22, 2013

This discussion is locked.


This is a 'guess what it means' type of sentence. Another one.


volevo = I + wanted
passarti = pass by + you
a prendere = to take/get
dopo scuola = after school

I wanted, to pass you by, to get, after school ~
I wanted to pass by to get you after school ~
I wanted to come (and) get you after school ~
I wanted to collect you after school


The translation is not good in UK English, is it OK in US?


"I wanted to come get you after school" is fine in US English.


(American English speaker) I am older, but I don't think it's great English either. I think it's almost a slang or a shorthand. It's really "I wanted to come (and) get you," or more accurately "I wanted to come (to) get you," with the words in parentheses implied.


i'm german speaking but quite fluent in english. THIS sentence is an enigma and not apted to learn a language in s beginner level


Some interesting insights on American English in these comments. In Australian and New Zealand English we would never use "come get" like this either in speaking or in writing. However, we would be just as likely to say "I wanted to come and pick you up after school" as "I wanted to come and get you after school". We would be less likely to say "I wanted to come to get you after school", although it wouldn't shock me to hear it.


Yes. I wanted to come to get you after school might be preferable in writing, but the sentence as written is acceptable, especially spoken.


I think that "come get you" is a phrase that is commonly spoken in the South and it is informally used in other regions of the US; however I don't think it would ever be used in formal writing. One might compare it to the use of "how come" ; one would use "why" when writing a formal letter or paper.


Volevo passare a prenderti dopo la scuola...questa è la frase giusta in italiano


That's what I thought too. DL disagreed and marked me wrong...


I totally agree with you!! Someone thinks differently.


"I wanted to catch you after school" would be a common expression in middle America. This would be a statement made by someone to a friend indicating that the speaker wanted to meet the other person. I think it should be accepted, especially since the clues for "prendere" include "to catch."


I don't think it means meet; it means collect, or pick up ,which is not quite the same.


Please - an Italian to the rescue on the possibly stray "ti" issue?


Passare a prenderti: grammaticalmente corretta. Passarti a prendere: è comunemente usato e accettato nella lingua parlata. Stessa cosa per "venire a prenderti / venirti a prendere". I hope it was useful.


Are you saying that passarti is slang, while prenderti is (more) correct?


No, both are equal: according to Treccani (https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/clitici_(Enciclopedia-dell'Italiano)/): "La scelta dell’ospite è libera invece con certi verbi che reggono l’infinito" (the choice of the host is free instead with some verbs that take the infinitive), e.g. "b. ti verrò a prendere = verrò a prenderti"


Totally confused here: Shouldn't be Volevo pasare a prenderti dopo scuola Any explanation? The sentence doesn't make sense in Italian.


It does; it's called clitic climbing and it's a very common feature of Italian.


I wish I knew what is meant by a clitic. Is it some term used in American English? I have been learning, using and teaching English grammar for nearly 60 years now, and until starting this Duolingo course, had never heard it, either in relation to my native language, nor when learning French, German, Spanish and Italian. It just seems to mean small or part words - but why this umbrella title is used, when it appears to refer to things (like contractions, indirect objects, or prefixes), I have no idea. Any help, please?


It's a very common term in linguistics (there's much literature about it), not so much in grammar; in Italian grammar they're called "pronomi atoni" (unstressed pronouns). "Clitic" means exactly that, it's a word that cannot carry any stress, and has to be pronounced together with other words: in English it mostly applies to contractions and the Saxon genitive (you can't say 'm 've or 's without another word). In Italian, contrary to Latin, where e.g. POpulus (the people) became popuLUSque (and the people), clitics can't even alter the word's stress. An unstressable word slips by unnoticed, and it's very convenient to focus the attention on the words you really wish to communicate; think of the difference in focus between "my father's house" and "the house of my father".


Wow! Thank you for this explanation! You are clearly quite an expert and we are lucky to have your explanations!


Thank you! So it seems a clitic isn't a grammatical term, but merely indicates a part word that is not stressed. I've never studied linguistics, but it seems odd that in none of the languages I have studied, it has never been used. Is it used more in North America, do you know? You make me feel very ignorant: I had never previously encountered the term Saxon genitive for the possessive use of the apostrophe.


Ah, that's how it's usually referred to in English teaching in Italy, but naturally many of these terms have no reason to be taught to native speakers... I first met the term clitic in my Ancient Greek classes (they invented the term after all); in my French classes we used the same terms we use in Italian. It seems that in French grammar they're considered the standard pronouns and the stressed ones are called "pronoms disjoints" (disjunctive pronouns). I don't think that the usage varies depending on the variety of English, it probably depends more on the background terminology of the book or teacher. Many resources online seem to treat them as the normal pronouns for Italian as well, and the stressed ones are called "tonic" (direct translation from Italian) or "prepositional" (because they're mostly used after prepositions - makes sense).


The Italian sentence is wrong! Correct sentence: Volevo passare a prenderti dopo scuola.


"Volevo passare a prenderti", "volevo passarti a prendere" and "ti volevo passare a prendere" are all equally correct and mean the same. With other verbs the order you're suggesting isn't even a possibility, e.g. "devo far promuoverti" <- WRONG, only the other two are possible. See https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/clitici_%28Enciclopedia-dell'Italiano%29/ "3.1 La scelta dell’ospite e l’ordine lineare" for which verb allows which order. This sentence is a combination of "(18) verbi modali" (volevo) and "(19) verbi di moto a luogo" (passare) which is why it allows 3 possibilities.


buona serata. Credo che lei sia italiano quanto me. Purtroppo la spiegazione che lei ha dato, indicando che si tratta dell'uso di un verbo nella frase in discusione come verbo di moto a luogo, mi sembra non regga. Comunque io mi tengo la mia convinzione come lei sicuramente si terrà la sua. Penso che "prendere te" che si trasforma in "prenderti" sia corretto, ma "passare te?" non mi sembra ci stia. Comunque grazie per il suo intervento che purtroppo non mi ha convinto. Magari qualche altro italiano esperto di madrelingua potrà confermare o smentire la mia tesi. Buona serata


Seens to make more sense


Ho sentito così: Volevo passarti apprendere dopo scuola.

Questo non ha senso, davvero?


"Apprendere" non ha senso, ma è la pronuncia corretta di "a prendere" in questa frase: vedi https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raddoppiamento_fonosintattico


'come get you' is bad English!


could anyone please explain why "ti" is added to "passare" and not "prendere"?


Ups, just saw Formicas explanation, forget about the question


"come get" . .. urrrgh, horrible English!


I typed "volevo pasarti apprendere dopo scuola" to what I thought I heard in the audio. And (unjustly) was marked correct...


What was that? As English is not my native language, this sentence sounded very unusual to me..


This is complicated by the fact that American English and British English speakers would say this differently. The translation given is American English. A British English speaker would probably say "I wanted to come and get you", or "I wanted to come to get you".


Laur1e. Your comments are spot on.


The translation in English is awful.


Why is ti the object of passare and not prendere?

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