Template talk:it-conj

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Pronons[edit]

Moved by Mglovesfun (talk) from Talk:gemere. 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wiktionary editors, I'm an Italian student of Ancient Greek and Latin literatures at University of Siena in Arezzo. I think it will be better, if you substitute third person pronoun lui (m.)/lei (f.) for egli (m.)/essa (f.). On the contrary of currency Italian spoken language-use, lui and lei are accusative pronouns: in Italin written language, this use of them is perceived as a mistake. About of it, you could look up in: G. PATOTA, Italiano. Grammatica, Milano, Garzanti Linguistica, 2006; or S. CALAMAI, L'italiano: suoni e forme, Roma, Carrocci, 2008. Sorry for my not really perfect English, but - you can trust me - my Italian is alright ;). I hope I was useful. All the best, Marco L.

  • Well, De Mauro seems to use lui in our sense (see the second usage). Its entry for egli says it has written or formal usage. Maybe we should just add "egli" to the list (I shall ask our resident native Italian expert soon). SemperBlotto 11:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I adviced it because I'm an native Italian speaker too and all the Italian books I have read report, e.g.: I sono, tu sei, egli/essa è et cetera. Then in footnote they talk about the second use of lui/lei as something which is in currency use but is out of the ordinary. Maybe in the Accademia della Crusca website we can find some articles about it. I wish I didn't seem to be a know-all and I was able to improve the entry.
  • Yes, I am sure that you are correct. However, the same conjugation template is used for ALL Italian verbs, so I have to be extra careful before I make any changes to it. I have asked User:Barmar for her opinion. SemperBlotto 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi all. I am a native Italian speaker, but not a strong grammar expert. BTW I have found this (from it Wikipedia Pronome personale [1]): "Usare le forme lui, lei e loro come soggetto è in teoria sbagliato, poiché sono le forme del complemento oggetto (accusative) e, potendo essere posti dopo le preposizioni, sono anche le forme dei complementi indiretti. Tuttavia, da quando la lingua italiana è stata diffusa alle masse affiancando i vari dialetti, "egli", "ella", "essi" ed "esse" non hanno mai avuto un vero e proprio uso nella lingua parlata (tranne forse nei ceti più alti ed istruiti)." This means that the use of lui/lei is not incorrect. Actually when we conjugate an Italian verb we usually say io, tu, egli, noi, voi, essi (io sono, tu sei, egli è, noi siamo, voi siete, essi sono; io ho tu hai, egli ha etc etc), but in doing so there is a little problem: the feminine form of egli is not essa but ella, that is a literary-only term. This is why I would continue using lui/lei, like now and like the same Wikipedia does [2]. --Barmar 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a native speaker too. Wikipedia is simply wrong. Meanwhile it seems to have adjusted the previous statement by writing Le forme originarie egli, ella ed esso, essa, essi, esse a seguito di un lento e secolare processo di evoluzione linguistica sono state soppiantate dalle forme lui e loro e vengono ormai usate pressoché esclusivamente in ambiti circoscritti della lingua scritta, which has a slightly different meaning. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an authority in Italian grammar. None among "egli", "ella", "essi" and "esse" is a literary-only term or has been replaced by a non-subject pronoun: in the written language "lui", "lei", "loro" as subject remain very bad Italian, if not mistakes, and should not be used, e.g., on Wikipedia, as many users do. Please, find just one Italian encyclopedia or academic work doing this... I think it will be very hard. No matter if Tullio De Mauro, the most permissive Italian linguist, allows such an usage: the very more authoritative Gabrielli does not. --79.46.69.185 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Notice that "lui", "lei", "loro" are also indirect pronouns, not only accusative.

Collapsable[edit]

This really needs to be collapsable. It takes up masses of space making languages underneath (very often Latin) harder to find. I'd do it myself, but 1) someone might object 2) I have a habit of miscounting brackets and <div>s. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree: all other languages, AFAIK, have collapsible conjugation tables: for example, look at cantar. So I have done it (i.e. collapse it-conj et al.) —AugPi (t) 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)