Could you have it made for me?

Discussion in 'Italian-English' started by cecil, Dec 12, 2006.

  1. cecil

    cecil Senior Member

    USA American English
    All:

    Potrebbe farmelo fare? Could you have it made for me? Giusto o no?

    Potrebbe farmi preparato due uove strapezze? Could you have two scrambled eggs prepared for me? Giusto o no?

    cecil
     
  2. TrentinaNE Senior Member

    USA
    English (American)
    I don't think so. My attempt: Potrebbe (potresti) averlo fatto per me?

    Elisabetta
     
  3. cecil

    cecil Senior Member

    USA American English
    Your expression is certainly closer to the English expression, but somewhere I think I've read that fare fare is "to have made." We'll see what the natives say. Thanks.

    cecil
     
  4. TrentinaNE Senior Member

    USA
    English (American)
    It appears you are right, cecil. Check out this thread. :)

    Elisabetta
     
  5. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    What misled Elisabetta is probably the fact that potrebbe farmelo fare can mean both:

    could you have it made for me? (and)
    would you allow me to do it?

    Better to use your other example:

    Potrebbe farmi preparare due uova strapazzate?
    Could you have 2 scrambled eggs prepared for me.

    Potrebbe farmi mandare 2 scatoloni per domani mattina?
    Could you have 2 boxes sent to me by tomorrow morning?

    Always use the infinitive after fare.

    Also note:

    Potrebbe essere cosi' gentile da farmi preparare due....
    Would you be so kind as to have 2 xxx made...

    In less formall contexts, as you probably already know, you can use the second person:

    Potresti farmi....
     
  6. ElaineG

    ElaineG Senior Member

    Brooklyn NY
    USA/English
  7. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Could someone please clarify whether far [+infinitive] takes an indirect or a direct object. Both are used in examples in the above thread.

    For example,

    Would "Make her/him speak more clearly" be

    Falla parlare piu' chiaramente
    Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente

    OR

    Falle parlare piu' chiaramente
    Fagli parlare piu' chiaramente
     
  8. cecil

    cecil Senior Member

    USA American English
    Elisabetta,

    This was very helpful:

    So if you have in English:
    Have Catherine make a good tea for me
    You can translate
    Fai fare a Catherine un buon the per me

    You can notice how the constuction is different:

    English = Have someone make (or do) something
    Italian = Far fare a qualcuno qualcosa

    How did you search for the thread? I tried "Search" with far fare, fare fare, and have done, but without results.

    Thanks,

    cecil

    Very helpful, I've made a note of these phrases. Can't trust the old brain anymore.


    Another question, somewhat related:

    Would the following expression be correct for "I could have prepared the eggs."

    Potrei aver preparato le uova.


    Ah, you searched with "fare + fare"? I'll see if I get the same results.

    Thanks,

    cecil

    Moderator note: Egg question moved to new thread. Grazie!
     
  9. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    We were a bit sidetracked. Could someone please clarify this for me.
     
  10. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    Well... If I strictly had to choose among these ones, I'd pick:
    Falla parlare piu' chiaramente
    Fallo parlare piu' chiaramente

    ...but in fact I wouldn't say anything of the above. Far fare implies sort of my direct participation in the process; whereas here, I only have to 'convince' him to speak. Thus, If I was to use parlare, I'd say: fai in modo che parli più chiaramente.
    Nevertheless, 'native' chioces would rather be: fai in modo che lui sia più chiaro, fatti spiegare più chiaramente, etc.

    As to point out what I'm trying to explain, the expression l'hanno fatto parlare perfectly fits for instance in a context of police questioning, implying a bit of offhanded manners were used to make him speak.
     
  11. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    OK. So it takes a direct object.

    ie. "l'hanno fatto parlare" NOT "gli hanno fatto parlare"

    This thread
    http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=117152
    uses these examples which use an indirect object

    io farò fare a lui per te- I'll have him do that for you
    fargli scrivere una biografia di Behetoven - Have him write a biography of Beethoven

    Are these correct?
     
  12. dirittodritto Senior Member

    Minneapolis
    English; USA
    Mi fai fare due uove...

    O la frase: io farò fare a lui per te- I'll have him do that for you

    Te lo faccio fare da lui.

    Di solito, quando si usa il futuro in inglese, si usa il presente in italiano, per esempio quando si promete qualcosa, o quando si decide qualcosa in quel momento:

    I'll answer it (the phone or door).

    Rispondo io.

    Quindi, Will you have a chocolate cake made for me?

    Mi fai fare una torta di ciocolato?
     
  13. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Grazie ma non è la risposta che sto cercando.

    "a lui" puo essere sostituito in italiano con "gli".

    Allora, "io farò fare a lui per te" = "io gli farò fare per te".

    Dunque, se si segue questa regola

    Falla parlare più chiaramente :cross:
    Fallo parlare più chiaramente :cross:

    Falle parlare più chiaramente :tick:
    Fagli parlare più chiaramente :tick:

    Credo che questo non sia corretto.
     
  14. dirittodritto Senior Member

    Minneapolis
    English; USA
    Si. Hai ragione, rispondevo piu' alla prima domanda. Quindi,fagli parlare piu' chiaramente e' correcto, y falle parlare, con il soggetto indirecto.

    Nota que si usa "gli" nella lingua parlata anche con il soggetto al plurale. Tipo gli ho detto, invece di ho detto a loro, che sarebbe la forma grammaticalmente correcta. Fagli parlare, se ci sono piu' persone, o se c'e' una persona sola.
     
  15. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Allora, mi stai dicendo che usare l'oggetto diretto è un sbaglio e "Falla parlare più chiaramente" e "Fallo parlare più chiaramente" sono espressioni sbagliate?
     
  16. dirittodritto Senior Member

    Minneapolis
    English; USA
    Si, e' sbagliato dire "falla parlare" o "fallo parlare."

    Si usa il soggetto indiretto. Tipo: Dai...fagli parlare!
     
  17. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Grazie. Finalmente la risposta che cercavo!
     
  18. dirittodritto Senior Member

    Minneapolis
    English; USA
    :)

    E grazie per la correzione!
     
  19. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Prego...:D
     
  20. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    WRONG!!

    :confused:

    intransitive verbs:

    Fallo parlare = fai parlare lui = have/make/let him talk/speak
    falla parlare = fai parlare lei = have/make/let her talk/speak

    fagli parlare :cross:

    transitive verbs:

    fagli dire = fai dire a lui = have him say
    falle dire = fai dire a lei have her say

    faglielo dire = fallo dire a lui = have him say it
    faglielo dire = fallo dire a lei = have her say it
     
  21. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Adesso sono anche piu perplesso di prima!

    Stai dicendo che ci sia una regola per "parlare" (oggetto diretto) ed un altra per "dire" (oggetto indiretto)?
     
  22. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    No. I gave you an example of a transitive verb and an example of an intransitive verb.
     
  23. dirittodritto Senior Member

    Minneapolis
    English; USA
    Guarda, per me "fagli parlare," lo uso quando voglio dire "let him talk."

    Faglielo dire lo usarei si voglio dire "let him say it," como dici tu. O fallo dire a lui/lei.

    Ti dico como lo direi io.
     
  24. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Dire and Parlare are both intransitive verbs...
     
  25. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
  26. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    Diritto, I am sorry but I have to insist. Fagli parlare is WRONG, end of story. :)
     
  27. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    And "fagli dire"?
     
  28. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    Fagli dire is RIGHT. Because when the main verb is transitive and it can hold a complemento oggetto (qualcosa) then you must use an indirect pronoun for the person who does the action (make/let him say). Could it be any clearer? :D
     
  29. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Are we on the same page?

    An intransitive verb is one whose object must be an indirect object.

    A transitive verb is one whose object must be a direct object.

    If "dire" were a transitive verb, you would say "L'ho detto" instead of "Gli ho detto".

    An example of a transitive verb is "ascoltare" which means "to listen to". Therefore, you would say "L'ho ascoltato" and not "Gli ho ascoltato".
     
  30. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    This is my last reply to this thread because things are getting out of hand. :) Whatever happened to farlo fare? If you need clarifications on pronoun usage in general there is plenty of existing threads to look at. This thread is about far fare. So here it goes, once more:

    1. Transitive Verbs (Use indirect pronouns for the person)

    Make/have him listen:
    Fagli ascoltare

    Make/have him listen to it:
    Faglielo ascoltare. (it to him)
    Fallo ascoltare a lui

    Note: Dire--a transitive verb--behaves in exactly the same way as ascoltare.

    2. Intransitive Verbs (Use direct pronouns for the person):

    Let him in/Make him come in:
    Fallo entrare
     
  31. TrentinaNE Senior Member

    USA
    English (American)
    The thing I find perplexing in all these examples of "making him/her do something" is that in English the him/her would seem to be a direct object of the first far(e) rather than of the thing he/she is being made to do (ascoltare, parlare, dire, fare, ecc). I know from the earlier thread that both Elaine and I linked to (as well as other dual-verb constructions) that Italian treats the object pronouns differently, but that treatment is very non-intuitive for me! Maybe I don't understand the English equivalent correctly either. :eek: I think I'll ask in EO. ;)

    Elisabetta
     
  32. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    I think that you are getting confused.

    http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/jargonbuster/t-z/transitive?view=uk

    A transitive verb takes a direct object (mi, ti, lo, la, ci, vi, li).
    An intransitive verb takes an indirect object (mi, ti, gli, le, ci, vi, gli).
    ie. me, you (s), him, her, us, you (pl), them - respectively

    Parlare and Dire are both intransitive verbs (gli parlavo, le dicevo etc.)
    Ascoltare and Trovare are transitive verbs (Lo ascoltavo, li ho trovati)

    With "Far dire", "Far ascoltare" etc, it shouldn't matter whether the second verb is transitive or intransitive, "Far" should be either transitive or intransitive itself independently of the second verb. ie.both verbs can have their own separate objects. So the question is whether "far" is transitive or intransitive in this context.
     
  33. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    Forgive me, but you can't insist on absurdities like "Parlare and Dire are both intransitive verbs" :eek: . This is plain W-R-O-N-G, just look it up. Anyway, on to the more important question:

    Fare is ALWAYS transitive. Its direct object in far+infinitive type of sentences is the verb in the infinitive (Far mangiare > mangiare is the direct object of fare). Now, to decide whether to use direct or indirect pronouns we must look at whether the verb that follows fare is transitive or intransitive:

    Fare + transitive > indirect pronouns (Fargli mangiare)

    Fare + instransitive > direct pronouns (Farlo andare)

    The object of fare is always the verb (transitive or instransitive).

    CAREFUL: This only applies in the case of <fare + infinitive> structures. So please stop talking about transitive and intransitive verbs in general.
     
  34. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    Here's my tiny contribution.

    As Trentina pointed out, maybe it's not clear what the pronouns represent in this Italian expression.

    The direct object in far fare may be the subject of the second verb (intransitive verbs) or the direct object of the second verb (transitive verbs). The indirect object only appears if both subject and object of the second verb are expressed - and as I require an object, the verb must be transitive. No indirect object may appear with intransitive verbs.
    I had better write a couple of examples to be more clear...

    Intransitive verb: parlare
    Lo faccio parlare -> 'Lo' is the subject of parlare (what is my wish? That he speaks.)

    This structure is the equivalent of the English have + obj. + infinitive. But in Italian, it may only be used with intransitive verbs.

    Transitive verb: ascoltare
    Lo faccio ascoltare -> 'Lo' is the object of ascoltare (what is my wish? That people listen to it). It may be a radio programme, a CD, etc. Never ever is it the one who should listen to something (that is, the subject of ascoltare)!!! In this sentence, I'm not saying who should listen to the thing.

    Gli faccio ascoltare il CD. -> The object here is 'il CD', that is again what I want people to listen to. The indirect object represents the subject of the second verb: 'gli' refers to the one who should listen to the CD.

    Version with both pronouns: glielo faccio ascoltare - 'lo' = the CD or whatever, gli = who's going to listen to it.

    This structure is the equivalent of the structure have + obj. + past participle.


    And by the way: dire is transitive. Dire doesn't make any sense without an object (What am I saying?).

    EDIT-
    transitive verb requiring both direct and indirect object: spedire
    It's getting a bit tricky... If I want Luigi to send 'it' (the package) to you, then it's:

    Te lo faccio spedire il pacco da Luigi.

    Direct object lo: the item sent (the package)
    Indirect object te: the recipient
    da Luigi: who is going to the post office, that is, the sender

    If I don't express da Luigi, the sentence is ambiguous in Italian, as it may be the second or the third case:
    Glielo faccio spedire = I'll have it sent to him or I'll have him send it. Is the one 'gli' refers to the recipient or the sender? Only context can help.

    Example with dire:

    Glielo faccio dire = I'll have him say it, I'll force him to say it. or I'll have it said to him (does this make any sense in English?), I'll find someone who can confirm it to him.
    but
    Glielo faccio dire da qualcuno = unambiguous: I'll have someone tell it to him, I'll find someone who can confirm it to him.
     
  35. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    This is quite a complex subject and I am not so sure that it is black and white. This thread touches on the subject:

    http://forum.wordreference.com/show...ighlight=avere+essere+transitive+intransitive

    I can't think of an expression which uses "Parlare" or "to speak" transitively either in Italian or English except possibly a colloquial English expression such as "To talk the leg off a chair".

    According to this source, it is an intransitive verb.
    http://italian.about.com/library/verb/blverb_parlare.htm

    "To tell/ To say" can be used transitively in English as in "To tell a story", "To say bad things", "To tell the truth".
    Can these be said in Italian eg."Dire una storia" or would you have to say "Raccontare una storia"? Can you say "Dire la verità"? I have a feeling that you can.

    Anyway, back to (in the example below) "far dire"/ "far parlare". A verb cannot be the object of another verb. An object by definition is a noun or a pronoun.

    Make him tell her (the object of make is him - not tell)
    Make her tell him (the object of make is her - not tell)
    Make him speak to her
    Make her speak to him

    This is why I am not so sure that that the object of "far" could be dependent on the second verb. If "Fare" is always transitive then it must always take a direct object. Therefore, the above sentences would translate:

    Fallo dire a lei
    Falla dire a lui
    Fallo parlare a lei
    Falla parlare a lui
     
  36. stella_maris_74

    stella_maris_74 Mod About Chocolate

    Rome
    Italian - Italy
    Roo Boy, "parlare" is GENERALLY intransitive.
    The only case you can use "parlare" transitively is for phrases such as:
    parlare una lingua/ il tedesco / male (bene) l'inglese / un linguaggio troppo tecnico.

    and that's it.

    EDIT:
    In the case of:
    the correct italian would be:
    Fallo parlare con lei
    Falla parlare con lui



    ciao :)

    dani
     
  37. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    I finally understood what you meant here: make X speak to Y, you want X to speak with Y. In Italian, fallo parlare a lei may be grammatically correct, but it sounds terribly weird. A native would say fallo parlare con lei.

    You can see from my previous post that these sentences mean to a native Italian make her tell it, being lo the message to be said and a lei the subject who has to say it.
    In order to translate make him tell her, we have to rephrase the sentence. (Apart from the fact that an object is missing here. What shall he tell her?)
     
  38. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Thanks, Dani.

    So the object of fare is always a direct object.

    If we were to substitute "a lei" with "le" and "a lui" with "gli", where would those pronouns go?

    Fallo dire a lei
    Falla dire a lui

    Can "con lei" be substituted with "le" and can "con lui" be substituted with "gli" in the following expressions and if so, where would they go?

    Fallo parlare con lei
    Falla parlare con lui
     
  39. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    Fallo dire a lei la verità - Make him tell her the truth
     
  40. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    No. Your Italian sentence doesn't make sense.

    Either:
    fagli dire la verità -> Make him tell the truth (who to? Not expressed.) EDIT: or make someone tell him the truth, ambiguous

    or:
    falle dire la verità -> Make her tell the truth (who to? Not expressed.) EDIT: or make someone tell her the truth, ambiguous

    or:
    faglielo dire -> make him/her tell it or make someone tell it to him/her (ambiguous)

    A translation for make him tell her the truth would be:
    fai in modo che lui le dica la verità
    convincilo a dirle la verità
    or something alike.

    EDIT -You could say:
    Falle dire da lui la verità, this works (it sounds a bit artificial, though). The focus is rather on the fact that she doesn't believe me, so maybe she'll get finally convinced if he (instead of me) tells her the truth.
     
  41. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    This contradicts what Dani wrote above. She suggested that "fare" always takes a direct object (Fallo dire, falla dire) and you're saying that it takes an indirect object (Fagli dire, Falle dire).
     
  42. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    No, there's no contradiction. I hope you read my post no. 34, it took me some minutes to write it and even though it was early in the morning, I hope I've explained the whole thing clearly... :)

    Fallo dire is completely right. The only problem is: unlike English, -lo is not the person who will say something, but this something which has to be said. Alright?
    So, this translates have it said.
     
  43. stella_maris_74

    stella_maris_74 Mod About Chocolate

    Rome
    Italian - Italy
    That's not what I wrote :)
    My post (and the transitive/intransitive dilemma) was solely about "parlare":

    as per the rest (fare), MF's post pretty much explains everything.

    ciao

    dani
     
  44. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    OK. I think that the penny has dropped. This has been my mistake - trying to generalise the "far+infinitive" structure when it is a special case.

    I have gone through this carefully.

    This is how I understand it. Are these correct?

    SECOND VERB IS INTRANSITIVE (ie.it does not have a direct object)

    Make him tell her - Fallo dire a lei
    Make him speak to her - Fallo parlare a lei (or Faglielo parlare ??)
    Make him go away - Fallo andarsene
    Make him leave - Fallo partire
    Make him swim - Fallo nuotare

    SECOND VERB IS TRANSITIVE (ie.it has a direct object)

    Make him tell the truth - Fagli dire la verità
    Make him play soccer - Fagli giocare al calcio
    Make him guess the answer - Fagli indovinare la risposta
    Make him read the book - Fagli leggere il libro
    Make her listen to the record - Falle ascoltare il disco
    Make her eat the apple - Falle mangiare la mela
    Make her watch the film - Falle guardare il film
     
  45. _forumuser_

    _forumuser_ Senior Member

    New York City
    Italian
    You got them almost all right. But unless you get the verbs right the game doesn't work. Giocare in Italian is intransitive. So that sentence belongs to group 1.
     
  46. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    SECOND VERB IS INTRANSITIVE (ie.it does not have a direct object)

    Make him tell her - Fallo dire a lei :cross: No, you've been told many times this is wrong. And besides, dire is transitive: how can you say just "ti dico"? Where is the object? "Che cosa ti dico?". Your error here is that dire requires a direct object, whereas you carry on using it without any (which doesn't make sense in Italian). Thus, it should go into the group below and the sentence should be built accordingly.
    Make him speak to her - Fallo parlare a lei (or Faglielo parlare ??):tick: :cross: Again, this was discussed in two previous posts: grammatically right but it sounds weird.
    Make him go away - Fallo andarsene:cross: Sounds extremely awkward. A native would't use fare + infinitive with andarsene. Correct, 'native' alternative: fai in modo che se ne vada, fallo andare via.
    Make him leave - Fallo partire:tick:
    Make him swim - Fallo nuotare:tick:
    These last two sentences sound a bit artificial, though.
     
  47. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    SECOND VERB IS TRANSITIVE (ie.it has a direct object)

    Make him tell the truth - Fagli dire la verità:tick:
    Make him play soccer - Fagli giocare al calcio:cross: Giocare is intransitive. Thus, construction like group above: fallo giocare a calcio.
    Make him guess the answer - Fagli indovinare la risposta:tick: but sounds weird.
    Make him read the book - Fagli leggere il libro:tick:
    Make her listen to the record - Falle ascoltare il disco:tick:
    Make her eat the apple - Falle mangiare la mela:tick:
    Make her watch the film - Falle guardare il film:tick:
     
  48. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    I didn't answer this question - yes, "I'll have it said to him" is correct English. It means "Glielo faccio dire da qualcuno" which I think is what you intended.

    In English, "to tell" can be used without a direct object if it is implied - "Tell her", "I am telling you", "Don't tell me".

    EDIT: I am assuming that the direct object is compulsory in Italian?
     
  49. MünchnerFax

    MünchnerFax Senior Member

    Germany
    Italian, Italy
    That's right. In most cases, referring to an Italian verb as 'transitive' means the object can't be left out, otherwise the sentence would make no sense.
    Ho detto. (cosa??)
    Ho ascoltato. (cosa??)
    Ho fatto. (cosa??)

    With these verbs there must be an object. We can't imply it, and even if the object is clear and obvious, we use a pronoun:
    Lo ho detto, la ho ascoltata, lo ho fatto.

    If a verb can be used both alone and with an object, it's normally called 'transitivo/intransitivo'. For example, cucinare may be used with or without an object:
    Ieri ho cucinato per sei persone.
    Ieri ho cucinato una zuppa di legumi.
    Nevertheless, some dictionaries just classify these verbs as 'transitivi', which I honestly find deceptive.
     
  50. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    So the far+infinitive construction depends on whether the second verb is used transitively or intransitively in the context.

    So:

    "Fagli parlare il tedesco" but "Fallo parlare con lei"
    "Fagli correre la gara" but "Fallo correre a casa"
     

Share This Page