1. The WordReference Forums have moved to new forum software. (Details)

lì and là/vi and ci

Discussion in 'Italian-English' started by aslan, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. aslan

    aslan Senior Member

    Central Anatolia
    Turkiye Turkish
    Ciao a Tutti,

    I am little bit consued with the pronouns "vi" "ci" "li" and "la"

    in the examples I gave below, Can we use "li" or "la" instead of "vi" or "ci".If not Could you please tell me briefly?

    prendi un vaso e mettivi (mettici) dei fiori

    prendete una padella e mettetevi dell'olio

    mettici in frigorifero una birra per stasera

    And one more thing, As I learned "ci" is preffered for more colloquial contexts while "vi" is used more formal situations.Is it the only difference between them when we indicate a place.
     
  2. Paulfromitaly

    Paulfromitaly MODerator

    Brescia (Italy)
    Italian
    Ci is an adverb in those examples meaning there.
     
  3. aslan

    aslan Senior Member

    Central Anatolia
    Turkiye Turkish
    Thank you for your reply, I had taken the examples from this page. We can t use "ci" instead of "vi" As Paul corrected, So what is the difference betwen "ci" and "vi".How can I decide which one i should use...

    The website says "Such place or location mentioned in the first part of the sentence in Italian would be properly referred to with the pronoun vi or, more colloquially, with ci. is it the only difference?
     
  4. Paulfromitaly

    Paulfromitaly MODerator

    Brescia (Italy)
    Italian
    Nel cassetto ci (vi) sono delle foto.
    Vi is a formal choice in this example.

    Mettici le foto in quel cassetto.
    As far as I know, you can't say "mettivi".
     
  5. lsp

    lsp Senior Member

    NY
    US, English
    Aslan, lì and là are accented when used to express there. If you search for them in thread titles in Italian-English you'll find more info, if you're still looking for it.
     
  6. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    This thread is continued from here:

    http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=4294036#post4294036

    This is more complex that what I thought?

    I don't see the difference between (1) and (2).

    Are you saying that the verb esserci means to exist?

    If so, could you translate "I exist" as "Ci sono"
     
  7. uinni

    uinni Senior Member

    Italy, Italian
    Well, I actually wrote "(maybe not very inspired) example"... :)
    It can be a matter of personal taste.
    Nevertheless the presence of "là" in (2) is more needed (than in (1)) as it is a placeholder for "il Polo Nord", which at that point of the whole sentence is far behind (and needs to be somehow recalled)...

    Yes it does.
    No, you cannot in that case (do you really believe Italian is so trivial? :D). You should say "Esisto" or "Io Sono".
    Nevertheless there are sentences in which it means "to exist", as e.g. in:

    "non c'è modo di spiegare l'uso della particella "ci" in due battute.
    "there is (=exists) no way of explaining the usage of the "ci" particle in short"

    Uinni
     
  8. Necsus

    Necsus Senior Member

    Formello (Rome)
    Italian (Italy)
    HERE a thread about particle 'ci' used as a locative adverb too.
     
  9. brian

    brian Senior Member

    Montréal
    AmE (New Orleans)
    The first là is less necessary than the second là because it occurs in the same sentence as that to which it refers, namely, the North Pole. The second là is more necessary because it occurs in a separate sentence which makes no explicit mention of the North Pole, even though in speech it would still be "intelligible" as uinni said, seeing as it immediately follows the other sentence. The idea is similar in English:

    I'd live at the North Pole if there were sunlight all year long [there(1)]. Plus, if there were sunlight all year long there(2), there wouldn't be any ice.

    The second is more necessary because, without it, the sentence could mean "if there were no sunlight AT ALL, anywhere," i.e. "if sunlight did not exist," or something absurd like that. Of course, one can still infer that we are still talking about the North Pole, but logically and even grammatically, it's better to add "there"/"là."
     
  10. giovannino

    giovannino Senior Member

    Italy
    Italian
    This is highly subjective, of course, but I myself don't see the need to add là, whether in the first or in the second sentence. Even in (2) it's evident that ci refers to al Polo Nord.
     
  11. uinni

    uinni Senior Member

    Italy, Italian
    Ciao.
    I agree that the usage of là (in the above examples) can be subjective -I myself have said it.

    Sorry, but your comment about "ci" in (2) is wrong. There "ci" does not refer to Polo Nord. It is instead bound to verb essere, as it is used idiomatically with it to mean "to be/exist", as in the very simple following sentence: "Al Polo Nord c'è il sole"; where indeed it is evident that "ci" is not used to mean "Polo Nord" so that you could even redundantly say: "Al Polo Nord, là, c'è sempre il sole" to be (absurdly) overemphatic with an extra "là".

    Uinni
     
  12. giovannino

    giovannino Senior Member

    Italy
    Italian
    You're right:) I should have written that it is evident that the whole sentence, not ci, refers to "al Polo Nord".
     
  13. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    I previously didn't make the connection between esserci meaning to exist and the common expressions "C'è" (There is) and "Ci sono" (There are). Once I made this connection, it became a littler clearer.

    Abiterei al Polo Nord se (là(1)) ci fosse il sole tutto l'anno. Tuttavia se là(2) ci fosse il sole tutto l'anno non ci sarebbe il ghiaccio

    This translates literally as:

    I would live at the North Pole if the sun were there all year. However, if there were the sun there all year, there would be no ice.

    Of course, the second sentence wouldn't be said like this in English. It would be said:

    "However, if the sun were there all year, there would be no ice."

    That is, only two instances of the word "there" are required in the second sentence - not three as per the literal translation. This is possibly from where the confusion arises.

    Are you saying, in effect, that three instances of the word "there" are required in Italian in the second sentence?
     
  14. brian

    brian Senior Member

    Montréal
    AmE (New Orleans)
    Roo Boy,

    I would translate "sole" here as "sunlight," not "sun." In that case, "if there were sunlight..." makes perfect sense. See my translation in post #4 above.
     
  15. Roo Boy Senior Member

    Melbourne
    English, Australia
    I read your post #4 yesterday and it didn't quite sink in. Reading it now, after some sleep, it makes perfect sense! The concept is identical in both languages which helps to better understand it.
     

Share This Page