I comandi per le valvole

RIK8

New Member
Italian
Buongiorno a tutti:

Rifacendomi all'ultimo esempio non mi risulta chiara la risposta.

"reti di imprese".

"Reti" è sostantivo e si rende con la "s" finale, ma in analisi grammaticale anche "impresa" è sostantivo e di conseguenza si deve rendere con la "s" finale.
La differenza la troviamo in analisi logica, dove "di imprese" diventa complemento di specificazione, con funzione assimilabile ad un aggettivo.
Possibile che la discriminante sia la funzione logica?

Espongo un altro esempio:
"I comandi per le valvole" o "I comandi delle valvole"

Ogni valvola ha più comandi, almeno uno di apertura ed uno di chiusura e le valvole sono 4.
In questo caso se io in italiano dico "i comandi delle (per le) valvole" definisco il plurale di entrambi e il mio interlocutore capisce che ci sono più comandi per ogni valvola e più valvole.
Altrimenti avrei detto: "Il comando (di apertura) per le valvole" "di apertura" potrei ometterlo se fosse palese la presenza di una sola azione possibile su di esse.

Ora il quesito è: esiste davvero questa regola ed ha una discriminante ben precisa a livello logico oppure scaturisce dal semplice fatto che gli aggettivi non hanno plurale?

Red carpets --> tappeti rossi
Commands valves --> comandi delle valvole --> commands of the valves
 
Last edited:
  • RIK8

    New Member
    Italian
    E da quando in inglese l'aggettivo si mette dopo il sostantivo?
    Scusa, non vedo dove ho messo l'aggettivo posticipato al sostantivo, puoi essere un po' più preciso?

    Forse però l'errore sintattico che rilevo è nella forma: "I comandi delle valvole" "Valves' commands" che però si trasforma in genitivo e con gli oggetti non si usa l'apostrofo, ma diventerebbe "Valves commands"
     
    Last edited:

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    Sono di madrelingua. Ha ragione Paul. Le due parole non sono sempre sinonimi.

    E in ogni caso utilizziamo spesso parole che possono sembrare sostantivi ma che hanno una funzione aggettivale.
     

    tsoapm

    Senior Member
    English (England)
    scaturisce dal semplice fatto che gli aggettivi non hanno plurale?
    I think the answer is basically yes.
    comando e controllo son sinonimi anche in inglese

    comando - Dizionario italiano-inglese WordReference

    e cmq tralasciando le polemiche inutili
    If you take the Italian words and definitions as your starting point for understanding how to construct an English phrase, you won't come up with the right answer. There are differences between command and control in English. In certain contexts they are interchangeable, but not in others. So not polemiche inutili, but differences to appreciate.
    comando e valvola son sostantivi
    I think we all know that, but here we are talking about a different use, as "noun adjunct, attributive noun, qualifying noun, or noun (pre)modifier", as Wikipedia has it.
     

    A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    ma diventerebbe ..."Valves commands"
    Se è permesso.
    Se ti fosse sfuggito, vorrei ricordar-ti, anche, una piccolissima regola, che si deduce dagli esempi riportati, ma che forse sarebbe meglio esplicitare.

    Qualora un sostantivo al plurale (in Italiano) viene usato in funzione aggettivale va scritto, in Inglese, al singolare.
    Esempio: la monetina da tre penny / the threepenny bit.
     

    RIK8

    New Member
    Italian
    I think the answer is basically yes.If you take the Italian words and definitions as your starting point for understanding how to construct an English phrase, you won't come up with the right answer. There are differences between command and control in English. In certain contexts they are interchangeable, but not in others. So not polemiche inutili, but differences to appreciate.I think we all know that, but here we are talking about a different use, as "noun adjunct, attributive noun, qualifying noun, or noun (pre)modifier", as Wikipedia has it.
    I know it, what I don't understand is the thin difference between those two words.
    If the dictionary says me they are synonymous I take it as true, when someone tells me it is not the same, he should explane why.

    Anyway, I wanted to understand if the rule of the double plural depends on the adjective or on the complement of specification.
    I deem it is not a simple thing to explane.

    I have 4 valves, controlled by an electrical panel equiped with 3 push buttons for each valve.

    I have to say: "The system is provided with an eletrical panel where the controls of the valves are assembled"
    Should I write: "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valve controls are assembled" or, to be more precise could I write "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valves controls are assembled"?

    I am not native language.
     

    tsoapm

    Senior Member
    English (England)
    to be more precise could I write "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valves controls are assembled"?
    No. You already suggested that it was because gli aggettivi non hanno plurale and I confirmed that. A User just confirmed it in Italian too. Using the plural form for noun adjuncts looks weird and foreign in English, by and large.
     

    RIK8

    New Member
    Italian
    No. You already suggested that it was because gli aggettivi non hanno plurale and I confirmed that. A User just confirmed it in Italian too. Using the plural form for noun adjuncts looks weird and foreign in English, by and large.
    Then, the right sentence to use to specify multiple controls for multiple valves would be
    "The system is provided with an eletrical panel where the controls of the valves are assembled"

    Right?

    Non è detto. Potrebbero essere un comando per valvola e lo stesso si direbbe i comandi delle valvole.
    si, anche ancora può confondersi con ancora, ma se voglio dire ancora devo trovare il modo corretto di dire ancora o inserirlo nel contesto giusto per non far capire ancora invece di ancora
     

    theartichoke

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    I have to say: "The system is provided with an eletrical panel where the controls of the valves are assembled"
    Should I write: "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valve controls are assembled" or, to be more precise could I write "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valves controls are assembled"?
    First off, tsoapm is right: "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the controls of the valves are assembled" is a perfectly clear and correct sentence. I just wanted to add--and I hope this doesn't confuse anything--that you can also say "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valves' controls are assembled." Note the apostrophe after "valves'," which means it's not an adjective (like "valve" is in the phrase "the valve controls") but instead a possessive: the valves' controls are the controls belonging to the valves; if it were a single valve with multiple controls, it would be the valve's controls.

    So, if it was the case that you were thinking that the phrase "the valves controls" sounded okay, and you couldn't figure out why everyone was saying it's incorrect, it could be because you were hearing the possessive in your mind--the valves' controls--and were confusing it with a pluralized adjective (which, as everyone is pointing out, doesn't exist in English).
     

    theartichoke

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    Hi A User,

    I'm afraid that book is simply wrong. It's perfectly possible to use the genitivo sassone to express relations between objects: e.g. the book's pages were old and brittle. There are cases where we tend not to--I would say "the garage door" or "the door to the garage," not "the garage's door"--but there's no reason you wouldn't say "the chair's legs were made of wood, while its back was made of plastic" or "the computer's keyboard was smashed."

    As for "the valves' controls," I'll admit I have no technical knowledge about valves or their controls, so if a "valve control" is a specific, set term, then you'd need to say "...a panel where the valve controls are assembled." But if you can say "the controls of the valves," then you can say "the valves' controls."
     

    A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    La fonte è Zanichelli.
    Co-author: Sarah M. Howell – ELT Author / Speaker at Oxford University Press.
     
    Last edited:

    theartichoke

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    La fonte è Zanichelli.
    Co-author: Sarah M. Howell – ELT Author / Speaker at Oxford University Press.
    Well, my best guess is that they're making this a "rule" so that new English learners avoid making the kind of mistake you often see on badly translated menus, where stufato di manzo becomes beef's stew instead of beef stew. But you can take it from this native speaker that it's incorrect to state categorically that non si può usare il genitivo sassone per esprimere una relazione di possesso o appartenenza tra cose.

    Here's a quick example from the BBC: "A Chinese man who was flying for the first time has been fined for throwing "good luck" coins into a plane's engine." (Man who threw 'lucky' coins into plane engine fined) Moreover, there's actually a slight difference in meaning and usage between "a plane engine," as in the headline, and "a plane's engine": the former refers to the object in general (he repairs plane engines for a living), and the latter to the engine of a specific plane (he repaired the plane's engine, and now it's safe to fly).
     

    theartichoke

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    What point are you trying to make? That "the valves' controls" is incorrect because a valve is not a vehicle?
     

    metazoan

    Senior Member
    US English
    I have 4 valves, controlled by an electrical panel equiped with 3 push buttons for each valve.
    I have to say: "The system is provided with an eletrical panel where the controls of the valves are assembled"
    Rather than "controls of the valves", I'd prefer artichoke's perfectly valid construction, "valves' controls".
    Maybe simpler, "A single panel provides separate controls for each valve".

    On another note, "where the Xs are assembled" is confusing; it sounds like a place where the Xs undergo some assembly process. For that, I'd use "where the Xs are located".
     

    theartichoke

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    Rather than "controls of the valves", I'd prefer artichoke's perfectly valid construction, "valves' controls".
    Thank you.:) I've been waiting for another native speaker to come and back me up on the fact that there are no restrictions to do with animate beings, vehicles, or anything else when it comes to forming the possessive with apostrophe-s or s-apostrophe!

    I agree with you about "located"; "assembled" struck me as ambiguous, too, but then I got off on a different tangent.....:D
     

    RIK8

    New Member
    Italian
    First off, tsoapm is right: "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the controls of the valves are assembled" is a perfectly clear and correct sentence. I just wanted to add--and I hope this doesn't confuse anything--that you can also say "The system is provided with an electrical panel where the valves' controls are assembled." Note the apostrophe after "valves'," which means it's not an adjective (like "valve" is in the phrase "the valve controls") but instead a possessive: the valves' controls are the controls belonging to the valves; if it were a single valve with multiple controls, it would be the valve's controls.

    So, if it was the case that you were thinking that the phrase "the valves controls" sounded okay, and you couldn't figure out why everyone was saying it's incorrect, it could be because you were hearing the possessive in your mind--the valves' controls--and were confusing it with a pluralized adjective (which, as everyone is pointing out, doesn't exist in English).
    Thank you very much Theartichoke,

    You got exactly the point of my doubts.
    As A User, I found several books that give different explanations.

    Following I report the two more relevant theories:
    First: you cannot use the English possesive to express a possesive relationship between objects

    Second: If you use the english possessive between objects you don't have to use the apostrophe.

    Is it possible that there is difference between UK english and Canadian or US english on this topic?

    It is why I was wondering if "Valves Controls" or "Tables legs" were correct.

    Istead from what you write I understand that I can use genitive and I have to use the apostrophe. "Valves' controls" or "Tables' legs"

    I wait additional comments by native speakers.

    Thank you again Theartichoke

    P.S.: I agree with "located"
     
    Last edited:

    theartichoke

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    First: you cannot use the English possesive to express a possesive relationship between objects
    Second: If you use the english possessive between objects you don't have to use the apostrophe.
    Is it possible that there is difference between UK english and Canadian or US english on this topic?
    I can say that the second statement is unequivocally wrong, for any kind of English: to make a noun possessive, you always need an apostrophe (excluding words like "his," "hers" or "theirs," of course).

    There might be BE / AE differences about when and how it's conventional to use the possessive to express relations between objects, but on the whole the choice between "the x of the y" or "the y's x" comes down to context and sound. Whether I would say "the tables' legs" or "the legs of the tables" or "the table legs" would depend on what I was talking about and how I was constructing the sentence. There's no hard and fast rule, but I think it's fair to say that you don't need to worry too much--it's hard to imagine a sentence sounding completely wrong because you've chosen the wrong one. Just don't write "the tables legs"--that is wrong. :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top