lì and là/vi and ci

[aslan]

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.

 

[Paulfromitaly]

Ciao a Tutti,

I am little bit confused 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 (no other option)

prendete una padella e mettetevi metteteci 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.

Ci is an adverb in those examples meaning there.

 

[aslan]

Ci is an adverb in those examples meaning there.

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?

 

[Paulfromitaly]

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".

 

[lsp]

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.

 

[Roo Boy]

This thread is continued from here:

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

Well, it is not that simple

(Among other functions) "ci" as an adverb actually stands for lì/là. Yet in this sentence it is bound to the verb essere (as it means "to be somewhere/to exist"):

A (maybe not very inspired) example, where "là", besides being optional, has nothing to do with "ci".

* 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.

(1) This "là" is certainly optional but by putting it in, I emphasize that I am talking about the sun at the North Pole.
(2) This "là" should not be omitted (although the sentence would still be intelligible).

Here "ci" indeed stands for "là"
* Vai al Polo Nord quest'anno? Sì; quest'anno {ci vado}/{vado là} (3)
(3) In this case you can either use "ci" or "là" (but not both)



Thank you for your corrections (sometimes I begin the sentences in a way but then I proceed inconsistently...

Uinni

OTHER EXAMPLES:
Pippo va in Messico. Là (ci) abita la sua fidanzata. [here "ci" is used redundantly].
Pippo va in Messico. Là abita la sua fidanzata.
Pippo va in messico: ci abita la sua fidanzata.

All these sentences are correct.

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"

 

[uinni]

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

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)...

Are you saying that the verb esserci means to exist?

Yes it does.

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

No, you cannot in that case (do you really believe Italian is so trivial? ). 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

 

[Necsus]

HERE a thread about particle 'ci' used as a locative adverb too.

 

[brian]

A (maybe not very inspired) example, where "là", besides being optional, has nothing to do with "ci".

* 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.

(1) This "là" is certainly optional but by putting it in, I emphasize that I am talking about the sun at the North Pole.
(2) This "là" should not be omitted (although the sentence would still be intelligible).

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."

 

[giovannino]

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 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.

 

[uinni]

Ciao.

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.

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

 

[giovannino]

You're right I should have written that it is evident that the whole sentence, not ci, refers to "al Polo Nord".

 

[Roo Boy]

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

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?

 

[brian]

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.

 

[Roo Boy]

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.

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.