Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Queen's absence

I  found out the news Isa will be away for the better part of this week.
I would  point out NG people can't remain without guide.
Qeens have been elected by people (yes?) and therefore they are at people's service.
For this reason Queens are kindly requested to decide on their absences after
making themselves sure that two other Queens, exceptionally one, are present.
Queens' agreement will oblige.
Giovanni.

Giovanni.
Ciao,
Ron
USA
principiante in italiano

 [...two other queens, or at least one,]
  I guess Giovanni wanted to say... No, it's better I write in Italian, so
maybe Ron can learn something, while noone can learn from my English...
  Avevo imparato che il "that" si puo' omettere (ed in effetti ho tro-
vato libri in cui viene regolarmente omesso), ma tu hai considerato errori
tutte le omissioni... e allora?
  Comunque credo Giovanni volesse dire proprio due regine o, in casi ec-
cezionali una, qualcosa tipo "two other queens or, eventually, in special
situations, one".  Ok, my English is horrible, but I'm a reader not a
writer :-)
 I guess [that] Giovanni wanted to say
is correct?
and
 I guess [that] Giovanni intended to say... dove cavolo e' il vocabolario?
Quando mi serve non lo trovo mai :-)...
and
 I guess [that] Giovanni would say? (Why this expression flies in my empty
head?)
  Saluti
  Gigi
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Mancinelli
Lab. Didattici
Fac. Scienze
Universita` di Trento
38050 POVO(TN)
ITALY
ma...@science.unitn.it
  Cercare di semplificare i problemi e` l'obiettivo,
 pensare che siano semplici e` la strada sbagliata (Gigi Mancinelli)

 [meglio: newsgroup readers, newsgroup participants]
Questo e' interessante : quando si puo' omettere il THAT e quando invece e'
necessario usarlo?
Ho trovato una frase tratta dal libro " Comfort me with Apple" di P.De Vries, 
scrittore USA:
	 "Gluttony is an emotional escape, a sign something is eating us".
Dopo il sign avrei messo un bel that, ma non c'e'.E allora?
Giovanni

but I'm a reader not a writer :-)
Come avevo scritto, "two other queens, or at least one," credo che si
direbbere in italiano "due altre regale, o a meno di uno."


us". Dopo il sign avrei messo un bel that, ma non c'e'.E allora?
Si, e' meglio dire "a sign that something" ma il scrittore scrive del modo
colloquialle per l'effetto, per esempio "eating us." Anche, non puo' fare lo
sbaglio che "something" e' il oggetto diretto invece del soggetto.


 sbaglio che "something" e' il oggetto diretto invece del soggetto) *Inoltre non si puo' fare
lo sbaglio di ritenere che "something" sia l'oggetto invece che il soggetto*.
Per quanto riguarda l'uso del that, da quello che dici mi son fatta la convinzione
che a usarlo non si sbaglia mai, tutt'al piu' c'e' una caduta di stile.
Non e' cosi'?
Ciao.
Giovanni


Non e' cosi'?
No. Forse non posso spiegerlo bene, ma provero' ancora. In qualche
situazione si puo' omettere "that" senza conseguenza, ma nelle altre
situazion' e' uno sbaglio, si, un errore, certo il scrivere cattivo, .
Si puo' fare gli sbagli in parlata e non e' una tragedia. Si puo' anche fare
gli sbagli per effetto nella letteratura e tutti dicevonno "che bello,
scriva il dialogo naturale, che genio!" Ma in qualche scrivere, si deve
scrivere il inglese corretto, per esempio, i testi, i libri che riguarda i
fatti, i saggi, et cetera.
Ecco una parte del libro si chiama "A Treasury for Word Lovers" di Morton S.
Freeman (un redattore professionale), 1983.
Omitting a necessary "that" can be a more serious syntactical offense than
using a superfluous one. This is so when a time element follows the verb.
There a "that" is required to indicate whether the the time referred to
applies to what appears before of after the verb. For example, in "Major
Williams announced this evening the army would move out," a question is
whether "this evening" applies to the announcement or to the moving out. A
"that" is needed after "evening" to remove the ambiguity: "Major Williams
announced this evening THAT the army would move out."
If a "that" is used in a sentence with two parallel clauses, for the sake of
clarity both clauses should be introduced by "that." In some constructions
omitting the initial "that" may not affect the flow or sense of the first
clause, but the first "that" is needed anyway to balance the one introducing
the second clause. For example, in "The engineer hollered the building is on
fire and that everyone should leave at once," a "that" should be inserted
between "hollered" and "the."
Nelle due frasi al post originale, si puo' omettere il "that" ma e' meglio a
usarlo. Forse, perche' non stai scrivendo in stile formale, non io dovessi
fare i cambi, ma credo che omettere "that" e' una brutta abitudine.


necessario usarlo?
Il "that" corrispondente al cosiddetto "che dichiarativo" lo si omette
quasi sempre.  Scrive Fowler nel paragrafo 57, Omission of the
conjunction 'that'  [1]: 
This is quite legitimate, but often unpleasant. It is partly a matter
of idiom, as, I presume you know, but I assume that you know; partly
of avoiding false scent, as in the sixth example below, where scheme
might be object to discover. In particular it is undesirable to omit
that when a long clause or phrase intervenes between it and the
subject and verb it introduces, as in the first four examples.
1) And it is to be hoped, as the tree-planting season has arrived,
Stepney will now put its scheme in hand.
2) Sir,--We notice in a leading article in your issue to-day on the
subject of the carriage of Australian mails you imply that the
increased price demanded by the Orient Pacific Line was due  to...
3) Lord Balfour ... moved that it is necessary, before the
constituencies are asked to determine upon the desirability of such
conference, they should be informed first...
4) Lord Spencer held that it was impossible with regard to a question
which had broken up the Government and disturbed the country they
could go into a conference which... [2]
In some of these the motive is obvious, to avoid one that-clause
depending on another; the end was good, but the means bad; a more
thorough recasting was called for.
--- NOTE: ---
[1] H.W. Fowler, The King's English, scaricabile dal sito
"
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/
" dove e` nel formato html; Vi
avverto che il testo e` suddiviso in 46 file per un totale di 856 kB! 
[2] Ho omesso altri 7 esempi per risparmiare banda.
Ciao
Ferdinando Chiodo

might be object to discover.
Un taglio malaccorto ha fatto sparire il sesto esempio:
6) I think he would discover the scheme unfolded and explained in them
is a perfectly intelligible and comprehensive one.
Sorry
Ferdinando Chiodo

I would  point out NG people can't remain without guide.
Che cosa vuoi dire?
--I would point out that NG people can't remain without guide.
--I would point out NG people that can't remain without guide.
I'm exaggerating the point a little by showing you these sentences because
one would say "who can't remain" instead of "that can't remain." The
purpose, however, is to help you to understand, Giovanni, that omitting
"that" in this sentence is awkward, and in written form, (that) many people
including myself would consider it a mistake.


Ecco un meglio esempio:
I would like to point out books are expensive.
--I would like to point out that books are expensive.
--I would like to point out books that are expensive.
Le due frase vogliono dire due cose diverse.


 principiante in italiano
Ciao
Giovanni

--I would point out NG people that can't remain without guide.
I think Giovanni's sentence is quite clear; it necessarily conveys the
first meaning because Giovanni would not have omitted 'that' (or would
have used 'who') if he wanted to express the second meaning since he
knows (I suppose) that relative pronouns representing a subject cannot
be omitted.
Heidi

Heidi
Now he does for certain Heidi. Thanks.
As I wrote in an earlier post, one can discern the writer's meaning from
Giovanni's original sentence. However, I hope that when native Italian
speakers correct my written Italian, (that) they persuade me to write clear,
unambiguous text that does not require careful reading or rereading.


legittimo omettere il that, ma riesce spesso sgradevole.
Non sono d'accordo con Ferdinando, ma non credo che il mio italiano e'
abbastanza bene per una risposta. Dunque, scrivero' in inglese e spero che
capisca.
I will tell you a little story. I participated in a discussion on an English
language newsgroup about the use and misuse of the word "literally." The
word "literally," which means "in actuality," is often used to convey the
exact opposite meaning of "figuratively," or "virtually." In fact, sometimes
you can only discern the intended meaning by the absurdity of what the
sentence would mean if "in actuality" was intended.
This misuse has become so pervasive, that some dictionaries now include the
incorrect definition as, for example, the fourth entry. The better
dictionaries indicate that it is substandard usage, but some do not. A few
contributors to the English language newsgroup took the position that
because it is in the dictionary (that) it is a "legitimate" usage. (In the
previous sentence you can remove the second "that" as I have done, but it is
a mistake to remove the first "that" because the meaning of the sentence may
be misconstrued--"the position" is not in the dictionary.)
Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. That means
(that)they describe usage, they do not instruct in the use of words. Now, I
will not get into an argument about "prescriptive grammer" (I don't have the
background or interest) but I will say that when the purpose of writing is
clarity of communication, syntax that results in less clarity is a mistake.
It is not "legitimate to omit the "that" If such cases result in confusion.
I would suggest to Ferdinando that he modify his declaration to "This is
often good practice for concise writing, but sometimes substandard when
clarity of meaning is lost." You should know that I believe it is good
practice to omit the "that" when appropriate, as you can see in my writing.
(When the "that" is in parenthesis, I might omit it or I might not depending
on my audience and intent.)
Ti ringrazio per le correzioni al mio italiano.  Adesso, credo che siamo
d'accordo in questo argumento, ma, se no, al meno sai i miei pensieri.
Ciao,


spesso sgradevole. 
Credo che ci sia un equivoco. Il brano in inglese era tratto dal The
King's English di H.W. Fowler (indicavo il riferimento nella nota). 
Ritenevo, e ritengo ancora adesso, legittima l'omissione di quello che
*in italiano* e` detto "che dichiarativo". Le proposizioni
dichiarative in italiano ammettono due costrutti: 
- implicito (preceduto o non preceduto dal di) e, per l'appunto
- esplicito, introdotto da che + l'indicativo (ad es., Dice che
dobbiamo andare --> He says we must go) o da che + il congiuntivo (ad
es. Lei vuole che vada con lei --> She wants me to go with her).
La citazione di Fowler serviva a temperare la mia.
Ciao
Ferdinando Chiodo

ometterlo?
Per esempio quando si crea cacofonia ("I think that that door is locked").
--
Er Roscio.