Italian Language Blog
Menu
Search

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes … And Our Wallets! Posted by on Mar 30, 2015 in Grammar, News

Here’s a little article which I found in the Italian press the other day. The article itself is not exactly headline material, but  it does serve as a useful tool for a bit of grammatical analysis. Rather than translate everything, I’ve picked out some key grammatical point and elaborated on them.
N.B. to those of our readers who are nicotine dependent: don’t worry, I’m not about to start preaching to you about your filthy habit …. 😉

(a.) Quanto dovrebbero costare le sigarette? 13 euro a pacchetto, 13 euro e 7 centesimi (b.) per la precisione.
(a.) How much should cigarettes cost?: dovrebbero is the third person plural conditional of the verb dovere = to have to. In its conditional form, dovere takes on the meaning of ‘should’, e.g. dovrei andare dal dentista = I should go to the dentist.
(b.) to be precise

(a.) Il prezzo ideale del pacchetto di sigarette è stato calcolato prendendo in considerazione (b.) il costo del fumo per la società. La compagnia di consulenza economica Microeconomix ha portato avanti un dettagliato studio, pubblicato poi dal quotidiano francese Le Parisien.
(a.) The ideal price of a packet of cigarettes has been calculated: è stato calcolato is the passive form of the verb calcolare = to calculate, which in this case is in the present perfect. In Italian, the passive form in the past tense is always built using the verb essere = is, e.g. è stato detto = it has been said, le due donne sono state viste per l’ultima volta giovedì = the two women were last seen on Thursday.  N.B. as you can see from the examples above this construction
changes depending on the gender and number of the subject.
(b.) the cost of smoking (literally: the cost of the smoke)

Photo: Creative Commons

Photo: Creative Commons

I 13 euro a pacchetto sono il risultato degli effetti negativi e positivi del fumo sulla società francese: basti pensare che le sigarette costano 35,6 miliardi di euro alla società: (a.) 16,3 miliardi di euro se ne vanno in spese sanitarie, (b.) a cui vanno aggiunti 3,3 miliardi di (c.) imposte non riscosse a causa della prematura scomparsa dei fumatori e 16 miliardi di perdite di produzione aziendale (pausa sigaretta, assenze per malattie, etc.).
(a.) 16.3 billion Euro disappear in health care expenses: se ne vanno is the third person plural of andarsene = to go away or disappear, e.g. adesso me ne vado = I’m going away now, Luisa se n’è andata presto = Luisa went away early. See this post:
Te Ne Vai
(b.) to which must be added 3.3 billion: vanno, is the third person plural of andare. Andare is often used with the meaning of ‘must be’, e.g. questo prodotto va consumato entro 30 giorni = this product must be eaten within 30 days.
(c.) uncollected taxes

(a.) I cosiddetti vantaggi economici sono invece di 20,6 miliardi, e comprendono le tasse sui tabacchi e il risparmio sulle pensioni non versate ai fumatori deceduti. Il risultato è che i fumatori “costano” più o meno 15 miliardi alla collettività. “Chi inquina dovrebbe pagare, il principio è questo” dice uno degli autori dello studio.
(a.) The so called ‘advantages’: cosiddetto/a/i/e is composed of two words: così = like this/in this way, and detto/a/i/e = said, e.g il cosiddetto ‘governo’ Renzi non ha fatto un cavolo! = Renzi’s so called ‘government’ has done fu@k all! N.B. as you can see from the example above this construction changes depending on the gender and number of the subject.

If you need any further help please leave a comment.

Tags: , ,
Keep learning Italian with us!

Build vocabulary, practice pronunciation, and more with Transparent Language Online. Available anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Try it Free Find it at your Library
Share this:
Pin it

Comments:

  1. Rosalind:

    I notice 2 adjectives coming before the noun:
    – dettagliato studio
    – prematura scomparsa

    For the first I wondered if it was for reasons of clarification in view of the following subordinate phrase starting with “pubblicato”. But that doesn’t apply for the second example.

    I thought that the adjective came after the noun, even more so than in French for example.

    Could you please explain?

  2. Rosalind:

    Thank you very much, Serena, for this explanation.

  3. Björn:

    Hi.
    I’m sure you have written about it, I just can’t find it:
    How do you conjugate verbs like “Andarsen”
    Regards B


Leave a comment: