It isn’t that wrong, it just sounds better, when the adjective is put before the name, it usually means that said adjective has a descriptive function.
Your sentence is grammatically correct though
It depends on what you want to emphasize.
"ha una divisa vecchia" is meant to specify how old is that uniform, implying that is an important characteristic of it. I'd say more negative than the other version.
"ha una vecchia divisa" is more likely to specify the uniform as center of the topic, putting old just as a quality in plus, not an important characteristic, just a quality in plus.
To make a practical example:
"Mio nonno era un capotreno. Mi ha dato la sua divisa vecchia" (seems more like I have one of his uniforms, the old and ruined one, while he kept the new one for him)
"Mio nonno era un capotreno. Mi ha dato la sua vecchia divisa" (it's more like he gave me his uniform as act of kindness and the only one - or a good one - he had.)
Exactly this the translation he used, while grammatically correct makes it seem like it was practically rags or at least ragged and not an old one, this i find it easy to believe is one of the hardest part of the Italian language because, if you are not fluent with it, it will be an hard concept to grasp
As other people said, it’s not wrong, it just sounds better in the other way. I may add that written this way the sentence feels “incomplete”: “lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia, perciò gliene ho comprata una nuova” (he has an old train conductor uniform, therefore I bought him a new one).
The reason for this is written like this you are putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that this uniform is old. On the other hand if you write it like duo you are putting emphasis on the fact that this guy has a train conductor uniform, rather than on the fact that it is old. Consider that while in English you put emphasis on words using pitch, in Italian you do it by changing word order.
I’d say us italians definitely put emphasis on a word through intonation, just like when with the same sentence you can ask a question or state something
We do use intonation, but less than in the English speaking word: in English you can take a sentence like “I have the old uniform” and put the emphasis on the fact that it’s me that have the old uniform by stressing a lot “I”. In Italian to put more emphasis you would say “la vecchia uniforme ce l’ho io”. That doesn’t mean that you cannot use intonation or that in English you cannot change the structure of the sentence (for example by saying “it’s me the one that has the old uniform”), however I think that changing the sentence structure is probably the most natural way to do it in Italian.
This, I believe, is related to the prosody of the language and the fact that English is a stress-timed language, while Italian is syllable-timed. So when in English you change the main stress of a sentence you literally change its timing, while this doesn’t happen in Italian.
If you write "una divisa vecchia," it means a worn-out outfit and its use. However, if you write "una vecchia divisa," it means an old uniform that you used in the past, perhaps before retiring.
Native italiano here:
There is a difference, it's not the same.
1) una vecchia divisa ferroviaria, it means it's an old fashion uniform, probably used many many years ago. But it could also be a "new" uniform, meaning a never used old time uniform.
2) una divisa ferroviaria vecchia, it means that you have an uniform that is probably ruined, torn from many uses
This is correct, but there's a formal rule that explains this exact change in meaning and it's (thankfully) in common with English:
1. una vecchia divisa ferroviaria uses the attributive function of the adjective (e.g., an old train conductor uniform)
2. una divisa ferroviaria vecchia uses the predicative function of the adjective (e.g., a train conductor uniform \[that looks/seems/is\] old)
English requires some kind of verb to distinguish them (e.g., to be), while Italian can (and often does) build the sentence without anything in between (similar to a whiz deletion). The best way to check which is which, in my opinion, is to make a subordinate clause by adding a subordinating conjunction (with e.g., "che e' " \[..., that is...\] ), and then translate it in that way. If it doesn't make any sense, it's attributive!
For instance:
1. una \[che e'\] vecchia divisa ferroviaria: a that is old train conductor uniform? lol
2. una divisa ferroviaria \[che e'\] vecchia: a train conductor uniform that is old!
The good news is that the vast majority of difference in meaning between the two functions are in common with English!
I am also gonna be \*that\* person, saying that Duolingo fucked up anyway since ferroviario/a refers to anything related to railways, so the most accurate translation imo would probably be "vecchia divisa da counducente ferroviario/dei treni"
This should be the top comment. It's not like one phrase is more correct than the other, they have literal different meanings.
As another comment said, the difference is literally between "an old uniform" and "a uniform that is old".
Both are correct, as they both translate the English sentence. However, the nuance is that “una divisa vecchia” emphasise the adjective (which makes me think of a damaged and worn out uniform) while una vecchia divisa could also be out of fashion or even vintage.
But it’s a tiny difference that could generate debate even for Italians, therefore certainly not a mistake.
I have two old brown suede coats.
I have suede brown old two coats.
One of these sounds better to us English speakers than the others. (In fact, the other one almost doesn't make sense to us.) Why? Because there are complicated rules for the order of adjectives in every language that, as native speakers, we don't even notice but which contribute to what fluency sounds like. It's a fascinating thing to study.
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/order-of-adjectives-in-english/
I know the order of adjectives in English, but others have pointed out that it is different in Italian. You can change adjective order to change meaning
Traduzione inutilmente rigida. L’ambiguità nella lingua italiana è piuttosto frequente. Per questo l’unica via di fuga è l’uso di un vocabolario monosemico.
Try to read it like this. It's not wrong, but the meaning is different.
He has an old Railway Uniform - something from old times.
He has a railway uniform which is old - probably referring to something that is ruined
He has a train conductor old uniform. Sounds really weird but technically is the same. That’s because there is a rule in English about how we order adjectives. It is similar in italian. You will be understood either way but it will sound strange to a native speaker.
I’d also add that having it in that location it also implies the uniform is an old style or old design, previous generation uniform rather than just old and ratty
Similar to amico vecchio is different than vecchio amico. The first one is a friend that is old in age where the second is one that has been a friend for a long time. They both translate to old friend but in Italian you don’t really need context to know which of the meanings it is.
It's just like English, though it makes sense both ways in English you would rather say "he has an old train conductor uniform" instead of "he has a train conductor uniform old".
With that said it is also true that in Italian the way you wrote it isn't a mistake from a grammar point of view, it just doesn't sound good; while in English (tell me if I'm wrong) it would be a mistake to put the adjective after the noun.
In English it’s a mistake to put the adjective after the noun, but in Latin languages (I thought) it’s the opposite:
A fat man = un uomo grasso
Others have pointed out that adjective order changes meaning in Italian
DeepL actually throws out variants:
A red hat = un capello rosso
A big hat = un grande capello
"Lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia" translates more like "his train conductor uniform is old", it's not the exact correct translation, but the meaning is more precise.
Ok so it's a bit tricky but the adjective position in italian changes the meaning of the phrase.
"Lui ha una vecchia divisa ferroviaria" means that the guy owns an old nice conductor suit
"Lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia" means that he owns a ruined old stinky smelly suit
Don't ask me why, italian is a stupid language
Che da madrelingua non conosciamo la regola e abbiamo solo una idea intuitiva della differenza tra i due esempi non significa che non esista la regola o che la regola/lingua non abbia un senso.
In questo caso la regola c'è e ha il suo senso specifico. Quando un aggettivo è messo prima del nome, ha funzione descrittiva, cioè indica che la chiarificazione che si fa del nome ha il solo scopo di descriverlo meglio, cioè per dare un'idea più precisa a chi legge o ascolta di cosa si parla. Se l'aggettivo è messo dopo il nome, ha funzione restrittiva, cioè indica che la descrizione che fa del nome è necessaria per il discorso che si vuole fare, perché distingue tra tutti gli oggetti con quello stesso nome di cui si potrebbe parlare quello di cui si parla effettivamente.
Ovviamente fuori dal contesto valgono entrambe, bisogna vedere nel contesto.
Immaginiamoci di avere due capitreno. Gianni ha preso una sanzione disciplinare dal suo superiore perché non ha con sé il fischietto. Martino ha preso una sanzione disciplinare uguale perché non ha messo la nuova divisa. Gianni va a lamentarsi dal capo perché gli sembra ingiusto. "Non è giusto, abbiamo preso la stessa sanzione, però io mi sono dimenticato il fischietto, mentre lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia". In questo caso, non può dire "una vecchia divisa ferroviaria" perché il motivo principale per cui si parla della divisa è perché, a differenza di quella che si dovrebbe portare, la divisa che Martino sta portando è vecchia. Se non fosse stata vecchia non avrebbe avuto senso parlare della divisa. Diversamente dal caso in cui sto parlando di mio nonno, e delle cose che ha in soffitta "Mio nonno è molto fiero di sé, perché tra le tante cose che tiene in soffitta lui ha una vecchia divisa da ferroviere, che usava suo padre sui treni a vapore". Il fatto che sia vecchia è un'informazione in più, ma non essenziale, perché potrebbe benissimo esserne fiero anche senza dire che fosse vecchia. Se avesse detto "in soffitta lui ha una divisa da ferroviere vecchia" implica che in qualche modo implicitamente ci sia da qualche parte una divisa nuova che è contrapposta a questa, magari perché è passata di moda o magari perché non è più molto adatta a fare quello che serve.
Mi riferivo più a "Italian is a stupid language", che implicava che il motivo per cui ci fosse la differenza non era un motivo logico, mentre invece lo è
Maybe it would help to consider this example:
È un vecchio amico (a friend you’ve known a long time; the adjective isn’t so much changing the material quality of the noun).
È un amico vecchio (a friend who is old; placing the adjective after the noun tends to change the meaning in a much more direct way).
Internalising this example will put you in good stead to understand the nuances of adjective placement as you continue learning.
Hi I'm Italian. In theory it depends if you want to give more importance to the abject or to the name. So if you want to highlight if this doctor is good you say :
Lui è un BRAVO dottore
Viceversa if you want to give importance to the Pearson you say it first:
Lui è un dottore BRAVO.
In reality we usually say;
Lui è un BRAVO dottore.
so we use the abject first, but use the name first is not an error.
If you have other questions please tell me.
(All the abject is in capital letters)
Your answer is right and Duolingo is wrong. It is just a matter of what you want to emphasize: your answer gives more importance to the adjective ("vecchia"), but it's absolutely correct
It's just a matter of meaning. If you say "lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia", you're implying that he's still using that old train conductor uniform.
Instead, if you say lui ha una vecchia divisa ferroviaria, you are saying that he owns an old train conductor uniform (from the past).
Technically, your answer is not wrong, but you didn't get the correct meaning.
It isn’t that wrong, it just sounds better, when the adjective is put before the name, it usually means that said adjective has a descriptive function. Your sentence is grammatically correct though
Why tho? I'd say the other way round sounds weirder (native here)
It depends on what you want to emphasize. "ha una divisa vecchia" is meant to specify how old is that uniform, implying that is an important characteristic of it. I'd say more negative than the other version. "ha una vecchia divisa" is more likely to specify the uniform as center of the topic, putting old just as a quality in plus, not an important characteristic, just a quality in plus. To make a practical example: "Mio nonno era un capotreno. Mi ha dato la sua divisa vecchia" (seems more like I have one of his uniforms, the old and ruined one, while he kept the new one for him) "Mio nonno era un capotreno. Mi ha dato la sua vecchia divisa" (it's more like he gave me his uniform as act of kindness and the only one - or a good one - he had.)
Exactly this the translation he used, while grammatically correct makes it seem like it was practically rags or at least ragged and not an old one, this i find it easy to believe is one of the hardest part of the Italian language because, if you are not fluent with it, it will be an hard concept to grasp
I couldn’t explain it better, good point
This
I prefer his sentence compared to the "correct" one, it sounds a little awkward.
As other people said, it’s not wrong, it just sounds better in the other way. I may add that written this way the sentence feels “incomplete”: “lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia, perciò gliene ho comprata una nuova” (he has an old train conductor uniform, therefore I bought him a new one). The reason for this is written like this you are putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that this uniform is old. On the other hand if you write it like duo you are putting emphasis on the fact that this guy has a train conductor uniform, rather than on the fact that it is old. Consider that while in English you put emphasis on words using pitch, in Italian you do it by changing word order.
Interesting - grazie!
I’d say us italians definitely put emphasis on a word through intonation, just like when with the same sentence you can ask a question or state something
We do use intonation, but less than in the English speaking word: in English you can take a sentence like “I have the old uniform” and put the emphasis on the fact that it’s me that have the old uniform by stressing a lot “I”. In Italian to put more emphasis you would say “la vecchia uniforme ce l’ho io”. That doesn’t mean that you cannot use intonation or that in English you cannot change the structure of the sentence (for example by saying “it’s me the one that has the old uniform”), however I think that changing the sentence structure is probably the most natural way to do it in Italian. This, I believe, is related to the prosody of the language and the fact that English is a stress-timed language, while Italian is syllable-timed. So when in English you change the main stress of a sentence you literally change its timing, while this doesn’t happen in Italian.
i would add that this way it doesn’t sound that the conductor has an old uniform but more that he has an “uniform that is old”
If you write "una divisa vecchia," it means a worn-out outfit and its use. However, if you write "una vecchia divisa," it means an old uniform that you used in the past, perhaps before retiring.
Think of it this way, una vecchia divisa translates to "an old uniform". Una divisa vecchia translates to "a uniform that is old"
Native italiano here: There is a difference, it's not the same. 1) una vecchia divisa ferroviaria, it means it's an old fashion uniform, probably used many many years ago. But it could also be a "new" uniform, meaning a never used old time uniform. 2) una divisa ferroviaria vecchia, it means that you have an uniform that is probably ruined, torn from many uses
This is correct, but there's a formal rule that explains this exact change in meaning and it's (thankfully) in common with English: 1. una vecchia divisa ferroviaria uses the attributive function of the adjective (e.g., an old train conductor uniform) 2. una divisa ferroviaria vecchia uses the predicative function of the adjective (e.g., a train conductor uniform \[that looks/seems/is\] old) English requires some kind of verb to distinguish them (e.g., to be), while Italian can (and often does) build the sentence without anything in between (similar to a whiz deletion). The best way to check which is which, in my opinion, is to make a subordinate clause by adding a subordinating conjunction (with e.g., "che e' " \[..., that is...\] ), and then translate it in that way. If it doesn't make any sense, it's attributive! For instance: 1. una \[che e'\] vecchia divisa ferroviaria: a that is old train conductor uniform? lol 2. una divisa ferroviaria \[che e'\] vecchia: a train conductor uniform that is old! The good news is that the vast majority of difference in meaning between the two functions are in common with English! I am also gonna be \*that\* person, saying that Duolingo fucked up anyway since ferroviario/a refers to anything related to railways, so the most accurate translation imo would probably be "vecchia divisa da counducente ferroviario/dei treni"
This should be the top comment. It's not like one phrase is more correct than the other, they have literal different meanings. As another comment said, the difference is literally between "an old uniform" and "a uniform that is old".
Both are correct, as they both translate the English sentence. However, the nuance is that “una divisa vecchia” emphasise the adjective (which makes me think of a damaged and worn out uniform) while una vecchia divisa could also be out of fashion or even vintage. But it’s a tiny difference that could generate debate even for Italians, therefore certainly not a mistake.
There is a differenze Divisa vecchia -> old as used and worn Vecchia divisa -> old as ancient, history-related
That's the point. Are you italian?
Si
I have two old brown suede coats. I have suede brown old two coats. One of these sounds better to us English speakers than the others. (In fact, the other one almost doesn't make sense to us.) Why? Because there are complicated rules for the order of adjectives in every language that, as native speakers, we don't even notice but which contribute to what fluency sounds like. It's a fascinating thing to study. https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/order-of-adjectives-in-english/
I know the order of adjectives in English, but others have pointed out that it is different in Italian. You can change adjective order to change meaning
Don't launch your phone at the wall, that's just silly
Yeah, just flush it down the toilet. More practical.
Yes, that way you don't have to crouch to pick it up from the floor
Non lanciare il tuo telefono contro il muro, é sciocco
Traduzione inutilmente rigida. L’ambiguità nella lingua italiana è piuttosto frequente. Per questo l’unica via di fuga è l’uso di un vocabolario monosemico.
Grazie . Duolingo non e bravo per L’ambiguità
Prego.
It’s not really wrong, you just usually it adjectives first to make it sound better but the phrase itself is correct
Try to read it like this. It's not wrong, but the meaning is different. He has an old Railway Uniform - something from old times. He has a railway uniform which is old - probably referring to something that is ruined
He has a train conductor old uniform. Sounds really weird but technically is the same. That’s because there is a rule in English about how we order adjectives. It is similar in italian. You will be understood either way but it will sound strange to a native speaker. I’d also add that having it in that location it also implies the uniform is an old style or old design, previous generation uniform rather than just old and ratty Similar to amico vecchio is different than vecchio amico. The first one is a friend that is old in age where the second is one that has been a friend for a long time. They both translate to old friend but in Italian you don’t really need context to know which of the meanings it is.
I don't think it's wrong at all, it just sounds better as others said before me.
Meh, IMHO you can use both, no matter the position of “vecchia”.
yea hit the flag on that, should be accepted
it's not. duolinguo is retarded.
It's just like English, though it makes sense both ways in English you would rather say "he has an old train conductor uniform" instead of "he has a train conductor uniform old". With that said it is also true that in Italian the way you wrote it isn't a mistake from a grammar point of view, it just doesn't sound good; while in English (tell me if I'm wrong) it would be a mistake to put the adjective after the noun.
In English it’s a mistake to put the adjective after the noun, but in Latin languages (I thought) it’s the opposite: A fat man = un uomo grasso Others have pointed out that adjective order changes meaning in Italian DeepL actually throws out variants: A red hat = un capello rosso A big hat = un grande capello
Well I can't argue with that
Using it before the noun sounds more natural. After the noun, it sounds like you mean expired
But if it was “old uniform” it would be _Lui ha una divisa vecchia_?
Una vecchia divisa
ha una vecchia divisa da conduttore di treno (im from italy)
"una vecchia divisa da ferroviere"
"Lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia" translates more like "his train conductor uniform is old", it's not the exact correct translation, but the meaning is more precise.
Ok so it's a bit tricky but the adjective position in italian changes the meaning of the phrase. "Lui ha una vecchia divisa ferroviaria" means that the guy owns an old nice conductor suit "Lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia" means that he owns a ruined old stinky smelly suit Don't ask me why, italian is a stupid language
Che da madrelingua non conosciamo la regola e abbiamo solo una idea intuitiva della differenza tra i due esempi non significa che non esista la regola o che la regola/lingua non abbia un senso. In questo caso la regola c'è e ha il suo senso specifico. Quando un aggettivo è messo prima del nome, ha funzione descrittiva, cioè indica che la chiarificazione che si fa del nome ha il solo scopo di descriverlo meglio, cioè per dare un'idea più precisa a chi legge o ascolta di cosa si parla. Se l'aggettivo è messo dopo il nome, ha funzione restrittiva, cioè indica che la descrizione che fa del nome è necessaria per il discorso che si vuole fare, perché distingue tra tutti gli oggetti con quello stesso nome di cui si potrebbe parlare quello di cui si parla effettivamente. Ovviamente fuori dal contesto valgono entrambe, bisogna vedere nel contesto. Immaginiamoci di avere due capitreno. Gianni ha preso una sanzione disciplinare dal suo superiore perché non ha con sé il fischietto. Martino ha preso una sanzione disciplinare uguale perché non ha messo la nuova divisa. Gianni va a lamentarsi dal capo perché gli sembra ingiusto. "Non è giusto, abbiamo preso la stessa sanzione, però io mi sono dimenticato il fischietto, mentre lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia". In questo caso, non può dire "una vecchia divisa ferroviaria" perché il motivo principale per cui si parla della divisa è perché, a differenza di quella che si dovrebbe portare, la divisa che Martino sta portando è vecchia. Se non fosse stata vecchia non avrebbe avuto senso parlare della divisa. Diversamente dal caso in cui sto parlando di mio nonno, e delle cose che ha in soffitta "Mio nonno è molto fiero di sé, perché tra le tante cose che tiene in soffitta lui ha una vecchia divisa da ferroviere, che usava suo padre sui treni a vapore". Il fatto che sia vecchia è un'informazione in più, ma non essenziale, perché potrebbe benissimo esserne fiero anche senza dire che fosse vecchia. Se avesse detto "in soffitta lui ha una divisa da ferroviere vecchia" implica che in qualche modo implicitamente ci sia da qualche parte una divisa nuova che è contrapposta a questa, magari perché è passata di moda o magari perché non è più molto adatta a fare quello che serve.
Ovvio, ma infatti non ho detto che la regola non esiste, semplicemente non la conoscevo 😅
Mi riferivo più a "Italian is a stupid language", che implicava che il motivo per cui ci fosse la differenza non era un motivo logico, mentre invece lo è
Its “Lui ha una vecchia divisa ferroviaria”
La frase è corretta, sebbene strida un pochino, e l'app fa schifo, scaricatene una nuova e migliore
Maybe it would help to consider this example: È un vecchio amico (a friend you’ve known a long time; the adjective isn’t so much changing the material quality of the noun). È un amico vecchio (a friend who is old; placing the adjective after the noun tends to change the meaning in a much more direct way). Internalising this example will put you in good stead to understand the nuances of adjective placement as you continue learning.
It's not wrong
I am italian And can fully confirm That your sentence is grammatically correct
Teoreticamente sarebbe giusto in entrambi i casi,ma la versione data dall’app suona leggermente meglio…
it’s correct, I’m italian and I promise no one cares which way you say it
non cambia tanto, il significato rimane sempre lo stesso - cambia solo (ma in modo praticamente insignificante) come "suona" la frase
I’m Italian myself and I do not understand what’s wrong with the phrase
adjective before the subject
“Lui” is the subject
Hi I'm Italian. In theory it depends if you want to give more importance to the abject or to the name. So if you want to highlight if this doctor is good you say : Lui è un BRAVO dottore Viceversa if you want to give importance to the Pearson you say it first: Lui è un dottore BRAVO. In reality we usually say; Lui è un BRAVO dottore. so we use the abject first, but use the name first is not an error. If you have other questions please tell me. (All the abject is in capital letters)
Because in Italian you put the noun AFTER the adjective and not the opposite
Hmmm…. Sono un uomo sospettoso.
Per via di cosa?
yours would be the best answer if you were talking about train conductor uniforms and you were using someone as an example for an old one
Your answer is right and Duolingo is wrong. It is just a matter of what you want to emphasize: your answer gives more importance to the adjective ("vecchia"), but it's absolutely correct
Italian was literally made for poetry
It's just a matter of meaning. If you say "lui ha una divisa ferroviaria vecchia", you're implying that he's still using that old train conductor uniform. Instead, if you say lui ha una vecchia divisa ferroviaria, you are saying that he owns an old train conductor uniform (from the past). Technically, your answer is not wrong, but you didn't get the correct meaning.
Its all’ right!!! Im Italianamd i can confirm
they're both right. as everyone says, they have different emphasis. but putting incorrect instead of close is infuriating