User talk:DelvecchioSimone12 5 96

Nomination for deletion of Template:User WikiProject Lombardy
Template:User WikiProject Lombardy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User WP Lombardy
Template:User WP Lombardy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User WikiProject Veneto
Template:User WikiProject Veneto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User WP Veneto
Template:User WP Veneto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Greetings from London
I have started to watch all a few Italian school articles and I impressed with what I see. In most cases the English is fine- but there is a problem with a lot of the specialist vocabulary which I will do my best to correct. It stems from a difference in our legal structure- which has left us with a centralised system based on government bills in Italy, an a hotch-potch schools in the UK/US who are proud of their independence- and resist any form of government control. We are also sensitive that US terminology and UK terminology is different,

There is also a difference between it:wikipedia and en:wikipedia conventions, with UK having a highly developed WP:MOS- and more policies and rules than the United Nations. Welcome to the maelstrom. It would be great to sit down together and drink several beers.

I want to go into the principle article and be very critical (Robust), then move over to one of the Liceo articles and do the same. I hope you can use that as a model and apply the advice to similar articles. In doing so I will leave more inline comments than normal. I know that I make far too many mistake- nothing is sacred, so do change anything- if I am certain I will just revert it- its no big deal. Tell me when I get wrong.

I will try and keep the discussions on the relevant talk pages- but a lot of the comments will apply to other pages too.ClemRutter (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * I read your comment in one of your last edits on Secondary education in Italy article ($lower- teens cannot be used as it is unencyclopedic language (wrong register)- generally pupils under 16, students are over 16- they are all technically children until 18 or in the states 21 (and may not buy alcohol)$),
 * I agree your point of view, but I am not sure at all, I think it would better to refer to school students simply as students because in Italy
 * bambini (children) usually is used referring to people between 6 and 10 years of age,
 * while ragazzi (boys/girls) usually is used referring to people between 10 and 18 years of age,
 * adolescenti (teens) usually is used referring to people between 13 and 18 years of age,
 * then from the age of 18 people are usually considered as giovani adulti (young adults)
 * while pupilli (pupils/guards) in Italy it is rare and when used it refers to toddlers/children.
 * Since the meaning of terms like pupils, boys, teens, etc. varies from nation to nation, I think it would be better to use the generic but more common word student (studente), you agree?
 * Using the meaning of pupil used on English wiktionary ($1. A learner under the supervision of a teacher or professor.$), we have to consider that in Italy students, as far as I know (I was a student in Italy from the age of 3 and I not noticed any particular supervision by teachers after scuola materna (kindergarten), except during gite scolastiche (school trips) and viaggi distruzione (educational trips)), de jure are not supervisioned by their teachers/professors, except in schools like convitti (boarding schools) (I know only one of them, which is a middle school) and, if exist (I do not know any Italian school equvalent to colleges), in the collegi (colleges). --DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronuncia standard
Ciao! Ho annullato di nuovo la tua modifica, per la seguente ragione: esiste una pronuncia standard dell'italiano, basata sul fiorentino cosiddetto "emendato", ovvero quello che doveva essere precedentemente allo sviluppo della gorgia toscana; tant’è che in basso alla pagina Help:IPA/Italian ci sono link a due dizionari di pronuncia standard online. Per quelle lingue che hanno una pronuncia standard, gli articoli sulla Wikipedia inglese usano quella, solo in rari casi accompagnandola da una pronuncia locale laddove abbia rilevanza (es: nomi di città, regioni, ecc.). Perciò dovremmo attenerci ad una sola trascrizione all’articolo liceo scientifico, altrimenti o elenchiamo tutte le possibili pronunce regionali, oppure chi stabilisce quali hanno più importanza? イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話） 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per liceo e la maggior parte delle altre parole contenenti una e accentata nella penultima sillaba (eco, spreco, greco, cielo, ...) ci sono due standard di pronuncia:


 * 1) uno standard per l'Italia settentrionale (ad esclusione di Emilia-Romagna ed alcune sporadiche aree della pianura Padana lombarda) dove tale e è pronunciata
 * 2) uno standard per l'Italia centro-meridionale, Emilia-Romagna ed alcune sporadiche aree della pianura Padana lombarda dove tale e è pronunciata
 * ci sono solo sporadiche eccezioni in cui i due standard sono scambiati.
 * Lo standard a cui ti riferisci è quello al secondo punto, mentre è completamente estraneo al territorio dello standard al primo punto.
 * Solo in poche eccezioni la e accentata della penultima sillaba è pronunciata sia al nord che al centro-sud (per esempio le parole terminanti in -etto come: etto, prefetto e Tronchetto).
 * DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Scusa, avevo interrotto l’attività con la mia utenza, quindi non ho potuto risponderti. Mi spiace ma non esiste uno “standard del nord” diverso da quello del resto d’Italia, lo standard è uno e si basa sulla pronuncia toscana, mentre le altre sono tutte pronunce regionali più o meno distanti dallo standard nazionale (come quella lombarda a cui ti rifai tu, che è già del tutto diversa da quella usata in Veneto, per esempio, dove liceo ha la vocale aperta). Ora, è vero che la pronuncia standard negli ultimi anni ha accolto alcune caratteristiche delle pronunce del nord Italia, ad esempio la pronuncia sonora di s nel suffisso -oso, che tradizionalmente ammetteva solo la variante sorda; ma per quello che riguarda l’apertura o chiusura di e/o la pronuncia neostandard ammette tutt’al più quella usata a Roma, come in ébbi/ébbe che in Toscana sono realizzate con è. Per queste ragioni, e anche perché sarebbe impensabile includere di volta in volta le varie pronunce regionali, le trascrizioni su Wikipedia (per l’italiano ma anche per tante altre lingue) adottano la variante considerata più neutra, che appunto per l’italiano è quella di matrice toscana (dato che è in Toscana che si è sviluppata la base linguistica dell’italiano moderno). È possibile includere una pronuncia locale laddove abbia qualche rilevanza (es. nomi di città), ma nel caso di liceo, che denota un’istituzione diffusa in ugual modo in tutta Italia, non ha senso. Spero di aver chiarito ;) 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 11:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, e tra l’altro tronchetto fa rima con prefetto solo al sud e in alcune zone del nord, ma non nell’Italia centrale. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 11:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Italian grammar
Hi,

I understand that especially when you have spent a lot of time on an edit you do want to see it included in an article. But your recent edits to Italian grammar are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article and have many flaws – for example, "stressed clitic" is not just wrong (ce and ve are never stressed), it is an oxymoron (the word "clitic" is used as a synonym for "unstressed" indeed); "pronominal phrases" is superfluous; gl'ho is never used (or it might be wrongly used here and there), for the simple fact that in gli ho (without graphical elision) the "i" is anyway mute (same for c'ho – where ci ho is preferred, since the "i" is anyway not pronounced – i.e., ci ho is already pronounced – there are attempts to graphically render ci ho as ciò in Belli or Trilussa, but these are sporadic attempts); the "Examples with personal pronoun" table is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article; your edit to the "T–V distinction" paragraph is unreadable (it is an unformatted list) and pleonastic (it repeats the "Personal pronouns" table); the   note repeats content already expressed elsewere; colà is just an unused synonym for lì/là – it would be more useful to mention costì/costà, which are not synonyms of lì/là but express instead distance from the speaker and vicinity to the listener, although since they are never used outside Tuscany we do not mention them; and so on.

I have corrected and kept the "Alliterated forms" table, although I think it is already too heavy for the article (if you agree with me, please remove the entire paragraph).

Of course you can give your contribution and improve the page, but please, be constructive and do not restore verbatim previous edits. I have spent time on your intervention, I would like to ask you to try and get the spirit of my revision.

--Grufo (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statements are mistaken (according to what I understood you are not a native Italian and you have not studied Italian in Italy with a native Italian teacher, while I am not a native English and I not studied English from the outside of Lombardy).


 * 1) gl'ho  is a poetic use of alliterations (the so called licenza poetica, in English artistic license), so in poetry it is not wrong, the same applies to c'ho.
 * 2) When two clitic forms are together, the first clitic form is replaced by the secondary-stressed variant, also ce and ve are secondary-stressed.
 * When a pronoun in the accusative, dative, genitive (only third person) or instrumental become clitic drops the primary stress becoming unstressed, when a clitic encounters another clitic the first (dative or instrumental) gets a secondary stress, the second pronoun is always accusative (for example sé /ˈsɛ/→si /se/→se /ˌse/).
 * In gli ho and in ci ho the i is not mute because it is in a different word and the rule applies only inside of a syllable (except in some dialects of central and southern Italy).
 * gli ho is always pronounced /ʎi ˈɔ/ (except for regional allophones of /ʎ/), gl'ho is always pronounced /ˈʎɔ/~/ˈʎʲɔ/ (except for regional allophones /ʎ/), ci ho is always pronounced /t͡ʃi ˈɔ/, c'ho and ciò are always pronounced /ˈt͡ʃɔ/, s'ho (discouraged because of ambiguity) and so are always pronounced /ˈsɔ/.
 * ci ho and c'ho mean (I) have there while ciò is a demonstrative pronoun meaning this (thing)/that (thing) for example Ciò che hai detto è sbagliato. means The thing(s) (that)/What you have said is wrong [...], while [...] (io) ci ho/c'ho lavorato (in quel posto) [...] or [...] io (in quel posto) ci ho/c'ho lavorato [...] means [...] I had worked there (in that place) [...], and [...] (io) ci ho/c'ho lavorato (su quel progetto) [...] or [...] io (su quel progetto) ci ho/c'ho lavorato [...] means [...] I had worked on it (on that project) [...]).
 * 1) colà have a meaning intermediate between qua/qui and là/lì (more precisly colì and colà mean in this/that (mentioned) place while qui and qua mean here, and lì and là mean there; qua is sligthly farer than qui, colà is slightly farer than colì, là is slightly farer than lì) and it is still enough common to be cited; while costì and costà, instead, are used only in Tuscany dialect and are replaced by codesto luogo in standard Italian.
 * 2) Putting courtesy pronouns in the "T–V distinction" section is completly out of place and your revertions
 * 3) gli ama and gliel'ama are grammatically possible and linguistically acceptable, independently by the fact that you are not able to find a practical usage for it (there are idiomatic uses of phrases as gli ama and gliel'ama).
 * ([...] (lui) gliel'ha/glielo ha amato per renderlo felice means [...] (he/)she/it loved him to make (he/)it happy where the accusative pronoun refers to an address different from the address of the dative pronoun; who/which are the addresses can be understood by the context.)
 * 1) Put accusatives and genitives after genitives is not restore readability, it is put them in a no-sense order, stressed accusatives are used to form all pronominal phrases (Italian locuzioni pronominali, when a preposition encounters pronoun, the pronoun is in the stressed form of the accusative or in the primary-stressed form of the locative/lative pronoun)
 * first by frequency there is the subject (nominative pronouns; all clauses have a subject), then arrive direct (accusative; the stressed accusative is also used as the prepositional) and indirect (dative) objects (the second most common address is the grammatical object), then genitive/possessive (it is not only for possession, as in English it is used also for other kinds of relations), finally instrumental (the less used pronoun case excluding locative, lative and ablative).
 * cui in di cui, a cui and per cui and che in di che is the stressed form of the accusative case.
 * 1) Pronoun tables at the beginning of the section where yet readable before you reverted the edit to an incomplete and wrong version (the nominative cannot be the clitic form of anything because it have no other forms, while you reverting my edits put it as clitic form).
 * 2) loro is always stressed, so if you put it as a clitic form (as in your restorations) you are contradicting your statement that the word "clitic" is used as a synonym for "unstressed".
 * Spero di non essere stato troppo confusionario in questi punti e che tu li capisca.
 * I hope I have not been too confusing in these points and that you understand them.
 * Se tu volessi aiutare a separare la sezione dei pronomi di cortesia dalla sezione "distinzione tu–voi", anziché tenere fuori luogo la descrizione dei pronomi di cortesia (che non c'entrano con la distinzione tra tu e voi/entrambi voi/voi due/tre/quattro/.../voi tutti), potresti diventare più costruttivo.
 * If you wanted to help separating the "courtesy pronouns" section from the "T–V distinction" section, rather than keeping the description of courtesy pronouns (which have nothing to do with the distinction between thou/you one and you [pl.]/both you/you both/you two/three/four/.../you all) out of place, you could be more constructive.
 * DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I really have no time for this. For now, I will only answer to your points, I will fix the page later. When I said “be constructive”...
 * 1. “gl'ho is a poetic use of alliterations”
 * gl' is used only before "i". See below the point about ci
 * 2. “When two clitic forms are together, the first clitic form is replaced by the secondary-stressed variant, also ce and ve are secondary-stressed.”
 * Me/te/ce/etc. have no more secondary accents than mi/ti/etc. You say for example me ne frego but mi ti mostro (i.e., in the first case me has a secondary accent, while in the second case mi has one); furthermore the secondary accents swap when the pronouns are used as proclitic (for example, in fregandomene the secondary accent is on ne, and in mostrandomiti is on ti). But this is completely irrelevant, since secondary accents in Italian are not phonematic as they are in German, hence grammatically speaking they are virtually non-existent (i.e., all clitics are unstressed, except dative loro, which is arguably a clitic – but please do not remove loro from the "clitic" column, the point has been already discussed in the past).
 * 3. “ci ho and c'ho mean (I) have there while ciò is a demonstrative pronoun”
 * Thanks for the explanation, although I am quite sure I did not need it. I repeat what I said, ciò is used for ci ho in some vernacular poets, but its usage is non-standard. The standard way is to write ci ho (always pronounced ). Writing c'ho is wrong for two reasons: 1. Italian spelling would imply to pronounce it as ; 2. It does not add any phonetic variation compared to ci ho, which is already pronounced . I invite you to read what Serianni says on the topic [1]. The reason why in recent times speakers have felt the necessity to (graphically) remove the "i" from "ci ho", is that the "i" is actually pronounced in some southern dialects when "ci" means "gli/le". So for example a southern speaker could say cI ho detto (meaning gli/le ho detto and pronouncing the "i"), but the same southern speaker would not pronounce the "i" in ci ho messo (i.e., when dialectal ci coincides with Italian ci). That is why writing "c'ho" in Italian is a wrong (recent) habit: it is already not possible to pronounce cI ho messo in standard Italian (i.e., to pronounce the "i")
 * 4. “colà have a meaning intermediate between qua/qui and là/lì (more precisly colì and colà mean in that (mentioned) place while qui and qua mean here, and lì and là mean there”
 * The difference between colà and qua/là has nothing to do with distance or with the fact that a place had been already mentioned, but with the fact that is followed by another locative or not. You can immagine colà dove ... as a mirror of colui che ... / colei che ... (Vuolsi così colà dove si puote ...), hence if we mention colà we have to mention also colui/colei, but the table of pronouns is already too big. I am for removing all mentions of colà. — P.S. Note that you can say là dove instead of colà dove, while you cannot say lui che with the same meaning of colui che; that's why colà is nearly a synonym of là, while lui and colui are two very distinct pronouns.
 * 5. “Putting courtesy pronouns in the "T–V distinction" section is completly out of place and your revertions”
 * Courtesy pronouns are what is normally called a "T–V distinction". How can that be out of place?
 * 6. “gli ama and gliel'ama are grammatically possible and linguistically acceptable”
 * I know, practically any verb can support a dativo d'interesse, hence you can always stick a dative wherever you want, that is why I wrote "virtually a non-sense". You can spend hours trying to find an acceptable example of gli ama. End even if you do, it will look/sound like an artificial example. Therefore it must be removed, because it gives the impression of a normal usage when it is not. There are already enough sample verbs in that table, and the whole article is already quite bloated.
 * 7. “Put accusatives and genitives after genitives is not restore readability, it is put them in a no-sense order”
 * In all grammars the standard order for declensions is 1. nominative, 2. genitive, 3. dative, 4. accusative, (5. ablative), 6. instrumental, (7. locative, 8. other cases ...). You should know that from studying Latin (or German, or many other languages).
 * 8. “stressed accusatives are used to form all pronominal phrases (Italian locuzioni pronominali, when a preposition encounters pronoun, the pronoun is in the stressed form of the accusative or in the primary-stressed form of the locative/lative pronoun)”
 * What you call accusative is called prepositional case when after a preposition (i.e., te in io vedo te is accusative, while te in parlo di te is not accusative, but prepositional case). In Italian the stressed accusative and the prepositional case have the same form, but this does not transform the accusative into a prepositional case, they continue to be two different things. You insist in using the "pronominal phrases" definition, although that is a weak definition of something obvious that does not outline the fact that a te is used instead of ti/te for emphatic reasons (“pronominal phrases” would indeed suggest that a te is just a neutral synonym for ti/te). Furthermore, “pronominal phrases” is not a locution that has any special meaning in English (remember that this is the English Wikipedia): it means that while an Italian reader when seeing the label “locuzioni pronominali” might be reminded of a precise grammatical category studied at school, an English reader that reads “pronominal phrases” is not reminded of any particular category, and will interpret your label with its literal meaning, as “a phrase with pronouns”.
 * 9. “the nominative cannot be the clitic form of anything because it have no other forms”
 * A pronoun can have a clitic-only form in the nominative. For example che with the meaning of il quale is always clitic.
 * 10. “loro is always stressed, so if you put it as a clitic form (as in your restorations) you are contradicting your statement that the word "clitic" is used as a synonym for "unstressed"”
 * You do pay attention to what I say then. And you are perfectly right. But still loro remains there, and the reason is that 1. It had already been discussed in the past in this article 2. It is used when other persons/numbers have clitics 3. I do not agree that clitic means unstressed (it often does in English, but it does not in Italian, where clitic means only "a part of the discourse that cannot be encountered alone")
 * 11. “according to what I understood you are not a native Italian and you have not studied Italian in Italy with a native Italian teacher, while I am not a native English and I not studied English from the outside of Lombardy”
 * I am Italian and I have studied Latin and Italian linguistics in Italy.
 * 12. “Spero di non essere stato troppo confusionario in questi punti e che tu li capisca.”
 * Li capisco perfettamente, ma direi anche che sei confusionario.
 * --Grufo (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. Two unstressed words cannot stay each close to the other; in me ne frego the pronoun me is audibly slightly more stressed than the pronoun ne; mi ti mostro is non-standard because clitic forms ending by -i cannot stay together with other clitic pronouns, the correct clause is mi mostro a te.
 * 3. ci is not only the clitic of the locative/lative pronouns, depending by context it may be also the clitic of the first-person accusative, of the first-person plural dative and of the third-person instrumental.
 * 4. The Treccani vocabulary states colà that colà means this/that place, however in common use it is also used
 * Person A. —Sei già stato a Milano?— [Did you yet stayed in Milan?]
 * Person B. —Non sono ancora stato colà.— [No, I was not yet in that place''.]
 * This is a counterexample to your answer, the clitic forms ci and vi are more common, but also colà may be used as a pronoun (or pro-form if you prefer).
 * 5. "T–V distinction" is the distinction between the singular "you" and the plural "you", not the distinction between the familiar "you" and the courtesy/polite "you".
 * 7. I studied on the English wiktionary and for Finnish and Estonian the accusative/dative is before of the genitive.
 * 8. It is the accusative case with prepositional case functions added
 * (Same as the Romance-languages subjunctive derived from the Latin subjunctive which by turn derived from the merging of a pre-Latin of a subjunctive with a pre-Latin optative; the Romance-languages subjunctive mood have also functions of the optative mood, but we not consider it as the optative mood when it is used with an optative-mood meaning.)
 * 9. If we specify that the nominative relative pronoun is a clitic form, we have to specify that the nominative personal pronoun is a stressed form.
 * 10. In your first message you wrote (the word "clitic" is used as a synonym for "unstressed" indeed), not clitic means only "a part of the discourse that cannot be encountered alone".
 * I agree the definition that clitic means only "a part of the discourse that cannot be encountered alone" from your answer, I not agree the definition the word "clitic" is used as a synonym for "unstressed" from your first message.
 * 11. I am a human, humans can misunderstand.
 * Io ho studiato italiano, inglese ed un po' di spagnolo a scuola in valle Camonica (il fatto di vivere in un territorio chiuso tra monti ad ovest, un fiume a nord ed ad est ed un lago a sud, riducendo i contatti con l'italiano formale puro, limita la mia capacità di distinzione tra usi rari od antichi ed usi poetici o letterarî), mentre le altre lingue le ho dovute studiare su Wikipedia (prima tra tutte la lingua russa studiata sulle wikipedie in lingua italiana ed in lingua inglese, a partire dalla traslitterazione dall'alfabeto cirillico russo all'alfabeto latino italiano) e sul wikizionario in lingua inglese (dove sono più aperti ai regionalismi ed ai poeticismi) (non so ancora creare frasi nelle lingue studiate tramite wikipedie o tramite wikizionarî anziché tramite scuola, ma so tradurre qualcosa da quelle lingue verso quella italiana e, dove è possibile, usare le tabelle di coniugazione e declinazione/inflazione per ovviare alle mie lacune).
 * Sfortunatamente per me la riforma Gelmini, per aggiungere ore di matematica ed informatica per l'opzione delle scienze applicate ha preferito togliere il latino e ridurre la filosofia (io avrei tolto disegno e storia dell'arte che è inutile fuori dal liceo artistico, da quello classico e dagli istituti tecnici ad indirizzo inerente con la produzione artistica), così di latino so solo poche parole e frasi isolate imparate da motti (come unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno che è il motto della confederazione Svizzera) o dalla ricerca etnologica effettuata incrociando le informazioni del vocabolario Treccani con quelle del wikizionario della lingua inglese (per esempio ego come nominativo del pronome personale di prima persona singolare).
 * 12. Ho difficoltà a non essere confusionario, soprattutto con lunghi testi e discorsi.
 * 3. Alliterations not change pronunciation of graphemes c and g and diphthong gl, they simply drop, or shorten, the hidden vowel, same as noun principio, the general rule forms the plural principii , during centuries the double i was contracted, adding the circunflex accent, forming principî without changing pronunciation, finally, during the last century, the use of the circunflex accent began to decrease going toward the form principi with ambiguity respect to the plural of principe which is non-standard (as teachers teached me from elementary school onward).
 * DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This will never end. Why don't you just trust me that I am right about everything? :-P
 * 1. “Two unstressed words cannot stay each close to the other”
 * Of course they can.
 * 2. “in me ne frego the pronoun me is audibly slightly more stressed than the pronoun ne”
 * It doesn't matter. As I said secondary accents are not phonematic in Italian (it means that a word like vicissitudine can have a secondary accent in the first or the second syllable at your choice and still be the same word), and all these particles ci, ce, etc. are always considered unstressed, even if when they have secondary accents (and often they don't have any).
 * 3. “mi ti mostro is non-standard because clitic forms ending by -i cannot stay together with other clitic pronouns, the correct clause is mi mostro a te.”
 * That's not correct. Mi ti mostro is perfectly standard. These are all attested examples:
 * Ti si fece incontro.
 * Mi ti facesti incontro.
 * Gli ti darò nelle mani, perché in pezzi ti faccia come tu meriti.
 * The fact that according to you “clitic forms ending by -i cannot stay together with other clitic pronouns” does not make it an Italian rule (and if you had carefully read the page before editing it you would have found your answers). Do you guys in Lombardy never say "ci si vede un film"?
 * 4. “This is a counterexample to your answer, the clitic forms ci and vi are more common, but also colà may be used as a pronoun”
 * Of course colà is an adverb exactly like qua and là (although with different meaning/usage). Colui is also a pronoun. The point is whether these are worth mentioning or not. For me colà is less worth mentioning than costì/costà (if you asked me what to mention in the article I would vote for costì/costà, at least the latter expresses a precise function that no other adverb expresses – but I think the article is already too chaotic).
 * 5. “"T–V distinction" is the distinction between the singular "you" and the plural "you", not the distinction between the familiar "you" and the courtesy/polite "you".”
 * Also incorrect. Have you read the page about T–V distinction?
 * 6. “I studied on the English wiktionary and for Finnish and Estonian the accusative/dative is before of the genitive.”
 * Trust me on this: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental is the right order.
 * 7. “If we specify that the nominative relative pronoun is a clitic form, we have to specify that the nominative personal pronoun is a stressed form.”
 * That might work.
 * 8. “Ho difficoltà a non essere confusionario, soprattutto con lunghi testi e discorsi.”
 * Capisco tutto, ma il problema è che sei arrivato come un bulldozer a stravolgere una pagina che era ben curata da molte persone che si documentano e hanno studiato. Se stravolgi tutto non lasci altra scelta a chi cura la pagina che fare un revert dei tuoi edit (nessuno ha il tempo di controbattere punto per punto, anch'io non so quanto resisterò qui). Essere costruttivi significa proporre poche cose alla volta, chiedendo nella talk page quando non si è sicuri di qualcosa, e partire dal presupposto che altre persone prima di noi hanno speso tempo ed energie per dare alla pagina la forma che ha.
 * This is my idea. I will revert the page as it was before your last edits. You read the chapter about pronouns very carefully as it is (including notes and subpages). Then, if you think that something still does not convince you, you can propose your changes here, or better in the talk page, and I am sure it can be an interesting discussion. But please, few things at a time. --Grufo (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my idea. I will revert the page as it was before your last edits. You read the chapter about pronouns very carefully as it is (including notes and subpages). Then, if you think that something still does not convince you, you can propose your changes here, or better in the talk page, and I am sure it can be an interesting discussion. But please, few things at a time. --Grufo (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes:


 * Nessun umano è perfetto, tutti errano in qualcosa, tra gli umani tu sei incluso.
 * 1. Mai sentito due parole consecutive atone al 100% all'interno di un discorso, per pronunciarle atone al 100% devono essere dette separatamente come se ci fossero punti tra loro (per esempio: Me. Ne importa può essere pronunciato con me e ne entrambe atone al 100%, mentre in Me ne importa me e ne non possono essere pronunciate entrambe atone al 100% ed il tono secondario o terziario va naturalmente sulla parola in prima posizione, in questo caso me, mentre dev'essere spinto artificialmente per arrivare sulla parola in seconda posizione, in questo caso ne).
 * 2. In vicissitudine la sillaba ci ha un tono nettamente più forte rispetto a quello della sillaba tu.
 * 3. Non mi erano venuti in mente esempî non artificiali con due pronomi in -i.
 * Qui in Lombardia Ti si fece incontro. e ci si vede un film sono usati senza problemi (non da me perché non saprei trovarne un'utilità; il pronome si è l'unica eccezione in Lombardia che, per usi idiomatici della lingua italiana, può stare con altri pronomi, inclusi altri pronomi allocativi terminanti in -i); Mi ti facesti incontro. e Mi ti mostro qui sono considerati informali, (quindi appartenenti all'italiano volgare, non a quello standard); Gli ti darò non è standard in Lombardia, noi usiamo Ti darò a lui' quando abbiamo bisogno del significato di quella proposizione.
 * 4. costì/costà dovrebbero essere in una voce o sezione sul dialetto toscano della lingua italiana perché è l'unico ad usarli, colà, invece, non è un uso regionale (infatti sul vocabolario Treccani non è precisato che sia più o meno regionale, né è sufficientemente raro per classificarlo come tale) (qui è sentita anche la forma colì, forse in qualche poesia sparsa).
 * Per me le wikipedie sono delle enciclopedie (come si può notare dall'etimo; "wiki" + "encyclopedia"/"enciclopedia" → "wikipedia"; analogamente a quanto avvenuto con i wikizionarî; "wiki" + "dictionary"/"dizionario" → "wiktionary"/"wikizionario"), le enciclopedie dovrebbero tendere alla completezza (diritti d'autore permettendo), i pronomi non regionali sono in quantità limitata, quindi le voci/sezioni riguardanti i pronomi dovrebbero essere il più complete possibile (nei limiti delle conoscenze personali degli utenti e delle loro possibilità di estendere con l'ausilio di vocabolarî, dizionarî ed enciclopedie) per avere una enciclopedia tendenzialmente completa, allo stesso modo delle preposizioni/posposizioni (le lingue indoeuropee usano le preposizioni, mentre le lingue finniche, forse si può generalizzare alle lingue ugro-finniche, usano le posposizioni); solo per i nomi, gli aggettivi ed i verbi le enciclopedie possono limitarsi ad esemplificare i varî modelli (sia quelli regolari che quelli irregolari se possibile) e lasciare a vocabolarî e dizionarî il dovere di tendere alla completezza.
 * 5. Dovrebbero usare un nome più generico per includere le istruzioni per i pronomi di cortesia e per quelli maiestatici e simili, per esempio allocution, traduzione del titolo della voce italiana corrispondente (allocuzione), altrimenti sarebbe un uso insensatamente generico di distinzione Tu–Voi.
 * 6. L'ordine nominativo, genitivo, dativo, accusativo, strumentale è corretto in latino ed in tedesco, ma non ha senso nelle lingue neolatine (in romeno/rumeno, italiano, francese, spagnolo e portoghese e lingue minori per diffusione) (in particolare in rumeno/romeno, che è una lingua romanza orientale, l'ordine è nominativo/accusativo, genitivo/dativo, vocativo nei nomi e negli aggettivi e nominativo, accusativo, genitivo, dativo nei pronomi).
 * 7. Infatti, altrimenti si lascerebbe eterogeneità, bisognerebbe specificare per entrambi o lasciare sottinteso per entrambi.
 * 8. Pensavo di condividere le mie conoscenze di linguistica e linguistica comparativa apprese negli ultimi anni di studio delle lingue straniere ed ero convinto che fosse sufficientemente leggibile.
 * Comunque dovresti controllare e tenere le note d'uso che ho aggiunto, non annullare anche quelle.
 * Anche le/glie- è accettato come pronome forma clitica del pronome dativo di terza persona plurale.
 * DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Il fatto che la i del pronome gli sia sempre muta con verbi inizianti per vocale non è vero nel nord d'Italia dove il fatto è limitato alla poetica ed ai casi che il pronome gli sia allitterato da un verbo iniziante per i. --DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, forcing school students to stay at home because of the coronavirus outbreak has its collateral effects... Please stop. I had asked you to be constructive, but you keep twisting the page despite the fact that you make up your own rules about the Italian grammar. And you have transformed a page that is supposed to be about Italian grammar into a page about pronouns. The page Italian grammar is not your personal webpage. Last but not least, this is Wikipedia English and you should stick to English for giving everyone the possibility to understand what you say.
 * 1. “Mai sentito due parole consecutive atone al 100% all'interno di un discorso”
 * You might not have good ears after all, your ears are not the Accademia della Crusca, and – I am getting tired to repeat it – secondary accents do not matter in this context. I give you a school assignment nevertheless (maybe it will keep you busy from hijacking the page again). Try to compose some verses in novenario (with primary accents on the 2nd, 5th, and 8th syllable), using some clusters of clitic pronouns here and there (like me ne frego). Then come back here and tell me how they sound.
 * 2. “In vicissitudine la sillaba ci ha un tono nettamente più forte rispetto a quello della sillaba tu.”
 * If you want. Or if you want you can pronounce it as vicissitùdine (secondary accent on the first syllable), and it will be perfectly fine.
 * 3. “L'ordine nominativo, genitivo, dativo, accusativo, strumentale è corretto in latino ed in tedesco, ma non ha senso nelle lingue neolatine”
 * This is your personal taste. There is a canonical way of writing declensions, and it is not an encyclopedia's task to change it.
 * 4. “Comunque dovresti controllare e tenere le note d'uso che ho aggiunto, non annullare anche quelle.”
 * It is impossible to control anything if you keep turning the page upside down.
 * 5. “Anche le/glie- è accettato come pronome forma clitica del pronome dativo di terza persona plurale.”
 * It is controversial (by the way, maybe you mean gli/glie-?). Some linguists accept it, others don't. The page already mentions it in a note.
 * 6. “Il fatto che la i del pronome gli sia sempre muta con verbi inizianti per vocale non è vero nel nord d'Italia dove il fatto è limitato alla poetica ed ai casi che il pronome gli sia allitterato da un verbo iniziante per i.”
 * Since I cannot convince you about the fact that the first "i" in gli elefanti is mute (nor I want to), we will stick to what Treccani says about elisione:
 * "«L'elisione è possibile, anche se ormai rara e da evitare per via del gusto arcaizzante che caratterizza queste scelte, con gli articoli plurali gli davanti a parola che inizia per i (gl'indigeni) e con le davanti a una parola che comincia con una qualsiasi vocale (l'eliche).»"


 * --Grufo (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a school student, I am a university student in the second year dropped-out (secondo anno fuori corso), fifth year in total.
 * I am faithful to grammar of Degli Alighieri Degli Alighiero Durante (better known by its pseudonym Dante Alighieri) epoch.
 * Io sono stato costruttivo, io non ho inventato regole, ho semplicemente usate quelle che mi sono state insegnate dalla scuola elementare alla scuola superiore, se sono imprecise, incomplete od inesatte la colpa è degli insegnanti.
 * Io sto usando l'inglese per i miei contributi, ma nei messaggi agli utenti italiani è ammesso l'uso della lingua italiana.
 * 1. Le mie orecchie sono state allenate durante le prove di musica e sono ad un livello sufficiente per distinguere i toni come se sapessi parlare in cinese, quelle dell'accademia Della Crusca non sono così allenate né quelle dei linguisti meno esperti.
 * 2. Ruminating on the word vicissitudine I have came to a more exact conclusion: in casual speeches (discorsi disinvolti) the main stress is undoubtedly on ci with the secondary stress on tu; in less casual speeches it is the opposite (main stress on tu and secondary stress on ci); in interrogative clauses/propositions the main stress is on tu and the secondary stress is on ssi.
 * 3. Se proprio insisti possiamo tenere l'ordine nominativo, genitivo, dativo, accusativo nelle tabelle (per confronto in rumeno ed altre lingue romanze orientali l'ordine è nominativo, dativo, genitivo, accusativo perché nei nomi e negli aggettivi il nominativo è stato aggregato con il dativo mentre il genitivo è stato aggregato con l'accusativo; nelle lingue finniche, invece, l'ordine è nominativo, accusativo, genitivo), ma a scuola il soggetto e l'oggetto (in senso grammaticale) sono insegnati prima del complemento corrispondente al caso genitivo/possessivo.
 * 5. Sulla wikipedia della lingua italiana tengono solo le/glie- come forma clitica del dativo di terza persona plurale mentre non accennano minimamente loro come clitico del dativo di terza persona plurale.
 * 6. Qui in Lombardia e Piemonte gli elefanti è sempre pronunciato, noi siamo coerenti, sillabe di parole differenti vengono pronunciate separatamente a meno che siano unite dall'apostrofo.
 * DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is about the Italian grammar, but the section is about the Italian pronouns. DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On radio and on television native Italian speakers speak using the same grammatical rules that I use. DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The adjective speciale is invariable by gender because it is speciale both in the masculine and in the feminine, the pronoun lei is not invariable by gender because it is lui in the masculine and lei in the feminine. DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)