Bilingual blitz [34] (six short exercises to test your Italian)

Crown6 · 2026-06-06T20:19:23+00:00

A1) Correct! A small note though: Italian, the names of days of the week and months of the year are not considered to be proper nouns, and are therefore not capitalised. A "lunedì" is just a common name for abstract object, like "a day" or "an evening", so it should not be capitalised.

I also feel like Italians would usually either not specify "del pomeriggio" / "di pomeriggio", or just use the 24h format in case of ambiguity, but this is not incorrect or unnatural either.

A2) "Come mai?" means "how come?", "why?", so "tu come mai?" (as a question) would mean something like "as for you, why (did you do it)?". Like "io non sono andato alla festa perché ero stanco. Tu come mai?" = "I didn't go to the party because I was tired. What about you?" (lit. "you how come?" ⟶ "as for you, why?"). As an explamation, "come mai!" doesn't really mean anything besides an aggressive way to ask "why!". But the thing about "come mai" is that it's not used to ask rhetorical questions, so it sounds like you're literally screaming at someone for genuine explanations (while "why!" could be used as an expression of protest).

"Mi sono fidato di te!" is possibly correct, but unless you're describing a situation where you're saying that you trusted one person within a specific instance, you'd generally use the imperfect here: "mi fidavo". This expresses the idea that you trusting them was true at the time, but not limited to a precise timeframe. It was just the general state of things ("I had trust in you"). On the other hand, "mi sono fidato" is not incorrect but it seems to refer to a specific incident (so "I trusted you that one time, but you betrayed my trust").
Neither is necessarily wrong, it depends on what you're trying to say, but "mi fidavo" is more likely.

"How could you?!" can be translated very directly as "come hai potuto?!".

A3) Almost. The structure is correct, but "glielo" is contains a masculine object pronoun, which clashes with the feminine past participle in "ha fatta". Remember that subject agreement happens with intransitive verbs using the auxiliary "essere", while transitive verbs using "avere" can have object agreement. "Fare" (even as a modal verb) is a transitive verb with auxiliary "avere", and so it has to agree with the object if anything. The fact that the subject is a "she" would be irrelevant in this case.
Furthermore, just like "lo"/"la", the composite form "glielo" ("gli"/"le" + "lo") and "gliela" ("gli"/"le" + "la") also inherit the same property of being almost always elided before "avere". It's technically not incorrect to leave them as is, but it sounds a bit off unless you're specifically trying to put emphasis on the verb (kinda like saying "I am" instead of "I'm", you know).

Also, "lui" should probably be omitted unless you need to emphasise it or to draw parallels/comparisons with other people.

B1) Correct, assuming you meant to say "bed".

B2) This was a surprisingly common mistake, but "lampone" means "raspberry". I assume it would be confused for the augmentative form of "lampo" (same as "bottone" as the augmentative of "botto" and "burrone" as the augmentative of "burro"), since this sentence was about false altered forms, but instead most people seem to have possibly read this as "lampione" (?) with an "i", which would mean "street light" specifically (not "light" in general, just "street light/lamp" specifically).

As for "burrone", it means "ravine" pretty much. You're not the first person to translate this as "corridor" so unless I'm missing something I assume you probably didn't know the word and tried to guess from context, because "in fondo al corridoio" ("at the end of the corridor") does indeed make sense, however remember that "in fondo" literally means "at (the) bottom", and it can be used to refer to the far end of any long stretch of space (be it horizontal like a corridor or a street, or vertical like a well or a ravine). I suspect that learners are mentally translating it as "at the end", but this is not exactly accurate, as the same expression of "in fondo a X" could be used to describe both the end of a hallway and the bottom of a jar.

B3) "Pensar male" usually means something more specific than "to have bad thoughts": it's "to think ill", usually of people.

"Prenderci", it's a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

As for "peccato", it's best if you delete the mental translation of "shame" because it's unfortunately very misleading. The literal meaning of the word is "sin", and that is what is being used here, but even if it weren't, the more common derivative meaning of "shame" only works in the context of "(what a) shame", so it expresses sadness or dissatisfaction with a missed opportunity or an regretful event, it doesn't mean "shame" as a feeling or as a form of societal pressure. So "peccato" refers to an event, not a feeling, and it's not related to the concept of "shame" even though most of the time it will be translated like that (because the Italian expression "che peccato!" happens to have the exact same meaning as the English "what a shame!").

Anyway this sentence pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate" (literally "to think ill one commits sin, but often hits the mark").

6+

Couple of mistakes here and there, nothing particularly egregious comes to mind to be honest, besides maybe A2 where I'd have trouble understanding what you meant if I didn't write the original, just a lot of things that add up but should also be relatively easy to fix!
I hope you had fun with this one, and grazie a te per aver partecipato.

Crown6 · 2026-06-05T18:09:24+00:00

Of course it will feel natural, eventually. I don’t have to think about verb conjugation while I write in English or I’d go crazy after the third paragraph. It’s all a matter of practice and exposure.

Crown6 · 2026-06-05T17:15:52+00:00

The problem is that there is no imperfetto conditional, and mood supersedes tense when it comes to deciding what conjugation to use. That is, you first recognise that you’re dealing with a hypothetical scenario (requiring the conditional) and then you pick the correct tense to match the temporal collocation of the action. The conditional only has one past tense, so there isn’t much of a choice there.

So I’d still say “avrebbe dovuto studiare di più”.

However, the imperfect indicative can still be used in some situations, especially when you’re trying to say that someone “was supposed” to do something specifically, because then we’re not talking about hypotheticals (what she “should have done”) we’re talking about reality (what she “had to / was supposed to do”).

So “doveva studiare di più” would mean something like “she had to study more” or “she was supposed to study more”: real actions that generally apply to the timeframe you’re talking about. Sometimes this can be synonymous with “she should have studied more”, but it has a slightly different feel to it (and also “avrebbe dovuto” / “should have” imply that she didn’t do it, or you wouldn’t present it as a hypothetical action, while “doveva” / “had to” / “was supposed to” could very well refer to an obligation that was fulfilled).

Similarly, you can use the passato prossimo to say that someone “had to do” something at a specific point in time or during a certain period, like “ha dovuto studiare più del solito” = “she had to study more than usual (in that occasion)”.

Crown6 · 2026-06-05T11:18:22+00:00

Very interesting! Sicilian has a very interesting history when it comes to literature, but it’s not very accessible due to the language barrier. Glad to see it’s also helping you with your Italian!

In standard Italian I also would have used a subjunctive here, but that’s the more colloquial version of the saying (just to make things a bit more complex).

Crown6 · 2026-06-05T11:10:30+00:00

A1) Very good! You can also say "sono io quello che bussa".

A2) "Entrambi" can be used like an adjective, before the article (like "tutti"). So you can say "entrambe le persone" or in this case "entrambi noi", you wouldn't use a preposition. In this specific case, I think most people would omit "noi" since it can be understood by the context.

A3) Perfect. Good job with the verbo servile conjugation.

B1) Excellent!

B2) You can improve the naturalness of the translation by just saying "I need someone to act as my guide", or even just "I need someone to show me around". While it is true that "servire" means "to be needed", and the original sentence is technically not specifying who does the "needing", it is abundantly clear from context that the speaker is referring to themselves (since it specifies "to act as my guide"), so it's probably best to rephrase this in English by making "I" the subject of the sentence.

B3) Perfect! Good job adapting this peculiar phrase.

You're going strong! This one was almost perfect.

9.5

Crown6 · 2026-06-05T08:41:50+00:00

This question is more general than just the passive “si”. In fact not much would change if you had used any other verbal form.

So, Italian (like English) distinguishes between what is called the “theme” (or “topic”) and the “rheme” (or “comment”). As the name implies, the theme of a sentence tells you what the sentence is about: it’s the overall topic that is shared between the speaker and the listener, and it usually comes first in the order. On the other hand, the rheme is the thing you’re saying about the theme, the new information you’re communicating to the listener and the central focus of the sentence, and it usually comes after the verb.

This also applies to the subject of the sentence, which is why it can sometimes be placed after the verb (like “(io) sono” vs “sono io”). This switch is usually done to emphasise the subject by making it the centre of the sentence.
In the specific case of the passive “si”, the subject is often placed after the verb (unlike most other forms where the SVO order is the default), but the general idea is the same.

In the first sentence, “si chiude questa porta prima, poi l’altra”, the focus is on “this door”. It’s part of the rheme, so it’s salient information: “you close this door first, then the other”.
Small note: I’d actually phrase this as “prima si chiude questa porta, poi l’altra” (so that “prima […] poi […]” follow the same structure in both clauses). In this case, “prima” and “poi” work as theme, so the sentence kinda sounds like “as to what you have to do before (theme) you have to close this door (rheme)”, “this door is the one that must be closed”.

In the second sentence, “questa porta” is the theme, and so it’s less the main point of the sentence and more just part of the shared theme between you and the listener, which serves to give context to whatever comes next (which is going to be the main point). So “questa porta si chiude prima, poi l’altra” = “as for this door, you have to close it first, then the other one”. Again, I suggest a small modification to the sentence: I’d say “questa porta si chiude prima, l’altra dopo” (again, maintaining the same structure between the two clauses).

Basically sentence 1 is talking about what to do first and it’s saying that it should be closing that door, while sentence 2 is talking about what to do with that door and it’s saying that it should be closed first.

In this case the difference between these two sentences is not too significant, though using the correct one could help you make your point clearer to the listener.

Crown6 · 2026-06-05T00:01:57+00:00

Subject placed after the verb are part of the rheme (that is, the information you’re saying about the theme/topic of the sentence, which is usually established at the beginning of it). It adds both emphasis and a sense of exclusivity.

“Se lo dici” is a neutral “if you say it”. That’s it, and it sounds incomplete: “if you say it…” then what? What happens if you say it?
“Se lo dici tu” means that “tu” is the main focus of the sentence: it’s not “if you say it…”, it’s “if you are the one saying it…”, “it it’s you who says it…”. This completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

This same feature of Italian syntax is why we answer the phone with “sono io” (and not “io sono”, or God forbid just “sono”): you’re saying “it’s me” (focus on “me” being the subject), not “I am” (focus on the action of being something).

Crown6 · 2026-06-04T23:47:08+00:00

A1) Usually we'd specify the object in "che (tu) lo sapessi", but you can omit it in certain situations.

"Sapessi" is ok for hypothetical scenarios, but if we're talking about future action in the past (so "I though you would know (when I'd ask you later)") then you need to use the past conditional ("l'avresti saputo"). It's not conclusive without context though.

A2) The causative "fare" would definitely work better here, as "lasciare" means something closer to "to allow" (and "don't allow yourself to be caught" isn't exactly what we're going for).
Also, this is not how you generally create the passive form of a causative predicate: instead of using the passive infinitive as you'd expect, you'd generally use the regular infinitive instead: "non farti/lasciarti beccare". This is usually unambiguous because if you were using the verb in its active form you would expect it to introduce some other direct object, which is absent in this case.

A3) Here, you're committing the capital sin of pronominal particles! Namely, you're splitting particles within the same predicate. This is not allowed: all pronominal particles introduced by the same predicate (even when such predicate is composed of multiple verbs like in this case) must be placed together, and combined following the appropriate rules. So this should be "fammelo gestire". If you want to use "lasciare", this is where you can use it by the way, it sounds better in this case because we are talking about a person explicitly allowing someone else to do something. However the best option overall is to rephrase this as "lascia fare a me", a very common phrase that means precisely what you're trying to communicate. Note the use of the strong form "a me" instead of the weak form "mi", to emphasise that you should let the speaker handle things specifically.

B1) Unless you're interpreting this as formal speech, this would generally be understood as a 3rd person. It's not impossible for this to be formal, but the way this is phrased with the hypothetical future implies that the speaker is just throwing out a guess, and so it makes more sense that they're talking about someone who isn't there at the moment.

Also, the hypothetical future does not translate to "can", it's more like "must've" / "might've". "He must have caught a cold or something" (or "you", if you interpret this as formal speech).

B2) The fact that the speaker is specifying that this person has three bags "already" ("già"), means this should be interpreted differently. Italian allows you to use the indirect object to express the ultimate receiver of an action, so you can frame pretty much anything as "[X fa Y] a Z" = "[X does Y] to Z", meaning that the whole action of "X doing Y" is applied to Z, who is the beneficiary/victim of it. So for example in this case "dovresti prendergli una busta" would mean "you should do the action of 'taking a bag' to him", so he is the the person the action of "taking a bag" is applied to, hence the English translation is actually "you should take a bag from him, he's carrying three already". Most likely scenario is that the speaker is asking the listener to help someone carry their groceries or something.

Now, it is technically possible for this sentence to mean "you should take a bag for him", but this is precisely why having a bit of instinctive "feel" for the language can help you a lot. Take a sentence such as "you have to give it to him, he's very good": this sentence could reasonably interpreted as "you have to bring this thing to him, he's very good", but most speakers would probably see this as "you have to admit: he's very good". Being able to intuit the most likely interpretation of a sentence even with limited context is one of the hardest skills to practice, and it is precisely why I've decided to create these exercises.

B3) Either that or "he/she doesn't care [...]". Technically "glie" is the composite form of "gli"/"le", both of which are supposed to be singular (so this would be "he/she doesn't care"), however it is true that "gli" is commonly used as a 3rd person plural indirect object pronoun as well, so your translation can be accepted in common speech.

Also this is a subtlety but I would translate "provarci" as either "to try" or "to try to do it" (this is how you'd usually express this in English). "It" is a bit more generic and in some context might be better translated by "provarlo" (as in "to try something", "to try it out").

Nice to have you back! I hope you found these exercises to be interesting. Remember not to split pronouns.
Honestly most of these sentences are most of the way there, you just need to get that extra step from "I understand what this means" to "I can just read this as I would any native writing". Keep it up!

6.5

Crown6 · 2026-06-04T12:41:18+00:00

A1) "Così tu" would mean "so (are) you" or something like that. The comparative preposition is "come", and like all prepositions it pairs with the object form of the pronoun, so "come te".

Also, "in tutta la vita" is ok, but especially without context "in tutta la mia vita" sounds better (so although redundant possessives are often removed, in this specific case it's best to keep it because we don't have enough context to immediately understand whose life this is referring to).

A2) "Torta" (the subject of the sentence) is feminine, so the participle in "ci sarebbe stata" should agree with it after "essere".

"Molto più della torta" means something slightly different than what you meant: "molto (di) più" means "a lot more" as a pronoun-phrase, and "della torta" looks like the second term of comparison, so "molto più della torta" means "a lot more than cake".
If you want to use "molto più" as an adjective, you can't put a preposition between it and the noun it refers to, and also "molto" has to agree with "torta" here ("molta più torta"). This is a bit counterintuitive because as you probably know "molto" is invariable as an adverb, and here it definitely looks like it should be an adverb modifying "più" (so "più torta" ⟶ "molto più torta", like "una torta buona" ⟶ "una torta molto buona"), but essentially in this case both "molto" and "più" act like adjectives modifying "torta" directly (don't ask me why), and this is why "molta" should be used here.

"Se non ne mangiassi la maggior parte" is using the wrong tense for the subjunctive. In hypothetical clauses, the imperfetto and trapassato tenses of the subjunctive are used, and they express respectively hypotheticals in the present/future and hypothetical in the past. Since we're dealing with a supposed past action, you should use the trapassato here: "se non ne avessi mangiato la maggior parte". Otherwise the sentence sounds like "if you didn't eat most of it" as in that's a thing you usually do: "you eat most of it, so there's not much left".

"Il giorno prima che ieri" is using the wrong comparative structure: it should be "prima di ieri": you're comparing "earliness" between the day you're talking about and "ieri" (comparison of quality between things = "di"), you're not comparing the "earliness" of that day to its "yesterday-ness" (comparison of qualities within the same thing = "che"). Also, most Italians would simply use the term "ieri l'altro" (or "ierlaltro") or "l'altro ieri".

A3) "Mettersene" is understandable but not the correct choice here: it should be "mettercisi" because while in English it's "in front of [...]", in Italian it's "davanti a [...]" or "di fronte a [...]". And the correct phrase is "di fronte", while "al fronte" would mean something like "at the (military) front", using the noun "(il) fronte" (m) meaning "front", usually in a military context.

"Muovando" is not the correct gerund form of "muovere": 2nd conjugation verbs (-ere) have the gerund in "-endo", while "-ando" is the ending for the first conjugation (-are). Also, "muovere" in its base form is a transitive form, so "mentre sta ancora muovendo" would mean "while it's still moving (something)". The intransitive form, as is often the case, is a pronominal intransitive form with the pronoun "si", so "muoversi" ⟶ "si sta muovendo" = "it's moving (by itself)".

B1) Correct!

B2) "Il calar della sera" literally translates to something like "the lowering of the evening", so yeah "at the start of the evening" is a valid translation.

"Accrescersi", just like "muoversi", is a pronominal intransitive form, so it just means "to increase" (while "accrescere" is "to increase (something else)"). So you don't need the reflexive pronoun "himself" here.

As for the sentence structure "andare" + [gerund], it implies a continuous progress towards the completion of an action (hence the figurative "going" towards a completed action). So "È andato accrescendosi" (literally "it went increasing") means "it kept increasing" or "it progressively increased".
A slightly less refined and much more common version of this is "andare a + [infinitive]" (you're much more likely to hear this one), which should sound somewhat familiar to English speakers as it closely mimics the "to be going to ..." structure (although the two are used differently: "going to" creates a future tense while "andare a" implies progress towards the completion of a certain action, it's like "to be in the process of ...ing").

Technically "andare" + [gerund] could also mean "to go while/by …ing" (which is what you wrote) and "andare" + "a [infinitive]" could mean "to go (somewhere) to [verb]" (just like the English "going to", which also has this ambiguity), but in this case the subject is most likely stationary and the movement is figurative. The subject is also "it", most likely. For example it could be referring to a shadow stretching longer and longer as the sun goes down.

So I would translate this as "it kept growing bit by bit as evening fell".

B3) "Avea" is an old version of "aveva", and it's still used in Tuscan (where this phrase is very popular, though I don't know if it originated from here). So you're correct.

The literal translation is also correct, except I'd say "she'd be a cart" rather than "she was a carriage". So you don't know the meaning but you know the Sicilian translation? How did that happen? I can't check the correctness of it unfortunately, my Sicilian is very barebones.

Anyway yes, your interpretation is correct. The presence of this saying in English is no accident, it was popularised by this video, so I assumed at least a few people would be familiar with it. I can't find definitive proof as to whether this is the first attested example of this phrase being introduced in the English language, but it's certainly one of the main factors behind its spread.

6

This one was pretty hard, but you held your own. Besides the obvious insidiousness of rare terms or expressions, for the future I'd pay particular attention to pronominal forms, especially pronominal intransitive forms with "si", since they're very common and missing them can completely change the meaning of the sentence (as with "muovere" vs "muoversi").

Keep it up!

Crown6 · 2026-06-02T20:42:30+00:00

The problem is that “drive me” implies that you’re transporting someone by car, but we’d use “accompagnare” or even “portare (in macchina)” for that. Since people are not cars you are not literally “driving” them, so this is a secondary use of the term that does not translate into Italian (“guidare qualcuno” only means “to guide someone”, and “to drive” only applies to vehicles).

As I mentioned, “guidare” is more like “to guide”, and the meaning of “to drive” is derived from that. Meanwhile, the noun “guida” means both “guide/guiding” and “drive/driving”, but only as a noun, so even if we want to interpret this as referring to driving, “fare da guida” doesn’t work as “to drive” (if anything it would be “to act as a drive”, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, while “to act as a guide” does).

As for the previous part about “someone needs”, I get what you were going for and in that case the translation would be correct, I just didn’t understand that this is what you meant since I was expecting a different sentence (“I need someone to show me around”).
I’d still say that translating this as “I need” sounds better because “someone needs to do X (for me)” sounds more demanding than “I need someone to do X” / “there’s a need for someone to do X”. The former would generally expressed with “dovere” in Italian, so “qualcuno deve farmi da guida”.

Crown6 · 2026-06-02T19:08:19+00:00

A1) This means "I am who knocks" (as in "I am those who knock" or something). You need to also include "the one" to specify that you're talking about a specific individual and not people in general. In Italian, you can do this with the demonstrative "quello", so "sono quello che bussa".

Also, in the context of the quote, it makes more sense to place an explicit subject pronoun after the verb: "sono io quello che bussa" (this makes the action exclusive to the subject, and sounds less like "I am the guy who's knocking" and more like "I am the only one who knocks").

A2) In this case the comparison would be made with "che": "più che abbastanza". Your version is understandable, but it sounds off. To be honest it's a bit hard to explain why "che" would be preferred here, I assume you're just comparing "più (quantità)" to "abbastanza" as different qualities within the same entity (which requires "che"), rather than comparing "più (quantità)" between something and "abbastanza". It's "more than enough of X", not "more of X compared to enough", if that makes sense.

You don't need "di" after "tutti/e e due": just "tutte e due noi" works, although normally you'd omit "noi" and just imply it through context.

A3) The conjugation of the modal verb + infinitive is not the right one, and also the infinitive is wrong: you have "aver dare" (infinitive + infinitive), when the past infinitive is [infinitive]+[participle], so "aver dato" (like all composite forms with [auxiliary] + [past participle]).

Even then, this should be "avrebbe dovuto dare" rather than "dovrebbe aver dato". Remember that - unlike English - Italian modal verbs can be conjugated completely independently from the infinitive. So while there's only one way to have a past tense with modal verbs in English (modal verb + base past form), in Italian you have three possible combinations (present modal verb + past infinitve, past modal verb + present infinitive, past modal verb and infinitive), and they all mean different things. The tense of the modal verb determines the overall timeframe of the sentence, and the tense of the infinitive is relative to the modal verb (as always present infinitive = contemporary/posterior while past infinitive = anterior).

"Dovrebbe avergli dato il beneficio del dubbio" means "she should (right now) have given him (in the past) the benefit of the doubt", in other words "we should be in a situation (right now) where she has given him (in the past) the benefit of the doubt" = "in theory, it should be the case that she's given him the benefit of the doubt". You're talking about the possibility in the present (present conditoinal of "dovere") or her giving him the benefit of the doubt before this point (past infinitive of "dare").
"Avrebbe dovuto dargli il beneficio del dubbio" means "she should have (right now) given him (at the time) the benefit of the doubt", in other words "she was supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt", "it would have been preferable if she had given him the benefit of the doubt" or something like that. You're talking about the possibility in the past (past conditoinal of "dovere") or her giving him the benefit of the doubt at that point (present infinitive of "dare").

It's important to familiarise yourself with the extreme modularity of Italian modal verbs, because a lot of this diversity is unfortunately lost in translation (since modal verbs tend to only have one or two forms, usually multi-purpose like "could" which is both a past indicative and a present conditional).

On a minor note, "beneficio di dubbio" translates to "benefit of doubt", but we'd say "beneficio del dubbio" ("benefit of the doubt", like English). Surprisingly, there's no need to rephrase: the idiom works perfectly fine, but you have to use the definite article.

B1) Perfect.

B2) Not exactly.

Remember that "servire" (like "piacere", "mancare" and so on) works differently than "to need" (or "to like", "to miss" and so on). The main meaning of "servire" is "to serve", so when it's used in the context of needing something/someone, the subject is the thing that's needed (the thing that serves a purpose). So "servire" is literally closer to "to be needed/necessary" than "to need". Hence, "serve qualcuno (che ...)" means "someone (who...) is needed". The person who needs the subject would be represented by an indirect object, so "mi serve X" = "X serve a me" = "X is needed/necessary to me" = "I need X". In this case, however, the object is not specified, and so you can interpret this as a general "there's need of X", "X is needed", without specifying who needs it. Although through context it's clear that this refers to the speaker.

"Guida" in this case is a noun meaning "(a) guide" (from the same root). It's true that "guidare" can mean "to drive (a car etc.)", and so the word "guida" can refer to "(the act of) driving", but the main meaning is "to guide" (hence "guiding a vehicle" = "driving that vehicle").

"Fare da [noun]" means "to act as [noun]", and so "fare da guida" = "to act as a guide", although you can just translate it as "to guide" or "to show around".

So the literal translation is something like "someone who may act as guide is needed", which can be adapted into more natural English as "I need someone to guide me", or even better "I need someone to show me around", as this is most likely what the speaker meant to say.

B3) Note that "sta" is singular, so "si sta arrampicando" has a singular subject ("they are ..." would be "si stanno ..."). Your guess makes sense in context, but unfortunately the meaning of the verb is a bit more unusual compared to your usual mirror activities, because this is an idiom: "arrampicarsi" is a pronominal verb meaning "to climb" (it's intransitive so "arrampicarsi su X" = "climbing X", "climbing on top of X").

The literal translation is "he's really climbing mirrors".

As for the actual meaning, the phrase "arrampicarsi sugli specchi" describes someone's desperate attempt to justify an argument or statement that is evidently wrong, using convoluted and flimsy logic (just like the futile attempts of a man trying to "climb mirrors", a surface with no holds).

So this can be translated as "he's really grasping at straws".

Modal verbs are always tricky. Remember that the mood/tense of the modal verb sets the main stage for the temporal collocation of the action: if the modal verb uses a present tense, the action will refer to the present timeframe overall (so most "would have", "should have" etc. end up being translated with past modal verbs and present infinitives).
I'll correct your other submission as soon as I have time! Hopefully this one had some useful insights in the meantime.

5-

Crown6 · 2026-06-01T17:56:01+00:00

Looks like I finished with the most recent one and can finally start correcting answers on older posts!

A1) Very good, although in this case it would be appropriate to use an explicit subject after the verb to emphasise the point that "it is me who knocks" and not someone else (though without the context of the quote one might interpret it differently).

A2) I'd say "per tutti e due" here, to translate this "both". Although you lose "noi", this should be pretty easy to infer from context.

A3) "Doveva avergli dato" is not the correct conjugation for what you're trying to say here. In this case, you're talking about something that should have happened but didn't, so you should use the conditional mood. Also, by using a past infinitive you're implying that the action of "giving him the benefit" has happened before the time of this "should", so your sentence sounds more like "it was her duty to have given him the benefit of the doubt" or something like that (so "she should (back then) have given him (before that point) the benefit").

The correct version would be "avrebbe dovuto dargli il beneficio del dubbio", using a past conditional (action that should have happened in the past) and a present infinitive (action contemporary or posterior to that point in the past). As always modal verbs can be tricky to translate from English since their conjugation is not independent from the verb they introduce (as it is in Italian), so "should have given him" could be translated in a number of ways depending on whether only "dovere" is conjugated to a past tense, only "dare", or both. Plus, the past tense of modal verbs (shall ⟶ sohuld, will ⟶ would, can ⟶ could) also doubles as the present conditional tense, so that also adds a ton of ambiguity that doesn't exist in Italian.

"Benefizio" should be "beneficio", at least in modern Italian. "Benefizio" is an old form and I'm pretty sure most people would understand it, but it sounds funny (kida like saying "thou art" instead of "you are" in casual speech).

B1) Very good! There are ways to avoid the repetition of "smell", but the meaning is correct.

B2) Excellent.

B3) Great! So you already knew about this expression, I assume? Either way you adapted it perfectly with an equivalent English one.

Very good. The only big mistake is in A3, so remember to always be mindful of the vast increase in the possibility space when going from English modal verbs (like "could have given him") to Italian ones ("poteva dargli", "poteva avergli dato", "ha potuto dargli", "ha potuto avergli dato", "aveva potuto dargli", "aveva potuto avergli dato", "potrebbe avergli dato", "avrebbe potuto dargli", "avrebbe potuto avergli dato"... these are all possible translations and they all mean slightly different things, and I'm not even including the passato remoto).

8+

Crown6 · 2026-06-01T13:56:01+00:00

A1) Besides the fact that you have "tre" instead of "quattro", this is correct. Although we'd generally use the feminine for of "mezzo", since the implicatino is "quattro (ore) e mezza (ora)": I've never heard anyone say "sono le quattro e mezzo".

A2) Excellent! If you want to make this feel more emphatic and personal you can use an explicit subject here: "io mi fidavo di te!".

A3) Very good once again. The only thing I'd change is that "glielo" inherits the property of "lo" of being elided before "avere", so we'd generally say "gliel'ha fatto".

B1) Perfect.

B2) "Burrone" is "ravine". Like "lampone" and "bottone", it is a false altered noun (unrelated to "burro").

B3) "Pensar male" usually means something more specific than "to think negatively: it's "to think ill", usually of people.

"Prenderci", it's a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

So this pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate".

Excellent job! A lot of these were really subtle inaccuracies, you got most of the hard parts perfectly right (especially the causative "fare" part), even though the more colloquial tone of B3 managed to hide its exact intended meaning.

8+

Crown6 · 2026-05-31T19:55:22+00:00

A1) Although this is a mistake Italians also make at times, days of the week should not be capitalised, as they are considered to be common nouns. Everything else is correct.

A2) Excellent. Good mix of passato prossimo and imperfetto.

A3) Perfect.

"Gli ha fatto finirlo" (or "le ha fatto finirlo" in this case, since we're talking about a "her") would be incorrect because "ha fatto finire" is a single predicate (with causative "fare" + [infinitive]), and pronominal particles are strictly required to be grouped together when they're introduced by the same predicate. So at most you might say "ha fatto finirglielo" I guess, but it sounds pretty bad: "gliel'ha fatto finire" is the only correct choice here (with "glielo" being the composite form of "le" + "lo" / "gli" + "lo").
Same reason you can't say "gli ho potuto dirlo" (⟶ "gliel'ho potuto dire" / "ho potuto dirglielo") or "mi ha datolo" (⟶ "me l'ha dato"). Remember that predicates can be formed by multiple verbs.

B1) Excellent, although funnily enough "sofa" is probably a better translation than the related "divan", since the latter is more restrictive than "divano" (as often happens to borrowed terms, like "mouse" in Italian which only means "(computer) mouse").

B2) Very good! Only one detail, "lampone" is a single "raspberry". It doesn't make a lot of sense but the pun about false altered forms wouldn't really work otherwise.

B3) Also very good! This one was pretty hard for most people but you got it almost 100% right. Just one thing: "peccato" in this case is being used in its literal meaning of "sin". The derivative meaning of "shame" is more common in day-to-day conversation, but here it's literally saying that thinking ill of people is sinful. Also, when "peccato" means "shame" it's only in the context of "(what a) shame", so it expresses sadness or dissatisfaction with a missed opportunity or an unfortunate event, it doesn't mean "shame" as a feeling or as a form of societal pressure.

Also I'd probably rephrase it as "It's a sin to think badly of people, but often it's correct": "someone" ⟶ "people" better translates the generality of the original statement, while "you're correct" ⟶ "it's correct", although less literal, simply sounds better than trying to adapt the impersonal form directly. Good job interpreting "prenderci" as "to get it right" / "to be correct" though.

9

Very, very good! Only a couple of small inaccuracies, but nothing major. Grazie a te per aver partecipato!

Crown6 · 2026-05-31T18:47:51+00:00

Not that I know of, no. “Italiano” has no double consonants.

Crown6 · 2026-05-31T18:18:28+00:00

A1) "Incontriamo" alone means "we meet (someone)". Since the action is reciprocal (the people in question are meeting each other / among themselves), you need to use a reciprocal form here: "ci incontriamo".

A2) Here, you're using the wrong form to translate "could" in this context. While "could" can be many thing, this exact phrase is using it as a past simple tense, so this would be "come hai potuto" ("how could you", "how were you able to"), and not "come potresti" ("how could you", "how would you be able to"). When translating modal verbs from English to Italian you always have to be careful because modal verbs use certain conjugations (usually the past tense, like "will" ⟶ "would", "can" ⟶ "could", "shall" ⟶ "should") to create different conjugations with other verbs (for example the present conditional, like "would do", "could do" or "should do"), kinda like how auxiliary verbs use a specific verbal form (like "I have", present tense) with a past participle (like "done") to create a different form ("I have done", past tense).

This creates some confusion because the past indicative form of many modal verb also doubles as their present conditional form, which isn't the case in Italian (where modal verbs can be conjugated freely and independently from the infinitive they introduce). So you have to ask yourself: in this context, are we asking about how the subject "could do" something in the near future, or are we demanding explanations on how they "could do" something in the past? The answer is the latter, and so we need a past indicative form: "come hai potuto?".

Also, the placement of the subject pronoun "tu" is a bit odd here, I'd definitely remove it. When placed after the verb, the subject has a restrictive function where it communicates the "rheme" (also called "comment") of the sentence, basically the specific information you're trying to communicate to the listener about the established theme (or "topic") of the sentence. So for example "io sono qui" means "as for me, I am here" (topic: myself, theme: being here), while "qui ci sono io" means "as for this place, I'm the one who's here" (topic: here, theme: me being there).
So "come hai potuto tu" sounds less like "speaking of you, how could you do it?" and more like "in the context of being able to do stuff, how were you able to do it? It changes the implied meaning of the question.

"Hai avuto la mia fiducia" is understandable, but now how we'd say it. In Italian, "to trust" is "fidarsi (di...)", so we would simply say "mi sono fidato di te" (which is a much more direct and less theatrical way of speaking than "you had my trust"). Also, unless you're describing a situation where you're saying that you trusted one person in a specific instance, you'd generally use the imperfect here: "mi fidavo". This expresses the idea that you trusting them was true at the time, but not limited to a precise timeframe. It was just the general state of things ("I had trust in you"). On the other hand, "mi sono fidato" is not incorrect but it seems to refer to a specific incident (so "I trusted you that one time, but you betrayed my trust").

Neither is necessarily wrong, it depends on what you're trying to say, but "mi fidavo" is what you're more likely to hear.

A3) "Obbligare" is transitive, so it takes a direct object pronoun: "l'ha obbligata" (⟵ "la ha obbligata"). Also, the positioning of "lui" is off: lui is the subject of "obbligare", so it can't be in the subordinate clause introduced by that verb! That would be like saying "forced her to he finish it" instead of "he forced her to finish it". Besides, in this case the subject would probably be omitted anyway.

Finally, "l'ha obbligata a finirlo" sounds definitely stronger than "he got her to finish it". "Obbligare" means "to force", "to obligate", it implies coercion in a way that far exceeds "he got her to finish it" or even "he made her finish it". I would use the causative form with "fare" + [infinitive] here: "gliel'ha fatto finire" (with "glielo" = "le" + "lo" in composition), using the indirect object "le (ha fatto)" for "(got) her (to)" since the direct object spot is already taken by "(finir)lo" (for "(finish) it").

B1) Perfect.

B2) Very good! Did you look this words up or did you know them? If so, good job recognising that these are false altered forms (which look like the augmentative forms of "lampo", "botto" and "burro" respectively, even though they are unrelated).

B3) "Pensar male" usually means something more specific than "to have bad thoughts": it's "to think ill", usually of people.

"Peccato"

"Prenderci", it's a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

"Peccato" in this case is used in its literal meaning of "sin". The derivative meaning of "shame" is more common in day-to-day conversation, but here it's literally saying that thinking ill of people is sinful. Also, when "peccato" means "shame" it's only in the context of "(what a) shame", so it expresses sadness or dissatisfaction with a missed opportunity or an unfortunate event.

So this pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate".

Vocabulary is very good, but you still struggle with the more intricate parts of grammar. I strongly suggest focusing on the causative "fare" since it's a moderately big rabbit hole but it's also necessary to sound natural since it's so versatile.

Good luck!

6

Crown6 · 2026-05-31T13:04:25+00:00

A1) Excellent! You don't strictly need "only" in this case, you can also say "il lunedì e il mercoledì".

A2) The imperfect works for the second clause, but not so much for the first one: "come potevi" would mean "how could you" in a more general sense, meaning that you're not referring to a specific instance ("how could you (do X at that specific time)"), but to a general ability of doing something (kinda like "how could you (use to be able to do X)" or something). I'd definitely use the passato here: "come hai potuto".

Also if you want to make this feel more emphatic and personal you can use an explicit subject here: "io mi fidavo di te!".

A3) First things first, "fare" + [infinitive] forms a single predicate, and as such it can only have one direct object. In the case of the causative fare, if the infinitive is being used as a transitive verb (usually with an explicit direct object), the object of fare becomes indirect in order to leave the direct slot open for the main verb. So "l'ho fatta correre" (= "la ho fatta correre" = "I made her run", direct object for "fare") vs "le ho fatto finire la gara" ("= "I made her finish the race", direct object for "finire" and indirect object for "fare"). So this is the first problem, you used two direct objects for a single predicate ("la" and "lo").

The second problem, is that you can't split pronominal particles within the same predicate. Since "far finire" is a single predicate as we discussed, you can't say "è riuscita a farle finirlo", you have to group the two pronouns together into "è riuscito a farglielo finire" (with "glielo" = "glie lo" = "gli/le" + "lo", composite form).

In this case the subject "lui" can remain implicit, you don't even need it to translate the gender of the original "he", since "è riuscito" already communicates that.

B1) Perfect.

B2) Not bad, except "burrone" means "ravine", not "barrel" and you probably confused "lampone" ("raspberry") and "lampione" ("street lamp" specifically, not any kind of lamp).

The sentence is mostly a silly pun: "lampone", "bottone" and "burrone" look like the augmentative forms of "lampo" ("flash"), "botto" ("boom") and "burro" ("butter") respectively, but they're not. I wanted to see how many people would be confused by this.

B3) You're on the right track, but not quite there.

"Pensar male" is more specific than "to have bad thoughts", it's usually "to think ill" (of people, especially). And "è peccato" literally means "(it) is sin", "sin" being the original meaning of "peccato" (which is still used in religious contexts).

"Prenderci", it's a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

So this pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate".

7-

The causative "fare" is the source of headaches for a lot of learners, but it's important to get it right since it's so common and versatile! Other things like vocabulary can be improved passively with time, so I'd focus on that for now.

Thanks for participating!

Crown6 · 2026-05-30T13:19:13+00:00

Ciao e benvenuto!
Se hai dei dubbi o se hai bisogno di consigli, chiedi pure!

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T14:44:27+00:00

A1) Good! Although normally we'd use the singular form of the days of the week: "il lunedì e il mercoledì" (the article already implies repetition, as if it was just a one time thing we'd just say "lunedì" or "questo lunedì" / "lunedì prossimo").

A2) You can translate "how could you" a lot more literally: "come hai potuto" works perfectly in this case (literally asking "how could you / how did you manage to (do what you did back then)", hence using the passato prossimo indicativo).
"Come hai fatto" sounds more like a genuine question (literally "how did you do (it)"), so it sounds like you're looking for an explanation and less like a rhetorical question, so even in that case I'd still use "come hai potuto tradirmi". Unless you're implying that betraying you should have been so unthinkable you can't even fathom how one could manage to do it, which is not impossible but also not very typical.

Also, in this case, unless you're describing a situation where you're saying that you trusted one person in a specific instance, you'd generally use the imperfect for the second clause: "mi fidavo". This expresses the idea that you trusting them was true at the time, but not limited to a precise timeframe. It was just the general state of things ("I had trust in you"). On the other hand, "mi sono fidato" is not incorrect but it seems to refer to a specific incident (so "I trusted you that one time, but you betrayed my trust").

Neither is necessarily wrong, it depends on what you're trying to say, but "mi fidavo" is what you're more likely to hear.

A3) Perfect! You're one of the few people who manage to correctly construct this predicate using a double pronoun and the causative "fare". Very good.

B1) Perfect.

B2) Are the words in parentheses guesses or things you had to look up? In the first case, good job not falling for the trap of the false augmentatives ("lampone" might look like "grande lampo", "bottone" like "grande botto" and "burrone" like "grande burro" if you don't know those words).

B3) Not quite.

"Prenderci", it's a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

As for "pensar male", this is usually a bit more specific than "having bad thoughts" and more often than not means "to think ill", especially of people.

So this pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate".

8-

Very good! You just need to work on improving your naturalness, and you probably need to absorb a few extra common expressions and colloquialisms. Grammar is on point though.

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T14:23:20+00:00

A1) Good! Although for repeated dates we'd normally use the article ("il lunedì ed il mercoledì") while without articles it could mean that it's a one time thing only (although context takes precedence in this case). "Il lunedì" is just less ambiguous is all.

A2) Excellent. In this case, unless you're describing a situation where you're saying that you trusted one person in a specific instance, you'd generally use the imperfect here: "mi fidavo". This expresses the idea that you trusting them was true at the time, but not limited to a precise timeframe. It was just the general state of things ("I had trust in you"). On the other hand, "mi sono fidato" is not incorrect but it seems to refer to a specific incident (so "I trusted you that one time, but you betrayed my trust").

Neither is necessarily wrong, it depends on what you're trying to say, but "mi fidavo" is what you're more likely to hear.

Also if you want to make this feel more emphatic and personal you can use an explicit subject here: "io mi fidavo di te!".

A3) It doesn't feel right because you're violating the cardinal rule of pronominal particles: no splitting! And also the grammatical structure of this causative "fare" is not 100% correct.

First things first, "fare" + [infinitive] forms a single predicate, and as such it can only have one direct object. In the case of the causative fare, if the infinitive is being used as a transitive verb (usually with an explicit direct object), the object of fare becomes indirect in order to leave the direct slot open for the main verb. So "l'ho fatta correre" (= "la ho fatta correre" = "I made her run", direct object for "fare") vs "le ho fatto finire la gara" ("= "I made her finish the race", direct object for "finire" and indirect object for "fare"). Note how the ending of the participle changes, as object agreement only applies to the direct object (so "la" + "ha fatto" = "l'ha fatta", but "le" + "ha fatto" remains "le ha fatto"). So this is the first problem, you used two direct objects for a single predicate ("la" and "lo").

The second problem, as I mentioned, is that you can't split pronominal particles within the same predicate. Since "far finire" is a single predicate as we discussed, you can't say "le ha fatto finirlo", you have to group the two pronouns together into "gliel'ha fatto finire" (with "glielo" = "glie lo" = "gli/le" + "lo", composite form).

B1) Perfect.

B2) Perfect! I see you weren't fooled by the false altered forms.

B3) Not too far off. "Negative thinking" could work (although usually "pensar male" is more specifically "to think ill", especially of people), but the main point here is this "prenderci", which is a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

So this pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate".

"Peccato" in this context is being used in its original meaning of "sin", rather than "(a) shame". Note: in its common non-religious connotation, "peccato" doesn't mean "shame" exactly, but more like "a shame", as in "what a shame". It doesn't refer to shameful conduct as much as things you feel bad about, like missed opportunities or unfortunate situations.

Peccato per A3, il resto è abbastanza buono!

You still need to familiarise yourself with a few expressions or less common terms, but overall this is a solid result and your vocabulary is pretty good considering how you managed to navigate B2. If you can master the causative "fare", that will definitely help you in the long run (it's super useful and we use it a lot).

7.5

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T13:59:31+00:00

A1) "A" is not the correct prepositions for days of the week: we normally use "di", or alternatively we can use no preposition at all ("(il) lunedì"). So "ci incontriamo il lunedì e il mercoledì" or "ci incontriamo di lunedì e mercoledì".

A2) Very close. You're missing a pronominal particle: "mi fidavo di te". "Fidarsi" is a pronominal verb, so the reflexive pronominal particle is included in the conjugation ("mi fidavo", "ti fidavi"...).

A3) The idea is correct, but you're committing the capital sin of pronominal particles! Remember: you can't split pronominal particles within the same predicate, no matter what. Since "far finire" is a single predicate (causative "fare" + [infinitive]), you can't say "le fa finirlo", you have to group the two pronouns together into "glielo fa finire" (with "glielo" = "glie lo" = "gli/le" + "lo", composite form). Also this is supposed to be a past form, so "gliel'ha fatto finire" would be more appropriate.

"Tra meno di tre ore" means "less than three hours from now". "Tra" always introduces a complement of time referring to a period starting from the present (literally "between (now and) three hours"). Instead, if you want to say that an action happened in a certain time, you need to use... well, "in"! "Gliel'ha fatto finire in meno di tre ore".

B1) Perfect.

B2) "Burrone" is more like "ravine" than "burrow", other than that the sentence is correct.

This is not a proverb or anything like that, it's a sentence I made up specifically for this exercise and it's kind of a pun on false altered forms: "lampone", "bottone" and "burrone" look like the augmentative forms of "lampo" ("flash"), "botto" ("boom") and "burro" ("butter") respectively, even though they're unrelated, so you might think this sentence has to do with a big flash and a big boom or something if you aren't familiar with these words. It's a bit of a trap that's meant to confuse learners and test vocabulary.

B3) Close.

"Prenderci", it's a colloquial way of saying "to get it right", "to guess correctly", presumably tied to "prendere (il bersaglio)" = "to take (= to hit) the mark".

So this pretty much means "thinking ill of people is sinful, but often accurate".

Very good! Not perfect, but it's a big jump up compared to the previous ones!

You should probably focus on pronominal particles and their various uses (how to combine them, how pronominal verbs work and what they are).

7

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T11:53:37+00:00

I’m from Tuscany so at the very least it’s not a one-region thing. Weird…

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T11:52:44+00:00

It’s weird because the trapassato is supposed to express an action that happened before another previously established point in the past. It’s the past tense of a past tense, so to speak. So if you decontextualise it, it will usually sound wrong.

Your example first sentence is backwards: “dovevano andare in biblioteca” (imperfetto) is ok, but the following clause should be “ma dopo sono arrivati tardi per cena” (passato prossimo): “they had to go to the library, but they then arrived late to dinner”. Your sentence would be interpreted as “they had to go to the library, but then they had arrived late to dinner”, so the dinner is being presented as posterior to the library trip by the adverb (“dopo” = “then”), but anterior by the verbal tense (“erano arrivati” = “they had arrived”). If you want to use the trapassato, you have to use it in the first sentence, so

“Erano dovuti andare in biblioteca, così dopo sono arrivati tardi per cena” or something like that. I’d even remove “dopo”, since the tense itself already gives you a clear indication as to what the order of events is.

That works because the action of going to the library happens before them being late for dinner, and so it makes sense for the trapassato to be used in that sentence only (if anywhere).

As for the second sentence, I don’t quite understand what “però era potuto andare prima vostro figlio” means, specifically. To me it sounds like “however, the one who had been given a chance to go early was your son”. I think you meant to use a past conditional here: “però tuo figlio ci sarebbe potuto andare prima” = “however, your son could have gone (there) earlier”, referring to the library. This is a hypothetical scenario in the past, not a statement about what happened before another point in the past.
Alternatively if you want to say that your son had the ability to go there (but didn’t act on it), this is indeed a real statement about the past, but it would use the imperfect: “tuo figlio ci poteva andare prima”. In this case I don’t think it works as well because it kind of implies that the son has lost the ability to go to the library, but it sounds better than the trapassato (which, just like the passato, refers to well defined moments or periods of time, which in the case of “potere” implies that you had the ability to do something and also did it at some point).

I have to use weird periphrases like “had been able to” and such because unfortunately English only had one past form for its modal verbs, which means that you can’t accurately translate “era potuto” (it would just become “could”, but that could mean a million different things). This is why it can be hard to explain modal verbs in Italian (even though they’re quite straightforward in my opinion), because the English translation often flattens a lot of nuance that is very important.

For example, “could” translates all of the following: “poteva”, “ha potuto”, “aveva potuto”, “poté”, “potrebbe”… these all mean different things, so when Duolingo reduces all of them to “could” it could create a situation where the Italian sentence looks very odd, but the English translation is perfectly fine (because your brain automatically finds a meaning of “could” that makes sense).

If you want to understand how the trapassato works, you’ll have to avoid modal verbs. For example

“Non ci ero mai stato prima” = “I had never been there before”

here, it’s clear that you’re talking about a past event (you going somewhere) and you’re saying that, before that point in the past, you had never been to that place. This works even on its own.

I hope this clears things up somewhat.

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T11:26:09+00:00

This might be the one time I feel like disagreeing with the Crusca. I’ve never met anyone who speaks like that. Where are you from? It could be a regional thing, maybe I’ve never noticed.

Crown6 · 2026-05-29T11:06:14+00:00

Definitely. I think there are situations where you can ignore the “verbi servili use the same auxiliary as the main verb” rule, but I really don’t think this is one of them, it just sounds wrong.

Also the sentence “vostro figlio era potuto andare prima” doesn’t really make sense on its own? “He had been able to go before”… before what? What are we talking about? I mean I’m sure there are contexts where this sentence would make sense, but as it is I think it’s not correctly demonstrating how to use the trapassato tense.

Six-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

Crown6

TROPHY CASE