2

I'm a bit puzzled by this construction. My attempt is:

"They're like this. It's not worth getting angry about"

I understand 'prendersela', but not the 'c'è da' part.

Any help is appreciated.

5

C'è da is another way to say bisogna, so non c'è da prendersela means "(there's) no need to get angry", "you should not get angry". Similar constructs are non c'è da stupirsi, non c'è da preoccuparsi, c'è da fare.

You might hear Sei da amare (and similar), i.e. "You're a treasure", or something like Quei tizi sono da evitare, i.e. "You better avoid those guys". But do note it's different: the second person of c'è da would be ci sei da, and this, as well as ci siete da, ci siamo da, is almost always (*) meaningless; however, Ci sono ancora i bagni da pulire, Ci sono i condizionatori da aggiustare do make sense and are actually what you should say instead of C'è ancora da pulire i bagni, C'è da aggiustare i condizionatori. In other words, if the verb is transitive, c'è da becomes ci sono object da if the object is plural.

(*) Ah dimenticavo, ci siete voi/ci sei tu da sistemare! is a very very rare exception.

| improve this answer | |
  • So this construction is used like bisogna, i.e. only in the third person impersonal? Would 'sei da fare' mean anything? Also, can it be used in the positive or only with 'non'? – Scoiattolo Jul 22 '16 at 7:06
  • @Scoiattolo: See if my edit is satisfying. The examples non c'è da stupirsi, c'è da fare show that it can be used both positively and negatively. – Vincenzo Oliva Jul 22 '16 at 8:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.