That München in Italian becomes Monaco is not really strange: looking in Wikipedia we discover that
Its native name, München, is derived from the Old High German Munichen, meaning "by the monks' place". The city's name derives from the monks of the Benedictine order who founded the city; hence the monk depicted on the city's coat of arms.
I'm not sure ...
I'm afraid there's no way of conveying both meaning and register.
Here's a few options, each one of them has issues
figo, vulgar connotation, possibly NSFW
fico, slightly less vulgar than figo, but probably not enough
bello, appropriate in some contexts, but it generally loses the meaning
forte, only works in some sentences (Forte quel tipo!, Forte!), but ...
First, cosa in Che cosa? is indeed a noun, used to reinforce the question. Since cosa means generally any object or action (analogue to "something" or "anything" in English), you can omit it without losing the meaning:
Che? Cosa? Che cosa?
Che (cosa) sta succedendo?
What's (that, that is) happening?
The verb cosare is used only if you don't ...
This is done in every language:
English - Rome
Russian - Рим, Людовик XIV
Finnish - Rooma, Ludvig XIV
German - Rom, Ludwig XIV
The reason for this is the same everywhere I suppose. Not everyone knows every language pronunciation, actually far from that, so nouns get adapted by the speakers to make them easier to say and refer to.
The "neutral" way is the literal translation:
The more colloquial way (not rude or offensive, can generally be used with anyone, though it might depend on the situation) is an idiomatic expression:
In bocca al lupo!
to which the person who is wished luck usually replies:
Crepi (il lupo)!
Interesting question. I'll go out on a limb and say that the answer is no.
Of course it is difficulty to find a definitive, evidence-based answer, but I'll give two reasons, the first more subjective and the second more objective.
1) I and several people I know attended Liceo classico, the secondary school with a slant toward humanities, where Latin and ...
There isn't a proper translation. The translation changes depending on the context in which it is used, keep in mind that it is a negation, also used to form rhetorical questions or a reinforcement (I prefer to call it "modulator") of denial. To translate that, in terms of meaning, you can use many adverbs or sentence structures. As far as I know, ...
Non mi interessa is correct, but perhaps not always strong enough. You might want to say:
non m'importa (the most neutral and standard solution), its variant chi se ne importa (= who cares?) or the stronger non me ne importa niente;
non me ne frega niente (even stronger) or its variants chi se ne frega? and me ne frego (the latter of which, however, has ...
“To kid” often corresponds to Italian scherzare (which has a similar meaning to “to joke” too). So, «I'm kidding» is Sto scherzando.
In other cases, it may correspond more to prendere in giro (which also means “to make fun of”, “to tease”). An idiomatic way to say “you must be kidding me” is stai scherzando? or mi stai prendendo in giro?
Your analysis is correct. The word parmi is indeed a contraction of mi pare, where pare is the third person of parere. So parmi means “it seems to me”, or “it appears to me”.
In your example, parmi vederlo simply means (in a non-idiomatic English) “it seems to me that I see him”, in the sense of “it's almost as if I could see him”.
Probably your confusion ...
In the specific case of your sentence, I'd probably simply translate «In genere mi vesto casual» (yes, casual is used in Italian too).
As for the four verbs:
“indossare” is more formal: you'd hardly use it in everyday speech;
“vestire” is mostly used in the reflexive form (“mi vesto tutto di verde”); alternatively you can use it transitively with a person ...
I don't think Italian has a perfect equivalent of the word overkill. You can use different terms in different situations.
Translating it as eccessivamente complicato isn't optimal because overkill implies the existence of a much simpler alternative, while this translation does not give this suggestion.
Translating it with esagerato comes probably closer ...
I'd say either, from which in my experience is the most used form to which in my experience is the least used form, "Mi manchi", "Sento la tua mancanza" or (hold on before using this one) "Mi stai mancando".
The first one is, in my experience, definetly the most widespread; it's in present tense, and it translates to English more or less literally as "I ...
Informal: Come? Cosa? Eh? Come/Cosa/Che hai detto?
Formal, (as suggested in a comment by @RiccardoDeContardi): Scusi? Prego? Può ripetere? Come/Cosa/Che ha detto?, the latest two usually followed by a further courtesy locution such as per favore/scusi/per cortesia.
Every language adapts foreign names to its phonetic system and its morphology, both proper and common names (Munich > Monaco is not that different from beefsteak > bistecca) to be able to pronounce and use them.
Re “other languages have slight modifications”, would you consider Firenze > Florence, Napoli > Naples, Livorno > Leghorn, where at most 2 or 3 ...
Non lo so
Non lo so proprio
Non ne ho idea
Non ne ho la più pallida idea
In ordine crescente di intensità
Ovviamente ne si riferisce a qualcosa che è già stato menzionato, ma immagino che tu lo sappia già. Se vuoi dire:
I have no idea what to do in this situation
Si possono usare tutti e quattro, allo stesso modo:
Non so cosa fare
Non so proprio cosa ...
I'd say Stia zitto e salga sul carrello.
Stia e salga are in the subjunctive, third-person form used in formal phrasing (the corresponding tu-form would be Stai zitto e sali sul carrello, in the imperative mood).
As for your attempts:
- ottenere means “to get” in such contexts as “I got a great result”;
- si mettersi isn't correct; Zitto e si metta nel ...
No, the correct translation is:
The farmer fed his horse every day.
The farmer gave something to eat to his horse every day
In Italian "dare da mangiare" (lit. "to give [something] to eat") means "to feed", and it has nothing to with "being hungry" (i.e. "avere fame").
Maybe one of the reasons you are confused is that you are translating da with "...
As always, there is not a single translation that always fits. A proposito is often appropriate; depending on the register, also incidentalmente, the already-mentioned fra l'altro, or a periphrasis like dimenticavo, or già che ci siamo and so on.
[Added from a comment of mine:] To confirm that certain uses of “by the way” map perfectly on a proposito, let ...
Usually, in commercial/institutional websites, the Engish title About (or About us) is translated into Chi siamo (or Chi sono, for individuals). The correspondence between Chi siamo and About (us) is made clear by launching a web search in Google.
I think that the proverb you quote is a (very) free translation of
Chi fa da sé fa per tre
(literally who does things by himself works like three people). I cannot think of any traditional proverb which is more similar and there is nothing in the Wikipedia page on Italian proverbs that is better than this.
As Gio says in his answer the locution to be used to can be translated as essere solito, or (in my opinion more commonly) using the adverbial locution di solito followed by the verb at the presente indicativo. So I'd translate I am used to drink coffee every morning as
Di solito bevo caffè ogni mattina.
I would express the verb I used to with the same ...