Talk:con intenzione

Literally with intention and without intention. We do the same thing in French to avoid really long, awkward sounding adverbs (avec intention, sans intention). Not idiomatic whatsoever, AFAICT. Mglovesfun 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these are set phrases, unlike "with intention". Keep. —Stephen 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They were created by, who's a native Italian speaker and a prolific contributor here, and I'd be wary of deleting them just because they seem SOP to us. I'd consider the corresponding Hebrew בכוונה: to be idiomatic (and in fact, I created an entry for it a while back) for reasons that wouldn't necessarily be obvious to a non–Hebrew speaker. (This is canceled out by the fact that it's also not necessarily obvious to a non–Hebrew speaker that it's a two-word phrase, ב־: + כוונה:, so it's not likely to get RFD'd.) At the very least, we should ask Barmar for her thoughts. —Ruakh TALK 00:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion about Italian. In French, I feel that we don't use avec intention (we rather use intentionnellement or volontairement). We don't use sans intention either (we rather use sans le vouloir or involontairement), except in sans intention de ... (especially in legal terminology). Lmaltier 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In French, both terms are actually used, especially -but not exclusively- in the legal domain. The meaning may then differ from the synonyms you give. For example, "aider sans intention" (= with no particular purpose) has not the same meaning as "aider involontairement" (= involuntarily). OTOH, "avec intention" is indeed similar to intentionnellement, but it exists on its own. I'd ask a native Italian speaker before deleting this entry. — Xavier, 23:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I found them here and here  and there  and thought they were fine, but it is not a problem for me that they would be deleted because considered as sum of parts. --Barmar 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those look like sum of parts to me, maybe Appendix:List of Italian colocations of con, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike it, kept as no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)