That´s interesting.
Now is there a language where it is bull in a glass shop?
Yes, it’s the second person singular of the present simple of capire. It’s spelt capisc’?
Capisco - I understand
Capisci - you understand
It is in a short form, without the final “i” because is a dialectal form (mainly southern). And it is in its interrogative form (nothing changes, no auxiliary verb needed, just the question mark at the end).
Capisc’? 
4 Likes
In bavarian we say "Host mi? (“Hast du mich?” short for “Hast du mich vestanden?”) which literally translates to “Got me?”
2 Likes
Yes, it sounds logic in the past form. In fact we have this variant too: capito? (Hai capito? Have you understood?)
Even if the -sco suffix, as in greek, is used in latin and italian to build verbs for actions that require time, that are not punctual, like understanding. Also cresco (I grow up), conosco (I know) etc…
We use most of these italian words in german too.
A childhood friend used to say “kaputtscho” which was faux italian for kaputt (broken).
That in turn comes from the french “capot” as in “faire capot” (I just discovered it now).
1 Like
I was just about to write that.
Oh, I thought it was another yiddish word. I´ve heard many americans say kaputt.
The TV show “Karambolage” covered it, maybe you can find the video online…
1 Like
We have other faux italian expressions as well like “O lecko mio!” (Oh, lick me) and my favourite “O lecko maggiore”! (Oh lick me hugely).
1 Like
Oh, I forgot to mention that it is an obvious pun on that of course. 
Uh, oh, time for a reboot.
Use balloon animal on… 
3 Likes
Urgent help from native speakers needed! @tasse-tee @PiecesOfKate
I have a software that interfaces with some other software that handles hotel restaurant payments. So if an hotel guest eats in the restaurant and wants to take advantage of room charge, the software accepts the payment but has obviously to tell the hotel that an amount will be added to the room.
The problem arises when the guest wants to pay part of the bill with other means. Suppose you ate for 150 euros but want to pay 50 cash and only 100 room charge. I have to send the correct values to the software. And since this isn’t working properly on our product, I’m trying to debug and understand whether the message we send is compliant with the hotel’s documentation.
I have a piece of documentation that says: This field identifies any previous amounts paid against the
transaction total exclusive of the amount being posted
What does “exclusive of the amount being posted” mean? In my example, the “previous amount paid” is the 50 euros. But what is the “transaction total exclusive of the amount being posted”?
In the same message I have a field called “Current payment amount”. It says, This field identifies the actual amount being posted to the PMS. (Not PreMenstrual Syndrome, but Property Management System). So is it 100 or 150? It goes on saying: This amount may represent either a payment-in-full
towards the transaction or a partial payment amount. So if it represent a partial payment, I suppose it’s 100.
Is it 100? Help! I think I have to send 100 in the current payment amount and 50 in the previous payments amount. But I need the opinion of a native speaker 
2 Likes
Sorry, I’m having trouble getting my head around everything (might be because I’m hungry - going for lunch soon!), but I would interpret exclusive of in your first sentence in italics as “not including”.
3 Likes
I’m trying to read this walking along but can see @tasse-tee is replying 
I’ll pitch in when I’m back at me desk.
1 Like
You’ll probably be able to answer better than I could
I’m off to eat my tuna sandwiches now!
3 Likes
I’ve got tuna too! Ooh something weird is going on… 
3 Likes
It’s not my fault that I found that line now 
So, if it’s “not including”, I suppose it’s just 50, while the amount to be sent has to be 100.
I can try, the problem is that I don’t have an actual server 
so I have to fix it blindly, deliver to the customer and hope it works fine and doesn’t break anything.
2 Likes