# Would Have to Go



## MelB

I have a sentence I've been trying to translate into French, and have been having trouble with it.  

The sentence is, "Except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work."  

I've been thinking the French counterpart might be: 

"Sauf pour la neige, j'aurais aller à l'école or au travail."

Then I got concerned that because I'm using the verb "aller," even if only as an infinitive, I need to use "être" here, such as, "je serais aller à l'école or au travail."  (But that sounds very bad to my ear . . .). 

I was thinking about using "devoir."   Perhaps, "Sauf pour la neige, je devrais aller à l'école or au travail."  I believe, if I said, "Sauf pour la neige, je devrai aller à l'école or au travail" (it would translate to "will have to go), so "je devrais aller à l'école or au travail" ought to translate to: "would have to go . . .," but my dictionary says it means "I should or I ought to," which is different than "would have to go . . ."  

Any help here is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Mycall

You're right "ought to" and "should" refer to moral obligation whereas "would have to reflect something more rigid.

  "Sauf en cas de neige, je devrais aller à l'école ou au travail".


----------



## MelB

I understand you to be saying that, "Je devrais" can also be translated to mean something more rigid than a moral obligation, that is, "would have to . . ." (for purposes of my  sentence about going to work). 

My Harper, Collins, Robert (Unabridged) gave this example:  "tu devrais t'habiller plus chaudement,"you should or ought to dress more warmly."  That's what made me worry that "devrais" wasn't strong enough, to mean "would have to [go to work]"  I'm glad that it is. 

Also, is:  ""Sauf en cas de neige, j'aurais aller à l'école or au travail," not an acceptable alternative way of saying the same thing.  Are you basically saying that the correct/better translation of the phrase (Except for the snow I would have to go to school or work) is, "Sauf en cas de neige, je devrais aller à l'école or au travail," and not "j'aurais aller . . ." 

Merci beacoup en avance pour votre réponse!


----------



## MelB

I guess I'm still confused as I'm not quite sure whether MyCall is saying that I'm right that, "Je devrais is too weak" (because it refers to a moral obligation, not a requirement), or whether he's saying that it can also be translated to constitute a requirement (would have to . . .), and that context would be the key to how to transate it (whether as "ought to" or "would have to")

The sentence in English that I want to tranaslate into French is:  "Except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work."

My choices seem to be:

(1) "Sauf en cas de neige, je devrais aller à l'école ou au travail".

(2) "Sauf en cas de neige, je aurrais aller à l'école ou au travail". 

(3) "Sauf en cas de neige, je dois aller à l'école ou au travail".

Which would be the best?  Or is there another translation I'm missing that would be better here.


----------



## Mycall

I would forget about n°2 and retain n°1 and 2. 

The thing is it all depends what is implied by the original sentence. The way things are put it is difficult to make out whether the person cannot go out because of the snow or if she says that in a général instance, like something that might occur in future. Basically it's just a case of knowing whether "except for" is pointing at the fact that the predicament has already taken place.


----------



## Alouette

> My choices seem to be:
> 
> (1) "Sauf en cas de neige, je devrais aller à l'école ou au travail".
> 
> (2) "Sauf en cas de neige, je aurrais aller à l'école ou au travail".
> 
> (3) "Sauf en cas de neige, je dois aller à l'école ou au travail".


I think the first one is the best. The others sound very strange.


----------



## E-J

To me, 'sauf en cas de neige' makes it sound as if we're talking about a general rule -ie. 'Except when it snows'. To my mind, 'Except for the snow' indicates quite clearly (whether MelB intends it or not) that _it is snowing _at the time of speaking and that she's referring to a specific case of snow, happening now. So you'd need to say "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, je devrais aller au travail" or something to that effect.


----------



## MelB

By the way E-J, I'm a "he."   For whatever it's worth, as one who is studying French, and still has a ways to go:   

My only concern about 1 is whether it means "would HAVE" or does it simply mean "should" or "ought to."  "Should" or "ought to" is generally not the same as "would have to" (though E-J's introduction seems to help).  As I mentioned, my Harper Collins dictionary translates:  "tu devrais t'habiller plus chaudement,"you should or ought to dress more warmly."

I'd like it to mean also "you would have to dress more warmly," if it would work in my sentence.  I mean, "tu devrai t'habiller," means "you WILL have to dress more warmly."  Why does this Harper Collins dictionary soften the future conditional to "should or ought" instead of "would have to."  There is a difference.  

Now E-J suggests:  "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, je devrais aller au travail" or something to that effect."  Now that's pretty good (it finesses the issue a bit), because even if you translate "je devrais aller au travail," as "I should go" or "I ought to go" at least the reader would be getting the clear sense that the person is not going (the snow is precluding it).  That seems to work better   than the "En cas de" beginning which does sound like a general rule, and not the snow on a particular day creating an issue.  While the "en cas de" beginning might be ok, it doesn't permit the finesse that E-J's language accomplishes.  I mean if we say, "Sauf en cas de neige," then we have to have a French phrase that precisely means, "I would HAVE TO go to work."  I'm not sure if, "je devrais aller au travail" does that.

By the way, I did think of a final possibility. Choice 4, perhaps. 

"Sauf en cas de neige, je devrai aller au travail."

"Except in case of snow, I will have to go to work."  That leaves open the possibility that snow might change that situation.

I take it then that no on likes choice 2:  ""Sauf en cas de neige, je aurrais aller à l'école ou au travail," that this is a case where the infinitive "devoir" is needed.


----------



## E-J

MelB said:
			
		

> By the way E-J, I'm a "he."


 
Sorry Mel! I guess your username brought a certain Spice Girl to mind


----------



## Mycall

In higher social circles where they drink tea out of Royal Doulton cups decorated with hand-painted périwinkles, one would say: "N'eut-ce été la présence de neige, il me faudrait me rendre au labeur"


----------



## MelB

That last one is very complex--i get the jist, but it's beyond me to construct on my own (with that passé simple construction:  "N'eut-ce été la présence de neige . . ."  Or did you mean to use the subjunctive, "N'eût-ce été . . ."

Thanks for the thoughts on this.  I always struggle with uses for "devoir" a bit.  There are a lot of constructions, and I think I shall have a page in a notebook, with the possibilities, and then sentences that I find in my reading. I saw a a new possibility when this morning I saw in a French novel the use of, "J'aurais dû."

The exact sentence was:  "Elle m'a dit que je n'aurais pas dû la quitte comme ça la veille."  (which I'm translating, "She told me that I ought not to have left her like that the day before) or, because I'm not sure, it's possible the translation is: ("She told me that I ought not to have HAD TO leave her like that the day before").  Now maybe this construction is the one for my snow example.  

When I started this thread, I was trying to translate from English into French:  " "Except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work." Suddenly, voila!  I had a brainstorm   , 

"Sauf en cas de neige, j'aurais dû aller a l'école or au travail."  Or with EJ's beginning:  " "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, j'aurais dû aller à l'école or au travail."  They seem reasonable???? whether they translate as "I should have to go to school or work," or "I should have had to go to school or work"

Question:  Does anyone know how to translate what I've written for my snow sentence.  Is it:

If it weren't for the snow, I would have to go to school or work?

or

If it weren't for the snow, "I would have had to go to school or work.


----------



## Mycall

MelB said:
			
		

> When I started this thread, I was trying to translate from English into French: " "Except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work." Suddenly,  Question: Does anyone know how to translate what I've written for my snow sentence. Is it:
> 
> If it weren't for the snow, I would have to go to school or work?
> 
> or
> 
> If it weren't for the snow, "I would have had to go to school or work.


 

For one thing I would say "If it wasn"t for the snow" but that's just a personal choice. 
  Out of the last two sentences I think the first one sounds rather neutral (suggests a possibility) and the second one stresses the fact that it's been snowing...


----------



## MelB

In English, the subjunctive "if it weren't" in my type of construction is fine, but "if it wasn't" is becoming also acceptable, and less formal.  

I'm not sure I see your distinction, think that both of my constructions stress the fact that it's been snowing.  

What I'm trying to understand in translating the phrase, "j'aurais dû" aller" is whether the correct translation is "I would have to go . . ." or "I would have had to go . . ."There is a slight difference there in tense.


----------



## MelB

MyCall, 

Merci pour votre réponse.  In English, the subjunctive if "it weren't" in my type of construction is fine, was originally (I believe) required, but "if it wasn't" is becoming also acceptable, and is a bit less formal.  

I'm not sure I see your distinction about whether it is snowing, think that both constructions stress the fact that it's been snowing.  

What I'm trying to understand in translating the phrase, "j'aurais dû" aller" is whether the correct translation is "I would have to go . . ." or "I would have HAD TO go . . ." (Notice the two additional words in the second translation) There is a slight difference there in tense.


----------



## Mycall

Yes, you definitely want to use "I would have had to go" to say "J'aurais dû aller". "I would have to go" means "Je devrais aller".


----------



## MelB

However, if I can confuse things a bit, and be confused also, there's a link I went to with a summary of how to use "devoir,"" and unfortunately I can't share the url on this forum (which is too bad, because then maybe you guys could indicate whether that link is credible).   On that web page (where the link is I can't share because of the forum rules here) they say that:  "Tu devrais partir" means "You should leave,"and "Tu aurais dû manger," means, "You should have eaten."

Maybe, the choice (for my snow sentence) is:  "je devrais aller" (I would  or should go) and "j'aurais dû" aller" (I would have or should have gone),  In other words, I'm wrong to suggest that j'aurais dû aller" translates as I would have HAD TO go.  It's just: "I would or should have gone."

Then the sentence in my French novel:  "Elle m'a dit que je n'aurais pas dû la quitte comme ça la veille." (would translate simply as, "She told me that I ought not to (or "should not have") left her like that the day before).

Now the original sentence I asked to translate from English to French when I started this thread was:  "Except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work."  It seems like the best way to translate it would be "Sauf en cas de neige (or with E-J's beginning, "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige), "j'aurais dû aller à l'école ou au travail."

It seems that maybe, "J'aurais dû" is the best construction, except that "would have (or should have) gone to school or work" is not the same as "would have HAD TO go to school or work."  I wanted to get that sense of a requirement.  Sigh.


----------



## E-J

MelB

I've re-read this thread and come to the conclusion that what may be confusing matters for you is the fact that the English verb 'to have' is being used in two different ways here. It's used a) as part of the construction 'have to' to talk about an obligation (where it can be translated by _devoir_) AND b) as part of the conditional _would have_ + past participle (for example: j'_aurais _fait = I _would have _done, j'_aurais _dit = I _would have _said). 

I believe you are getting confused by sentences where the verb 'to have' appears in both these contexts, for example: "I _would have _*had to *go to work." = J'_aurais _*dû* aller au travail."

The verb "devoir" indicates obligation, and generally speaking: 

je dois = I must / I have to
je devrai = I will have to
je devrais = I would have to / I should / I ought to
j'aurais dû = I would have had to / I should have / I ought to have

Let me know if you're still struggling and we can discuss it a bit more ... This is terribly difficult to try and explain!!!


----------



## E-J

MelB said:
			
		

> (2) "Sauf en cas de neige, je aurrais aller à l'école ou au travail".


 
Here you have taken the verb 'avoir' and used it as a very literal translation of the English verb 'have', ie. I (je) would have (aurais) to go (aller). BUT you can't do this. The verb 'have' in this context can't be translated by 'avoir' because it doesn't indicate possession. 

In the sentence "Except for the snow, I would have to go to work", 'have' is working as part of the conditional tense _would have to._

Compare: 

I would have had a reply = J'aurais eu une réponse ('had' indicates possession)
I would have had to go = J'aurais dû aller ('had to' indicates obligation)

I'm racking my little brain here, trying to find a way to clarify what I think has been complicating things for you here


----------



## MelB

E-J, 

   That helped quite a bit.  Particularly about why, "J'aurais aller à l'école ou au travail" doesn't work.   You're saying that there needs to be a sense of possession with "avoir" (like "J'aurais eu une réponse) for me to use this conditional tense (and with the phrase, "I would have to go," there simply isn't that possessive sene).  Thank you there   And that explains why I can't use it for a literal translation of "except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work."  Therefore, "J'aurais aller à l'école ou au travail" is clearly out. 

   On the second part, and my struggles with understanding the nuances regarding the different uses of "devoir,"   my problem seems to be that the French overwork" some of the alternatives, that is, that in English we seem to (to my novice understanding) have more tense subtleties (though this is very probably because I don't know French well enough).

  For example, you are saying for the words we have been discussing that:  

je devrais =s  I would have to / I should / I ought to
j'aurais dû =s  I would have had to / I should have / I ought to have

Both "je devrais" and "j'aurais dû" have multiple meanings (hard to keep so many in mind), and I guess one needs to pick the one that's best based on context.  (Not that many English words don't also).  Also, in each of the above, one meaning, "I would have to" (for je devrais) and "I would have had to" (for "j'aurais dû") encompasses what is REQUIRED, while the other choices are softer, reflect more what the person would or should have done (possibly simply out of personal volition). 

For my sentence, "If it weren't for the snow, I would have to go to school or work," it would seem now that two choices are useable:

(1) Si ce n'etait pas pour la neige, je devrais à l'école ou au travail (If it weren't for the snow I would have to go to school or work) 

(2)  Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, j'aurais dû à l'école ou au travail." (If it weren't for the snow I would have HAD TO go to school or work). 

  Still, since each of these French expressions "je devrais" and "j'aurais dû" have non mandatory meanings one could (first of all) hope that based on context, if the meaning weren't clear in and of itself on this issue, the context would make clear the correct translation.   

    Alternatively, if the context doesn't make clear whether going to work or school is "required," not simply a question of a personal choice that would have been taken, could I not ADD something like (il aurait été obligatoire).  Thus, if one wanted to make totally clear that this is a mandatory requirement (and the context isn't sufficient to help in the translation), could one not write the two sentence in question, like this?  

(1)  Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, je devrais aller à l'école ou au travail. parce qu'il aurait été obligatoire.  

(2) "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, j'aurais dû à l'école ou au travail, parce qu'il aurait été obligatoire.


----------



## Welshie

To me, the sentence using "aurait dû" reads like you are speaking of the past, eg after the day is over. But in that case you would surely have to say:

"S'il *n'avait pas été* pour la neige, j'aurais dû aller à l'école"

N'est-ce pas?

The first one reads like the present, as if you are explaining to someone while the snow is still falling, so to speak.


----------



## Auryn

"Si ce n'était pas pour la neige"  n'est pas du français correct. "S'il n'avait pas été pour la neige"  non plus.

Si la neige est hypothétique, "sauf en cas de neige" (posté par Mycall) est correct. Si elle est réelle, je dirais "sans la neige".


----------



## MelB

Welshie, 

   I do think "Je devrais" feels more immediate while it's snowing, than "J'aurais dû."  Though given 
E-J's many translations of the latter, I think it could still be snowing, and one could use "J'aurais dû" also.  

   Auryn, merci beaucoup pour votre correction. 

    Vous avez dit: "'Si ce n'était pas pour la neige' n'est pas du français correct."  J'ai utilisé ce qu' une autre personne a suggérée dans cette forum. Vous avez dites,  "Si la neige est hypothétique, "sauf en cas de neige" (posté par Mycall) est correct. Si elle est réelle, je dirais "sans la neige".  Excellente.  J'essayerai de me rappeler.

    Peut-être, "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige" semble bon à un anglophile, parce que ce soit une traduction littéral de comment nous parlerions la phrase ou l' écririons en anglais ; mais il n'est pas une bonne construction français, et il est nécessaire à apprendre la construction française.

    Y a t-il une raison pourquoi "si ce n'était pas pour la neige" ne marche pas en français?   Ou est-ce quelque chose à mémoriser.


----------



## E-J

MelB, when I suggested "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige ... or something to that effect" I was trying to clarify your intended tense and was hoping a French native would interject at some point to offer something better. I'm glad they have.

This is the way I now understand our sentences (someone will leap in and tell me if I'm wrong) ...

*Sauf en cas de neige, je devrais aller au travail.*
"Except for the snow / If it's not snowing / If there's no snow, I should go to work." 
- This is generally true. It's not referring to a specific or real situation

*Sans la neige, je devrais aller au travail.*
"If it weren't snowing / If it weren't for the snow, I would have to go to work."
- This is a specific, real situation. I'm actually off work as I say these words, because of the snow

*Sans la neige, j'aurais dû aller au travail.*
"If it hadn't been snowing / If it hadn't snowed, I _would have had to _go to work."
- Again, this is a specific, real situation - but in the past. Whether it's still snowing now is completely irrelevant. I'm referring to a particular occasion in the past when I missed work because of the snow

It's true that the verb 'devoir' has a range of possible translations in English: to have to, must, should, ought to, bound to, supposed to, to owe, etc. The particular tense that's used and the context in which you're using it will usually make it clear what kind of obligation it is.


----------



## E-J

MelB said:
			
		

> For my sentence, "If it weren't for the snow, I would have to go to school or work," it would seem now that two choices are useable:
> 
> (1) Si ce n'etait pas pour la neige, je devrais *aller *à l'école ou au travail (If it weren't for the snow I would have to go to school or work)
> 
> (2) Si ce n'était pas pour la neige, j'aurais dû *aller *à l'école ou au travail." (If it weren't for the snow I would have HAD TO go to school or work).
> 
> I've just noticed that you're missing the 'aller' in the sentences you gave two posts ago.


----------



## xav

Hi, Mel




			
				MelB said:
			
		

> I have a sentence I've been trying to translate into French, and have been having trouble with it.
> 
> The sentence is, "Except for the snow, I would have to go to school or work."
> 
> I've been thinking the French counterpart might be:
> 
> "Sauf pour la neige, j'aurais aller à l'école or au travail."
> 
> Then I got concerned that because I'm using the verb "aller," even if only as an infinitive, I need to use "être" here, such as, "je serais aller à l'école or au travail." (But that sounds very bad to my ear . . .).


 
... j'aurais *à* aller...
Small confusion between "j'aurais à..." = "je devrais..." 
and the passé composé "j'étais allé".





			
				MelB said:
			
		

> I was thinking about using "devoir." Perhaps, "Sauf pour la neige, je devrais aller à l'école or au travail." I believe, if I said, "Sauf pour la neige, je devrai aller à l'école or au travail" (it would translate to "will have to go), so "je devrais aller à l'école or au travail" ought to translate to: "would have to go . . .," but my dictionary says it means "I should or I ought to," which is different than "would have to go . . ."
> 
> Any help here is greatly appreciated.


 
I think I have a precise answer.

The "conditionnel" in French has (at least) three meanings :

1- in the present, it softens the sense of the verb, expressing a wish or a supposition : "Je mangerais volontiers" ; "je voudrais..." ; "on pourrait..." ; in that sense, "devrait" means "should" or "ought to"

2- after a conditional proposition (beginning with "si", with the verb at the imperfect tense), the conditionnel expresses the normal consequence of the supposition, without any idea of softening the causal relation between the condition and the consequence :
"s'il faisait beau, nous irions nous promener".

There's of course a difference with
"s'il fait beau, nous irons nous promener"
but this difference is a doubt about the condition "s'il fait beau", and not about the causal relation. If you want to express one, you'll say
"s'il faisait beau, nous pourrions aller nous promener" ; or "... nous devrions..."

Indeed, with that verb "devoir", the influence of the first meaning of the conditionnel is so strong (since we use all the time "tu devrais...", "on devrait...") that the causal relation, which shouldn't be weakened, is.

- in the past, the conditionnel in a subordinated proposition means the "future in the past", exactly the contrary of the "futur antérieur" which means the "past in the future" :
"je pensais qu'il reviendrait vers trois heures"
                         ("nous saurons s'il aura réussi")
    (NB. What are the exact equivalent in English of these two tenses ?)

Even if this "past future" use of the conditionnel has no conditionary sense at all, the "first" meaning of "devrais" is so strong that it brings its notion of doubt, so that a sentence like
"je pensais qu'il devrait réussir" 
is ambiguous : one doesn't know if you really thought he was going to succede or only that he should be able to...

Here we are in the first case (except maybe if there's a sentence with "si..." just before ; we strongly need the context ! What is the exact meaning of your "would" ? Are we in the present, in the past or maybe in the future ?)
So, the simplest way to avoid that problem is to say simply

"sauf en cas de neige, nous irons à l'école..." 
or 
"...nous devrons aller à l'école"
or
"...nous serons obligés d'aller à l'école..."
if you want to stress the obligatory character.


----------



## MelB

Salut E-J for your help on this, which is very much appreciated (and particularly for explaining why, "Sauf en cas de neige, J'aurais aller à l'école" didn't work.  Sorry I forgot to put "aller" in a couple of my example sentence.  I'm afraid, my  fingers on the keyboard went more quickly than my mind.    

Aussi merci Xav, pour votre explication.    

    I like the choices you gave at the end which stress that going to school or work is mandatory.  I can see that using "devoir" in a conditional sense, "il devrait aller," or "il aurait dû aller" creates ambiguity as to whether there's an obligation or not, because the use of that verb (devoir) in a conditional sense tends to be softer, stressing what is supositional/volitional as opposed to mandatory.   

        I'm afraid sometimes I get confused with all of the meanings people attribute to the different uses of certain devoir expressions (such as "je devrais" and "j'aurais dû aller à l'école,") some of which seem unclear on whether something is "volitional" or mandatory.  For example, does "j'aurais dû aller" translate as "I should have gone to school, (as "je devrais" can sometimes mean) or "I should have HAD TO go to school"?  Or seemingly both, which makes translation difficult.  

      Xav, the examples you gave seemed to capture perfectly with "devoir" the obligatory nature of what I wanted to stress.  I will print out your explanation, so I have it for future study.  

      Perhaps, an alternate way of dealing with this issue would be simply to not use "devoir" but a construction (without devoir) to stress the mandatory nature of the obliation, such as to use the future conditional tense from the infinitive "falloir" or something like "il serait nécessaire  (or obligatoire) . . ."

    Examples, 

    Sauf en cas de neige, il faudrait que j'aille à l'école ou au travail. 
    Sans la neige, il serait nécessaire (ou obligatoire) que j'aille à lécole ou au travail."  (Oo-la-la, merci pour la neige!!!) 

     In any event, I don't want to muddy the waters any further, and thank everyone for their help on what has been for me with the use of "devoir" a confusing area.


----------



## E-J

MelB said:
			
		

> For example, does "j'aurais dû aller" translate as "I should have gone to school, (as "je devrais" can sometimes mean) or "I should have HAD TO go to school"? Or seemingly both, which makes translation difficult.


 
Since you posed the question ... 

For me, *j'aurais dû aller *= "I should have gone"/ "I ought to have gone" (internal obligation, ie. my conscience) OR "I would have had to go" (external obligation, eg. it's the law)

"I _should _have had to go", for me, is an old-fashioned way of saying "I _would _have had to go" (it's the sort of thing my grandmother might say) and I wouldn't actually use it. 



			
				MelB said:
			
		

> Perhaps, an alternate way of dealing with this issue would be simply to not use "devoir" but a construction (without devoir) to stress the mandatory nature


 
If you really want to stress the external nature of the obligation, then yes, there's always *falloir*, but in colloquial, spoken French the most natural choice is often going to be *devoir*, so don't give up in your experiments in using it! Bon courage!


----------



## xav

MelB said:
			
		

> For example, does "j'aurais dû aller" translate as "I should have gone to school, (as "je devrais" can sometimes mean) or "I should have HAD TO go to school"? Or seemingly both, which makes translation difficult.


 
yes, both !






			
				MelB said:
			
		

> Perhaps, an alternate way of dealing with this issue would be simply to not use "devoir" but a construction (without devoir) to stress the mandatory nature of the obliation, such as to use the future conditional tense from the infinitive "falloir" or something like "il serait nécessaire (or obligatoire) . . ."
> 
> Examples,
> 
> Sauf en cas de neige, il faudrait que j'aille à l'école ou au travail.
> Sans la neige, il serait nécessaire (ou obligatoire) que j'aille à l'école ou au travail."


 
I think you nearly have the same problem. We often too say "il faudrait que.."
As a matter of fact, I think the ambiguity comes from the fact we don't know if we are in the first case of use of the conditionnel or in the second one, because the beginning of the sentence "sauf en cas de neige" introduces a condition which isn't formulated with the normal form of "case 2" conditionnel.

I mean

If you say 
"s'il y avait de la neige, je ne serais pas obligé d'aller en classe", it's perfectly clear : case 2
"sauf s'il y avait de la neige, je serais obligé d'aller en classe" : case 2 probably, but ambiguous 
"sauf en cas de neige, je serais obligé d'aller en classe" : case 1 or 2 ??

So, I finally think most of the problem comes from expressing an obligation with the conditionnel !
The best is using the indicatif :

"sauf en cas de neige, je vais / j'allais / j'irai à l'école
...............................je dois aller / je devais aller / je devrai aller à l'école
...............................je suis obligé d'aller / j'étais... / je serai... ".

Just choose the tense and the level of obligation !


----------



## Gil

E-J said:
			
		

> MelB, when I suggested "Si ce n'était pas pour la neige ... or something to that effect" I was trying to clarify your intended tense and was hoping a French native would interject at some point to offer something better. I'm glad they have.



Si ce n'était de la neige, j'irais travailler...
Cette construction me semble acceptable.


----------



## xav

Gil said:
			
		

> Si ce n'était de la neige, j'irais travailler...
> Cette construction me semble acceptable.


 

... Il me semble qu'elle fait spécifiquement référence à la matière qui tombe - s'il tombait de la grêle, des casseroles ou des oeufs de pigeon, il irait travailler.
Je dirais plutôt : 
si ce n'était la neige, ...
ou mieux 
n'était la neige,...
mais ces constructions sont plutôt rares par rapport à 
s'il n'y avait la neige, j'irais travailler


----------



## Gil

xav said:
			
		

> ... Il me semble qu'elle fait spécifiquement référence à la matière qui tombe - s'il tombait de la grêle, des casseroles ou des oeufs de pigeon, il irait travailler.
> Je dirais plutôt :
> si ce n'était la neige, ...
> ou mieux
> n'était la neige,...
> mais ces constructions sont plutôt rares par rapport à
> s'il n'y avait la neige, j'irais travailler


L'exemple est ambigu.  Le suivant l'est moins:
"Si ce n'était de l'hiver un peu long et rûde à mon goût, j'y serais parfaitement heureuse."
Je te remercie toutefois.  En fouinant pour trouver d'autres exemples ("si ce n'était") à l'aide de Google, je me suis rendu compte qu'ils venaient du Canada.  Serait-ce devenu un archaîsme sur l'autre continent?  Ici, les journalistes et les politiciens ne se privent pas de l'utiliser.


----------



## xav

Gil said:
			
		

> L'exemple est ambigu. Le suivant l'est moins:
> "Si ce n'était de l'hiver un peu long et rûde à mon goût, j'y serais parfaitement heureuse."
> Je te remercie toutefois. En fouinant pour trouver d'autres exemples ("si ce n'était") à l'aide de Google, je me suis rendu compte qu'ils venaient du Canada. Serait-ce devenu un archaîsme sur l'autre continent? Ici, les journalistes et les politiciens ne se privent pas de l'utiliser.


 
Non, pas vraiment archaïque, mais peu utilisé.
Nous ne mettons pas le "de" : "Si ce n'était l'hiver..." ou 'N'était l'hiver..."
Cordialement,


----------



## xav

En fait, je me suis aperçu que "would + Verbe à l'infinitif" avait parfois un autre sens que le conditionnel français. Malheureusement, je n'ai pas d'exemple sous la main (sauf peut-être justement celui qui nous occupe tant ici...?). 

Quelqu'un aurait-il sa grammaire anglaise suffisamment en tête pour m'en dire plus ?


----------



## MelB

Xav, 

In English, "would" can be used in a way that's not part of the conditional, but just to reflect what a person might like to do.  It's a more formal or poetic use.  Thus, Tennyson in the 19th century in his famous poem:  "Break, Break, Break" says: 

"Break, break, break,
    On thy cold gray stones, O sea!
And I would that my tongue could utter
    The thoughts that arise in me."

Notice how "would" there just means "I wish."

   While this use of "would" as a verb in and of itself (having nothing to do with a conditional construction) is a more formal/poetic expression, we use in English "would," plus "the verb," plus "the infinitive" in ways that have nothing to do with a conditional construction, but in line with that Tennyson use, simply to reflect what a person wants to do.    

An example might be in a charity context:

1) She would give to let others know that people care.

               --or 

2) He would joke to make a sad friend smile. 

In these two examples there is an ambiguity as to whether the action has taken place/is taking place, or whether it's something simply wished.  In that regard, context is all.  

Barry Manilow has a song with a line (it might even be the title of the song): "I write the songs that make the young girls cry."  Well, I can imagine him years before he did that talking to a friend and saying how he wanted to be a songwriter, and what he dreamed of doing:  "I would write to make the young girls cry!!!!" In that case, I've created a context where the "would construction" is used simply to reflect a wish. 

    Perhaps in the French language you can do a similar verbal sleight of hand (légère de main) with the word "would."  Or are you going to say?--  "Would that I could!"


----------



## E-J

xav, 'would' can also be used to talk about repeated or habitual actions in the past, in the same way as 'used to'. But a discussion of these other uses may be better reserved for a new thread


----------



## Agnès E.

Great idea, E-J!


----------

