# deber (obligation)



## Aspirante a Políglota

Hola a todos:

Siempre he tenido dudas respecto al uso del verbo "deber" para expresar obligación.  Leí todos los "hilos" sobre este tema y la verdad es que todavía no lo tengo muy claro. 

Lo que pasa es que existen tantas posibilidades y como el español no es mi lengua materna a veces tengo dudas acerca de qué forma sea más adecuada.

Cuando se trata de obligación en el presente podemos decir lo siguiente:

Debes ir a la fiesta = You must go (o you should go) to the party
Deberías ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party
Debías ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party
Debieras ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party

Entiendo que "debes" suele traducirse por "you must" pero por lo visto muchas personas la utilizan casi indistintamente con "deberías" para decir "you should".  A lo mejor "debes" indica un mayor grado de obligación que "deberías" pero las dos se pueden usar más o menos indistintamente, ¿no?

Por lo que he leído se usa "debías" en este contexto en algunas regiones (en España, por ejemplo) pero no todo el mundo la utiliza.  Me gustaría saber si se usa en Latinoamérica y también si lleva algún matíz que no tienen "debes" y "Deberías".

Y por último, creo que "debieras" es más formal y se usa mayormente en la literatura.  Sin embargo me parece que la puedes usar si quieres suavizar tu comentario.  ¿me equivoco?

¿cúal de estas formas se usa con mayor frequencia en sus países?  Y ¿qué diferencias de matiz hay para ustedes entre las cuatro formas?

Muchas gracias de antemano.


----------



## joel_rocker

Aqui en Mexico si utilizamos tambien el verbo debias y las diferencia entre deberias y debes es que, deberias es mas bien como un consejo y debes es mas bien como una obligacion.
por ejemplo: 
Debo ir a la fiesta ( i must to go to the party)
Deberia ir a la fiesta ( i should go to the party)
Debia llevar cervezas a la fiesta ( i should have carried beers to the party) o otro ejemplo podria ser: debi saberlo o Puedes decir de igual manera: deberia haberlo sabido (i should have known it). Es la unica forma que puedes traducirlo Porque hasta donde yo se no hay una manera de traducir debia literalmente.

Y debieras si es mas formal y no es muy comun escucharlo; yo no me acuerdo de haberlo usado hahaha.
espero haberte ayudado XD. Ahh perdon por los acentos es que no me acuerdo como se ponen hahaha.


----------



## colombo-aussie

Hola,

Al igual que en el idioma Inglés las diferencias de should y must se presentan en el idioma español. Should=Deber/deberías es un auxiliar del verbo que se usa básicamente para dar consejos, recomendacionbes y no para expresar obligación. Para expresar obligación se utiliza el auxiliar Must=tener que.

You *should* go to the party = Deberías ir a la fiesta (consejo)
You *must* go to the party = Tienes que ir a la fiesta (obligación)


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

joel_rocker said:


> Aqui en Mexico si utilizamos tambien el verbo debias y las diferencia entre deberias y debes es que, deberias es mas bien como un consejo y debes es mas bien como una obligacion.
> por ejemplo:
> Debo ir a la fiesta ( i must to go to the party)
> Deberia ir a la fiesta ( i should go to the party)
> Debia llevar cervezas a la fiesta ( i should have carried beers to the party) o otro ejemplo podria ser: debi saberlo o Puedes decir de igual manera: deberia haberlo sabido (i should have known it). Es la unica forma que puedes traducirlo Porque hasta donde yo se no hay una manera de traducir debia literalmente.
> 
> Y debieras si es mas formal y no es muy comun escucharlo; yo no me acuerdo de haberlo usado hahaha.
> espero haberte ayudado XD. Ahh perdon por los acentos es que no me acuerdo como se ponen hahaha.



Claro que me has ayudado.  Gracias por tu aporte.

Así que ¿en México no se usa "debía" para referirse al futuro?  Es decir, no dicen "la fiesta es mañana y tú debías llevar las cervezas".  ¿Siempre dicen "tú deberías llevar las cervezas"?  Bueno, no me extrañaría que fuera así, ya que casi todas las personas con las que hablo en español son Mexicanos y nunca los escuché decir "debías" a menos que se refieran al pasado.  Debe de ser un uso propio de España y otros lugares.

A propósito, cuando hablamos de obligación y se trata de algo en el pasado ¿cuál de las siguientes formas se usa más?:

1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party (?)
2. Debiste ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
3. Tuviste que ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party (?)
4. Debías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
5. Debiste haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
6. Deberías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
7. Tenías que haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party (?)
8. Tendrías que haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party ?
9. Hubieras ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party

Resulta que hay muchas maneras de decir lo mismo y esto siempre me ha confundido.  Los ejemplos con "?" nunca los he escuchado y no sé si se usan pero los he visto en libros.   ¿Podría alguien decirme cuales de estas expresiones se usan con mayor frecuencia y explicarme los significados y matices de cada una?


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

colombo-aussie said:


> Hola,
> 
> Al igual que en el idioma Inglés las diferencias de should y must se presentan en el idioma español. Should=Deber/deberías es un auxiliar del verbo que se usa básicamente para dar consejos, recomendacionbes y no para expresar obligación. Para expresar obligación se utiliza el auxiliar Must=tener que.
> 
> You *should* go to the party = Deberías ir a la fiesta (consejo)
> You *must* go to the party = Tienes que ir a la fiesta (obligación)



Gracias.  Tienes razón en que estas expresiones se usan para dar consejos o recomendaciones y no necesariamente para referirse a "obligación".

Para ti ¿es posible usar "debes" con el mismo significado que "deberías"?  
Debes estudiar más ¿significa "you should study more" o "you must study more"?

¿"Debes estudiar más" equivale a "tienes que estudiar más"?  ¿Quieren decir lo mismo?  Si no, ¿me podrías explicar la diferencia?  Hasta donde yo sé "tener que" indica un grado de obligación levemente mayor que "debes".  ¿Qué opinas?

Gracias de nuevo.


----------



## obz

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Please, could somebody explain to me the differences between all the different options and ways of saying in Spanish 'you should have done..."?
> 
> 1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party (?)
> 2. Debiste ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 
> 3. Tuviste que ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party (?) You had to go to the party.
> 4. Debías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party You (were supposed to) have gone to the party.
> 5. Debiste haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party You must have gone to the party.
> 6. Deberías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party You should have gone to the party.
> 7. Tenías que haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party (?) You had to have gone to the party.
> 8. Tendrías que haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party ? You would have to have gone to the party.
> 9. Hubieras ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party You might have gone to the party. ( or should have / would have depends on context)
> 
> What are the differences for you and which forms are actually used in each of your countries?
> 
> I would be extremely grateful.
> 
> Thanks in advance.



I don't recognize the first 2 as common forms, hopefully some native speakers chime in.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Hola a todos:


Aspirante, 
Hello. Welcome to the forum.

I'll use English here since I think you need to pursue a topic as tricky as this one in your native language first.  What you've asked is not easily answerable. I've participated in most of the threads you've read here about this topic and there's no way this thread will make it crystal clear to you when we're done. Why? Because natives of Spanish don't really know the English that well and we natives of English can only know know so much about the Spanish. The most helpful input we've gotten has been from people who are bilinguals from childhood. They are hard to find but there are several here on this forum. Since they've wrestled with these differences from youth tey have the best take on it.

Obz's list to you is literally correct. But as I've studied this over 9 years and even used it as a basis for a Master's thesis -- it's not as simple as Obz outlined. And also some of those would rarely be said in English or Spanish. 

Let's start here -- SOme are used way more than others.

Let me echo what others have said too. "Deber" is used for cases of 'internal sense of moral duty' -- self imposed. It is never about 'obligation'. For obligation -- Spanish uses 'tener que'... and we use 'have to'/'have got to' and 'had better' -- which all imply external obligation to do something with consequences for not doing so. That's 'tener que' in Spanish.

The present tense of deber -- is still like 'should' -- It can translate some forms of our use of 'must'.. And most textbooks show 'debo' as being 'I must. But 'must' is usually too strong for 'deber'.

So for all practical purposes 'debo' and 'debería' transmit the same thing.. -- I've heard some natives say that 'debería' is more whymsical' and implies the lowest sense of internal duty.. Where 'debo' is a little stronger. But that varies with opinions too..

Now -- to 'debía'. Which is a 'past' utterance -- never future. It's the imperfect tense in Spanish. So how would we translate a 'past, ongoing sense' of internal duty? Well in a pinch -- 'had to' or 'needed to' or 'was needing to' .. 

Last week I really needed to get that project done, but....
La semana pasada realmente debía conseguir que...........

I've also used the term -- was obliged to..

To complicate matters.. 'Should', in English, can't transmit into the past without 'have'. So there's no past of 'should'. For many years I thought the only way to translate debía/debió + infinitve was 'should have'.. But the more I talked to natives the more I discovered that wasn't the case. "Should have" has to be done with 'debería haber + -ado/-ido' --

As I think Obz or someone else pointed out -- a 'past of should'- showing the internal duty could be expressed as 'was supposed to'. I think that really works too in translating 'debía + infinitive'

So stick with 'have to' for 'tener que' and all its forms.
And 'should' for present and future forms of Deber.. 
"needed to"/"was supposed to" for past forms of =Deber

Any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Please, could somebody explain to me the differences between all the different options and ways of saying in Spanish 'you should have done..."?



It doesn't really vary by country, Aspirante -- but here's my best educated attempt for you based on what I've learned over the years.

1. Debías ir a la fiesta = *You needed to/had to/were supposed to go to the party*.
2. Debiste*(de)* ir a la fiesta = *You **must have gone to the party* _(a conjecture -- this one grammatically needs to appear with the 'de' but the 'de' is often dropped and therefore mostly only the 'conjecture' meaning is understood with or without the 'de')_
3. Tuviste que ir a la fiesta = *You had to go to the party.*
4. Debías haber ido a la fiesta = *You were supposed to have gone to the party. *_(very rarely used if at all)_
5. Debiste haber ido a la fiesta = *You should have gone to the party (on that specific day -- your boss said you needed to meet more people).*
6. Deberías haber ido a la fiesta = *You should have gone to the party (generally -- you would have like it)*.
7. Tenías que haber ido a la fiesta = *You had to have gone to the party.*_  (a pretty illogical sentence in both languages if you think about it - if you're making a conjecture then 'deber + de' would be used)_
8. Tendrías que haber ido a la fiesta = *You should have gone to the party. *_(though many would like a literal translation here - of 'you would have to have gone...' that just doesn't work. In Spanish this one is interchangeable with 'debería haber ido' and it means the same - it doesn't really express obligation - so it's a rule breaker for 'tener que')_
9. Hubieras ido a la fiesta = *You should have gone to the party! *- _(this is an idiomatic use in Spanish that's used when someone experienced something you didn't and they really wish you had gone with them.)_

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

must = debo
should = debería
have to = tener que


"debía" is a bit special...you don't need to use it, and I think you'll understand it if you hear it or read it


There are exceptions because in English some forms are just not used, like "tendrías que haber ido", so you need to think of the English way to say that.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> must = debo
> should = debería
> have to = tener que


Ynez, I need to humbly submit that as I hear the Spaniards use 'debo/debes' -- we would never translate that to 'must' in English. We would say 'should'

In modern English -- must = have to

Now we use 'really must' more like 'should'. But that's harder to explain.

What I think would help us is for you to give us a sentence with 'debo' and one with debería -- and explain the context of each sentence and how the Spanish speaking mind would choose between 'debo' and 'debería'. 

Thanks in advance,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

*must*
–auxiliary verb
1. to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement:_ I must keep my word._
2. to be under the necessity to; need to: _Animals must eat to live._
3. to be required or compelled to, as by the use or threat of force: _You must obey the law._
4. to be compelled to in order to fulfill some need or achieve an aim: _We must hurry if we're to arrive on time._
5. to be forced to, as by convention or the requirements of honesty: _I must say, that is a lovely hat._
6. to be or feel urged to; ought to: I must buy that book. 

As you can see by the dictionary -- definitions 1-5 are all about obligation = have to. And 'deber' is not about obligation. Now definition 6 is 'deber' and definition 1 could also be interpreted as 'internal sense of duty'. And those are the only contexts in which you can translate 'deber' to 'must' in English. In definition 1 and 6 'should' can be used. In definitions 2-5 only 'have to' is possible.


----------



## la_machy

*Must=Debo, debí.*
( I *must* left my keys at home)( *Debí* dejar mis llaves en casa).
(I *must* be more carefull) ( *Debo* ser mas cuidadosa).

*Should=Debería. *
( I *should *keep my keys at home) ( *Debería* guardar mis llaves en casa).
( I *should* look for my keys at home ) (*Debería* buscar mis llaves en casa).


----------



## NewdestinyX

la_machy said:


> *Must=Debo, debí.*
> ( I *must* *must have *left my keys at home)( *Debí* dejar mis llaves en casa).


Must can't refer to the past without 'have', La Machy. And I think in Spanish it's technically more correct to say 'debí de dejar mis llaves'... right? Even though I know that 'debí dejar' is said very commonly. The hard part for English speakers is to differentiate between 'conjecture' in the past and 'internal moral duty' in the past when we're reading the Spanish. 

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## la_machy

Gracias por la corrección New ...también, en pasado,  se puede decir "debí haber dejado mis llaves...." right? 


Saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

la_machy said:


> Gracias por la corrección New ...también, en pasado,  se puede decir "debí haber dejado mis llaves...." right?
> 
> 
> Saludos


Sí... pero dime, LaMachy.. En tus oídos -- ¿hay diferencia alguna entre: "debí haber dejado mis llaves allí..." y "debí (de) dejar mis llaves allí..."? (con o sin el 'de' en la segunda) -- Si la hay -- podrías explicárnosla? 

Gracias de antemano,
New


----------



## Gochna

Hi,

in my humble non-native-speaker opinion: 

"debí haber dejado mis llaves allí..." means - I must have left my keys ... ( I am not 100% sure if I have left my keys there or not, but I am almost sure because I can't find them here..)
"debí (de) dejar mis llaves allí..." means: I had to leave my keys there - because someone told me (forced me) to do so. And I am sure where my keyas are


----------



## la_machy

New, no es cuestión de diferencia en mis oídos o los de alguien mas (de hecho, no encuentro diferencia alguna). Solo creo que es otra forma de decirlo. Estoy equivocada? Porque yo, indistinamente, uso y escucho ambas.


Saludos.


----------



## Gochna

Entonces, en tu opinión La_Machy, si he comprendido bien:

Quiero abrir la puerta de mi casa, estoy buscando mis llaves, no las encuentro y me pongo a pensar por donde están. Y me digo: Hmmm, tal vez en el trabajo!

En este contexto te suena bien si digo: "Debí dejar mis llaves en el trabajo" ? 

Y "Debí haber dejado mis llaves allí" sería lo mismo entonces?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Gochna said:


> Hi,
> 
> in my humble non-native-speaker opinion:
> 
> "debí haber dejado mis llaves allí..." means - I must have left my keys ... ( I am not 100% sure if I have left my keys there or not, but I am almost sure because I can't find them here..)
> "debí (de) dejar mis llaves allí..." means: I had to leave my keys there - because someone told me (forced me) to do so. And I am sure where my keys are


Technically your analysis is correct !  And that's the rub..

(but the 'de' would never be used for the 'had to' meaning -- only conjecture. The confusion with or without the 'de' is when the 'haber + -ado/-ido is at hand) ...  

Though I have to say that I just don't ever like 'had to' for deber.. Have to/had to = tener que in Spanish.. It just gets you out of trouble to think of 'all' "had to's" in English being - tener que in Spanish.. It 'always works' in my experience. In the situation where 'debí + infinitive' and 'debía + infinitive' are used -- the English speaker still needs to be thinking of this 'internal moral duty sense' aspect that we place upon ourselves. That's why I like 'needed to' or 'was supposed to' better, generally, in those past situations.

Good discussion.. I'll be interested to hear La_Machy's response to your most recent post.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## la_machy

"Debí dejar las llaves en el trabajo"
"Debí haber dejado las llaves en el trabajo"

En el contexto de tu ejemplo Gochna, creo que ambas son correctas. 
Claro que esto implica que el grado de posibilidad es alto, que casi estas seguro de que así fué.

Saludos.


----------



## Gochna

Gracias La_Machy. Me sorprendiste bastante, pero asi aprendemos, no?

Entonces, para decir lo que puse como el segundo ejemplo, mejor seria : "Tuve que dejar mis llaves allí porque el jefe las necesitaba". Correcto?

NewdestinyX, I think you have a point. If I wanted to say: _I must see him_ (I am so madly in love, if I don't I'll kill myself  ) I would say: _Debo verlo_ or _Necesito verlo_.
But if it was : _I have to see my teacher_ (to know what's the homework), I would use: _Tengo que verlo_...
Your call!


----------



## chamyto

Os habéis olvidado del "have to"


----------



## Gochna

chamyto said:


> Os habéis olvidado del "have to"



A qué te refieres chamyto?


----------



## chamyto

Que a veces es difícil distinguir entre "have to" y "must"-.


----------



## Ynez

Un hilo con muchos ejemplos: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=595226


----------



## NewdestinyX

Gochna said:


> Gracias La_Machy. Me sorprendiste bastante, pero asi aprendemos, no?
> 
> Entonces, para decir lo que puse como el segundo ejemplo, mejor seria : "Tuve que dejar mis llaves allí porque el jefe las necesitaba". Correcto?
> 
> NewdestinyX, I think you have a point. If I wanted to say: _I must see him_ (I am so madly in love, if I don't I'll kill myself  ) I would say: _Debo verlo_ or _Necesito verlo_.
> But if it was : _I have to see my teacher_ (to know what's the homework), I would use: _Tengo que verlo_...
> Your call!


Agreed.. It's so bad that the textbooks teach 'debo' as 'I must' because that's just not the case 80% of the time -- or maybe even more. If the 'must' is definition 1 or 6 that I posted... deber is fine. But it's the other 3 definitions we use it for the most in my estimation. And that's really "tener que" for sure.

And I just updated my last post where I really confused matters about the 'de' or 'not 'de' in my opening paragraph. Take a look at that one again.. The confusion and ambiguity with 'de' or not 'de' is when the 'haber + -ado/-ido' is at hand.. not when it's debí + infinitive.

Debí haber ido = I must have gone (conjecture) (not usually interpreted as internal moral duty as in 'I was supposed to have gone' or 'I needed to have gone')
Debí de haber ido = I must have gone (conjecture)

We're peeling this onion slowly... 

Grant


chamyto said:


> Que a veces es difícil distinguir entre "have to" y "must"-.


Eso es porque hay muy pequeña diferencia entre los dos. Prácticamente ninguna.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

Gracias a todos por sus aportes.

Thanks especially to you NewdestinyX.  Your thoughts on this subject have been very helpful.  However, it still isn't totally clear to me.  In fact, this subject never manages to be clarified in any of the threads I have read.  Is it that the native Spanish speakers don't understand the question nor the difficulty that it poses for some of us native English speakers?

First of all, the issue with 'debía' to express something that should be done in the present is not something I have personally experienced, but a grammar book of mine "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish" clearly states that the imperfect is sometimes used in place of the condicional 'debería' to suggest something that should be done.  

They give as equivalent "Debía/debería decirtelo".  They did state that this reflects European Spanish usage and that they weren't "sure about the distribution of these constructions in Latin America".   

I was just curious how common this form was and where it might be used.

The same book gives another example from a Mexican source that says "En ese momento debí desconfiarme, pero no lo hice" and they translate it as "At that moment I should have been suspicious, but I wasn't".  If correct, then this obviously doesn't fit in with the idea that the preterite of deber translates as 'was supposed to' or 'must have been' (conjecture).

So if the preterite alone can express a suggestion of what should have been done in the past how do we distinguish that from the compound forms with haber, i.e. debías haber ido, debiste haber ido, deberías haber ido?  What differences do these different forms represent for the native Spanish speaker?

1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party 
2. Debiste ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
4. Debías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
5. Debiste haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
6. Deberías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
9. Hubieras ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party

I don't think the first one is used much, if at all, but the others I have seen and I still don't completely grasp the subleties of their uses.

So please, if there is any native spanish speaker out there that can explain to me how the forms above are used it would be much appreciated.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> First of all, the issue with 'debía' to express something that should be done in the present is not something I have personally experienced, but a grammar book of mine "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish" clearly states that the imperfect is sometimes used in place of the condicional 'debería' to suggest something that should be done.
> 
> They give as equivalent "Debía/debería decirtelo".  They did state that this reflects European Spanish usage and that they weren't "sure about the distribution of these constructions in Latin America".



Yes.. That book by Drs Butt and Benjamin (we refer to it here on the form as the B&B) is thee standard best grammar book out there. But this is the only chapter where they're doing their best to sort it out but they're no further along really than we are. For all intents and purposes Spain accounts for a small part of the Spanish speaking world but nonetheless it has to be considered. 



> The same book gives another example from a Mexican source that says "En ese momento debí desconfiarme, pero no lo hice" and they translate it as "At that moment I should have been suspicious, but I wasn't".  If correct, then this obviously doesn't fit in with the idea that the preterite of deber translates as 'was supposed to' or 'must have been' (conjecture).


Let's always try and keep our apples and oranges separated. Debí -- is not debía... They are 'very, very' different. Debí refers to a moment in time where I didn't do something I 'should have'. So - debí + infinitive and debí haber + -ado/-ido are both perfectly well translated to English as 'should have + PP'. No one has said to this point that 'debí' can ever be 'was supposed to'. That was only ever brought up with 'debía' which is a verb tense that shows a 'duty internally conceived over time'. So be careful you don't mix yourself up more by not remembering all that's been said. I started to make a table/chart as I worked on this for many years. 



> So if the preterite alone can express a suggestion of what should have been done in the past how do we distinguish that from the compound forms with haber, i.e. debías haber ido, debiste haber ido, deberías haber ido?  What differences do these different forms represent for the native Spanish speaker?


In English we don't -- not really. And as Ynez and several have said -- for them they're really not all that different. Some of them that is.. In English.. we say "I'm big like John" and "I'm at least as big as John" and "I'm as big as John"... Now -- can you imagine a Spanish native speaker asking us the difference between those 3. Are there nuances they'd ask us? And we'd 'try' to find some -- but in the end -- they all mean the same thing.. There's no 'nuance' to find. They're completely synonymous sentences. They're not grammatically the same but the 'mean' the same thing. It's the same with -- 

Debía haber ido and Debía ir. 
And with debería haber idoi and tendría que haber ido.

It's something you can't really 'solve'. No great 'secret'. I will post my conclusions after 8 years in a chart for you. It will always work for you as it does for me in speaking to natives.



> 1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 2. Debiste ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 4. Debías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 5. Debiste haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 6. Deberías haber ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 9. Hubieras ido a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party
> 
> I don't think the first one is used much, if at all, but the others I have seen and I still don't completely grasp the subleties of their uses.


Some are just not used. You will 'never' hear - "debías haber ido" - never.. You'll hear 'deberías haber ido' in its place. You'll hear 'hubieras ido a la fiesta' as an idiom for when the person saying it went -- and you didn't. There was a lot of fun and you missed it. When a native says 'deberías haber ido a la fiesta' they're telling you you missed an opportunity to do something you should have... There's a little more 'duty being pushed upon you' then 'Hubieras ido a la fiesta'.

My trek with this topic has been 9 years -- and I'm only a little more satisfied today than when I was asking your questions. But I don't make errors when I speak anymore nor do I wonder what a native means when they use one of them. Context always tells you what they mean. Every time. Trust me.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Here's my chart on this topic from my course. This is from the 'English' to Spanish - and this thread has been more about Spanish to English.. I'll list that after this..

*Present-* You must/should/ought to (practice more).___Tú debes (practicar más).    _ [a strong suggestion]_
*Conditional-* He should/really ought’a (fly).___Debería/Debiera (volar).    _[a light suggestion/opinion]_
*Past (period of time)- *..but I {felt like I} needed to (work more)...     ..pero debía (trabajar más)…
*Past (moment)-* They should have (worked harder)...___Debieron (trabajar más duro)./Debieron haber (trabajado más duro).
*Future-* I should/will need to (prepare tonight).___Deberé (preparar esta noche).
*Pres.Subj.-* (I don’t see why) you all should (try to)…___(No veo razón para que) debáis (tratar de)…
*Imp.Subj.-* (If we {felt like}) we had to (go, I would hope)…____(Si) debiéramos (irnos, esperaría que)... 

-----------------------------------------------Spanish to English possibilities--------------------------------

I'm going to use a verb for these sentences really only inflects something that someone would feel the 'internal duty' to do. One that can't really be inflected as a conjecture or an obligation with external pressure. "intentar más duro/fuerte" - to try harder (to do something)

Debe intentar más duro. = He really needs to/must/should try harder. (or he may lose the opportunity)
Debería/Tendría que intentar más duro. = He should/really ought'a try harder. (generally speaking)
Deberá intentar más duro. = He should/will need to try harder (tomorrow).
Debía intentar más duro. = He felt like he needed to/was supposed to try harder (he's lamenting his lack of push within)
Debió intentar más duro. = He should have tried harder (at that moment).

Debe (de) haber intentado más duro - He must have tried harder (that day -- because he 'won'!) [there is no escaping the past conjecture with this one]
Debería haber intentado más duro - He should have tried harder.
Deberá haber intentado más duro - He will have tried harder. (by that time)
Debía haber intentado más duro - He needed to/should have tried harder. (very rare use)
Debió haber intendado más duro - He should have tried harder.

Now if that gets you at all feeling you understand some of the nuance differences -- then what do you think that "Ha debido ir a la fiesta" means? LOL!!!!


----------



## zumac

Wow! One can get an education from reading this thread. My congratulations to all for your fine contributions.

I have a doubt with the folllowing example which appears in several posts.

*1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party* 

In my humble opinion, "debías ir" is for the future, so the English would be:
You should go to the party.

Maybe it should say: "Debías de ir ..."

Please explain if my assumption is not correct.

Saludos.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes.. That book by Drs Butt and Benjamin (we refer to it here on the form as the B&B) is thee standard best grammar book out there. But this is the only chapter where they're doing their best to sort it out but they're no further along really than we are. For all intents and purposes Spain accounts for a small part of the Spanish speaking world but nonetheless it has to be considered.
> 
> Let's always try and keep our apples and oranges separated. Debí -- is not debía... They are 'very, very' different. Debí refers to a moment in time where I didn't do something I 'should have'. So - debí + infinitive and debí haber + -ado/-ido are both perfectly well translated to English as 'should have + PP'. No one has said to this point that 'debí' can ever be 'was supposed to'. That was only ever brought up with 'debía' which is a verb tense that shows a 'duty internally conceived over time'. So be careful you don't mix yourself up more by not remembering all that's been said. I started to make a table/chart as I worked on this for many years.
> 
> In English we don't -- not really. And as Ynez and several have said -- for them they're really not all that different. Some of them that is.. In English.. we say "I'm big like John" and "I'm at least as big as John" and "I'm as big as John"... Now -- can you imagine a Spanish native speaker asking us the difference between those 3. Are there nuances they'd ask us? And we'd 'try' to find some -- but in the end -- they all mean the same thing.. There's no 'nuance' to find. They're completely synonymous sentences. They're not grammatically the same but the 'mean' the same thing. It's the same with --
> 
> Debía haber ido and Debía ir.
> And with debería haber idoi and tendría que haber ido.
> 
> It's something you can't really 'solve'. No great 'secret'. I will post my conclusions after 8 years in a chart for you. It will always work for you as it does for me in speaking to natives.
> 
> Some are just not used. You will 'never' hear - "debías haber ido" - never.. You'll hear 'deberías haber ido' in its place. You'll hear 'hubieras ido a la fiesta' as an idiom for when the person saying it went -- and you didn't. There was a lot of fun and you missed it. When a native says 'deberías haber ido a la fiesta' they're telling you you missed an opportunity to do something you should have... There's a little more 'duty being pushed upon you' then 'Hubieras ido a la fiesta'.
> 
> My trek with this topic has been 9 years -- and I'm only a little more satisfied today than when I was asking your questions. But I don't make errors when I speak anymore nor do I wonder what a native means when they use one of them. Context always tells you what they mean. Every time. Trust me.
> 
> Grant





Hey Grant, thanks a lot for everything you have contributed to this discussion.  It has helped to confirm and clarify some of my own thoughts.  

I realize full well that 'debí' is very different than 'debía' and I admit that I was mistaken to think that you were referring to 'debí' when you mentioned ''was supposed to".  The thing is, I have seen the preterit of deber described that way before and I just got confused and thought that was what you were talking about.  

For example, another book I have, Breaking Out of Beginner's Spanish, had this to say about the subject:
"If you instead use the preterit plus the infinitive--debiste ir--you are stressing more the obligation than the missed opportunity".  Which to me kind of implies a translation along the lines of what you were describing for 'debía' with ''was supposed to".

The truth is, I have been studying and using Spanish for a very long time and I have my ways of using some of these expressions that I feel confident about, but the confusion arises because there seems to be some fairly contradictory information contained in several of the books I own.

Personally, when I am making a suggestion about what someone should do in the present (or the future) I use either 'debes' or 'deberías'.  When I am talking about something that somebody should have done in the past I usually use 'hubieras + past participle' or 'deberías haber ido'.  These are  the forms that I am used to because they are the forms that are used by most of the people I interact with in Spanish (mostly Mexican).  When I see the other forms I understand them in their contexts but my grammar books make me doubt whether I fully grasp the subleties of their usage.

Some of the contradictions I am talking about are, for example, the way the preterit of deber + infinitive are translated in some of my books.  
Practice Makes Perfect: Advanced Spanish Grammar  says "the preterit forms of deber and tener que are very often used to make suggestions (should have) that refer to both the recent and remote past".  Then they give the following examples:
Debiste coger el tren.     _You should have taken the train_.
Tuviste que coger el tren.    _You should have taken the train_.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, the B&B gives examples with the preterit of 'deber' that all translate as "should have".  For example:
_Debió decírtelo antes_        (S)he should have told you before
_No debiste hacerlo_            You shouldn't have done it
_Debieron llamarla PDUSA, no PDVSA_      They should have called it PDUSA...


I personally have seen and heard the preterit alone used with this meaning of suggesting what should have been done in a certain situation, but according to the author of Breaking Out of Begginer's Spanish the use of the preterit with 'deber' stresses "more the obligation than the missed opportunity".  Then goes on to say "_debiste ir a la fiesta_  means it was your duty to go--the party was in your honor, for instance".
If this is true I don't think the preterit of 'deber' should be translated as "should have" as those other authors have done and should instead be translated as "needed to" or "was supposed to", as you suggested for "debía".  

Based on my current understanding I might rank these different forms in order of increasing forcefulness of meaning.

Deberías haber ido
Hubieras ido
Debías haber ido
Debiste haber ido
Debiste ir

That is my sense of the nuances of those expressions.  Do you believe that to be accurate?

Of course, in certain contexts some of these phrases could be interpreted with different meanings.  For example, "debiste (de) ir" could mean "you must have gone", carrying a sense of probability or supposition.  With the above examples I am only refering to their use as a way to suggest what somebody _should have done_.

So I just wanted to know how people in different countries use these expressions and which one they would most likely use when making a suggestion about what somebody _should have done_.  My close Mexican friends seem to almost always use "hubieras + past participle", but I would really like to hear how native Spanish speakers in general interpret these various forms.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

zumac said:


> Wow! One can get an education from reading this thread. My congratulations to all for your fine contributions.
> 
> I have a doubt with the folllowing example which appears in several posts.
> 
> *1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party*
> 
> In my humble opinion, "debías ir" is for the future, so the English would be:
> You should go to the party.
> 
> Maybe it should say: "Debiás de ir ..."
> 
> Please explain if my assumption is not correct.
> 
> Saludos.




Yes, sorry about that.  My original post had "*Debías ir a la fiesta*" as an equivalent of "you should go to the party".  Later I added it into a list of possible past tense forms with a question mark next to it to show that I didn't know if it could be interpreted as a reference to a past action.

So for you _debías ir a la fiesta _is equivalent to _deberías ir a la fiesta?
_If so, do they have any subtle difference in meaning and which one do you use more?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Hey Grant, thanks a lot for everything you have contributed to this discussion.  It has helped to confirm and clarify some of my own thoughts.
> 
> I realize full well that 'debí' is very different than 'debía' and I admit that I was mistaken to think that you were referring to 'debí' when you mentioned ''was supposed to".  The thing is, I have seen the preterit of deber described that way before and I just got confused and thought that was what you were talking about.
> 
> For example, another book I have, Breaking Out of Beginner's Spanish,


I have all those books too -- but I really don't see as many contradictions. From post#1 of this thread I have acknowledged that the preterite of deber is 'should have' and refers to a suggestion that something needed to be done and didn't happen. It 'feels' different in the 2nd person than in the 1st person and that's a further complication. But there is an 'obligation sense' -- but it's always 'internally imposed' not with an external pressure which switches it to 'tener que'. That's the main distinction you need to keep in mind in the differentiation. Then all that's left is to consider is the 'grade' of the internal moral sense. Debería is the lightest as you pointed out in your list. Hubieras is only used in certain areas -- I don't think it's universal but a native can tell us that. I don't hear it when I'm in Spain. Maybe I've just missed it. I have heard from some natives that 'Debía and Debería' are the same -- and there are a couple of website Spanish learning sites that teach that too. And the B&B refers to it. But I have a lot of input from here -- that 'Debía' is still past. But that it's never 'should have'. Most want to use 'had to' in English. I'm the one that thinks that's confusing. "Supposed to" is between inner moral duty and externally pressured obligation.. so it's just better in my sense for past internal moral sense... That's why I like it for 'debía'.. but you may come to a different conclusion.


> So I just wanted to know how people in different countries use these expressions and which one they would most likely use when making a suggestion about what somebody _should have done_.  My close Mexican friends seem to almost always use "hubieras + past participle", but I would really like to hear how native Spanish speakers in general interpret these various forms.


That's the beauty of this place for sure.. We're peeling the onion as I said.. But you won't be 100% clear after the thread dies out.. We used to have 2, bilingual from birth, members here at the foro -- and they're the ones that can really pick this topic apart.. They don't frequent here much anymore. Now I don't know who is now. So if any of you out there are fully bilingual from childhood your insight would all be helpful.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## zumac

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Yes, sorry about that. My original post had "*Debías ir a la fiesta*" as an equivalent of "you should go to the party". Later I added it into a list of possible past tense forms with a question mark next to it to show that I didn't know if it could be interpreted as a reference to a past action.
> 
> So for you _debías ir a la fiesta _is equivalent to _deberías ir a la fiesta?_
> If so, do they have any subtle difference in meaning and which one do you use more?


Yes, I think that _debías ir a la fiesta _is equivalent to _deberías ir a la fiesta, _although the latter sounds more pleasing to me, and I probably use it more. NewdestinyX might find some subtle difference.

Saludos.


----------



## Ynez

zumac said:


> Wow! One can get an education from reading this thread. My congratulations to all for your fine contributions.
> 
> I have a doubt with the folllowing example which appears in several posts.
> 
> *1. Debías ir a la fiesta = You should have gone to the party*
> 
> In my humble opinion, "debías ir" is for the future, so the English would be:
> You should go to the party.
> 
> Maybe it should say: "Debías de ir ..."
> 
> Please explain if my assumption is not correct.
> 
> Saludos.



Yes, I agree with the first part, Zumac. The second part you got it wrong: when we are supposed to use "de" is when "deber" expresses probability/logical deduction, not obligation.

_Debe de ser verdad.
No deben aparcarse coches en doble fila._

Está en el DPD (www.rae.es), seguramente bajo la entrada de "deber" (ahora mismo no tengo ganas de ir a verlo).


----------



## zumac

NewdestinyX said:


> .....
> So if any of you out there are fully bilingual from childhood your insight would all be helpful.
> 
> Chao,
> Grant


Hi Grant,

I have always been considered "fully bilingual from childhood", based on the fact that I was born and raised in New York, my parents were from Spain, and we spoke Spanish at home.

My education was in English through college level. However, my formal education in Spanish was slight, having taken a few Spanish courses in high school and college. Several years ago, I moved to Mexico City, where it became readily apparent that although my spoken Spanish was good, my written Spanish was poor. Without any additional formal training in Spanish, I have made a concerted effort to improve my written Spanish.

My point is that being "fully bilingual from childhood" does not automatically determine one's proficiency in the speken and written aspects of both the languages in question. I have met people in foreign countries who were children of American diplomats, attended the American School there, and who had a full command of English and the local foreign language. I also met a family in the US where the father was German and the mother was French. For the benefit of their children, they spoke both German and French in the home. The children spoke English in school, of course, so in a few years these children mastered three languages. However, I don{t know if the parents also taught them reading and writing in German and French.

So, for my particular level of being bilingual, I'm not sure that my insight would be helpful.

Saludos.


----------



## Ynez

The problem with this kind of thread is that we are trying to deal with too many points and we make mistakes even in our own language.

To add something to the topic: _must/deber_ are more used in formal contexts than _have to/tener que_.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> The problem with this kind of thread is that we are trying to deal with too many points and we make mistakes even in our own language.
> 
> To add something to the topic: _must/deber_ are more used in formal contexts than _have to/tener que_.


Yes I fear that too, Ynez.

I think what has emerged in this thread as a focal point is 'debía'. Maybe you already commented on this, and I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself -- but in Spain is 'debía' interchangeable with debería in:

Debería/Debía trabajar más duro
--or-
Debería/Debía haber trabajado más duro.

Are those two options interchangeable with or without the 'haber' and do both point to a "present toward future"?


> To add something to the topic: _must/deber_ are more used in formal contexts than _have to/tener que_.


Well I certainly agree with the comment about the English (unless 'must' is being used as 'must have') but is 'deber' really more 'formal' a register?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

zumac said:


> Hi Grant,
> 
> I have always been considered "fully bilingual from childhood", based on the fact that I was born and raised in New York, my parents were from Spain, and we spoke Spanish at home.
> <SNIP>
> My point is that being "fully bilingual from childhood" does not automatically determine one's proficiency in the speken and written aspects of both the languages in question. <SNIP>
> So, for my particular level of being bilingual, I'm not sure that my insight would be helpful.


Thanks for your candor, Zumac. But I have to believe that you're closer to understanding these nuances than many of us on the forum that didn't grow up bilingual..  I appreciate your insights even if you occasionally have to 2nd guess yourself.. 

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Debería/Debía trabajar más duro
> --or-
> Debería/Debía haber trabajado más.
> 
> YES, THEY'D BOTH MEAN THE SAME IN CONTEXT, BUT THE SAFE USE IS "DEBERÍA".
> 
> 
> Are those two options interchangeable with or without the 'haber' and do both point to a "present toward future"?
> Well I certainly agree with the comment about the English (unless 'must' is being used as 'must have') but is 'deber' really more 'formal' a register?
> 
> YES, IN THE PRESENT TENSE: DEBES, DEBE, DEBEN, ETC.
> Grant





> Deberías haber ido
> Hubieras ido
> Debías haber ido
> Debiste haber ido
> Debiste ir



All those can mean the same. "Deberías haber ido" is the safest use.

"debías" can also be used for logical deduction:

_Debían (de) ser las tres de la tarde cuando él llegó.
It must have been three o'clock when he arrived.

¡Vaya ruido! ¿Qué ha sido eso?
Debe (de) haber sido un trueno._


----------



## Ynez

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Some of the contradictions I am talking about are, for example, the way the preterit of deber + infinitive are translated in some of my books.
> Practice Makes Perfect: Advanced Spanish Grammar  says "the preterit forms of deber and tener que are very often used to make suggestions (should have) that refer to both the recent and remote past".  Then they give the following examples:
> Debiste coger el tren.     _You should have taken the train_.
> *Tuviste que coger el tren*.    _You should have taken the train_.



I would have translated "Tuviste que coger el tren" as "*You had to take the train*".


----------



## Bocha

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Debes ir a la fiesta = You must go (o you should go) to the party
> Deberías ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party
> Debías ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party
> Debieras ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party
> 
> ¿cuál de estas formas se usa con mayor frecuencia en sus países?  Y ¿qué diferencias de matiz hay para ustedes entre las cuatro formas?



Hola:

*En Argentina*:
_
Deberías ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party.
Debieras ir a la fiesta = You should go to the party.
_ Son exactamente iguales, _deberías_ se oye con más (pero no mucha más) frecuencia. _debieras_ ¿es más formal? Hummm... diría que no.

_Debías ir a la fiesta._
Yo nunca la traduciría con _should_. Generalmente usaría _had to_, según el contexto podría a veces usar _were supposed to _o _were to_.

_Debés ir a la fiesta._
must, have to, (occasionally _are to_). Nunca usaría _should_.

Deberías/debieras se usan muchísimo. (_tendrías que_ es otra alternativa muy usada; _tuvieras que_: se oye muy, pero muy de vez en cuando)
_debés/debías_ (obligación) el 90 % de las veces o más se reemplazan por _tenés que/tenías que_.


----------



## roanheads

And does any one ever translate " deber " as " ought to "? When I see " debo " my first thought is " I ought to ---- ". From my part of the world " ought to " is frequently heard, and it fits in with the infinite after " deber " 
Cheers.


----------



## Ynez

Bocha said:


> Hola:
> 
> _Debías ir a la fiesta._
> Yo nunca la traduciría con _should_. Generalmente usaría _had to_, según el contexto podría a veces usar _were supposed to _o _were to_.



¿Entonces para ti no sería normal algo así?

_- Muchas gracias por la invitación, pero creo que no voy a poder ir a tu fiesta.
- Venga, hombre, anímate. Debías venir a la fiesta.
_

Ya dije que es mejor usar "deberías" en ese caso, pero en España sí podríamos decir "debías" en ese ejemplo.


----------



## Bocha

Ynez said:


> ¿Entonces para ti no sería normal algo así?
> 
> _- Muchas gracias por la invitación, pero creo que no voy a poder ir a tu fiesta.
> - Venga, hombre, anímate. Debías venir a la fiesta.
> _



Hola Ynez:

*En Argentina no.* Ni siquiera cambiando _venga_ por _dale_, _hombre_ por _varón_ (o _macho_) y _anímate_ por _animate_. Se usaría deberías o tendrías que (o directamente _tenés que_ si el objetivo es convencerlo de que venga)



> *roanheads*
> And does any one ever translate " deber " as " ought to "? When I see " debo " my first thought is " I ought to... "


Sí, I was taught _shoud_ and _ought to_ are just the same.


----------



## Ynez

Bocha said:


> Hola Ynez:
> 
> *En Argentina no.* Ni siquiera cambiando _venga_ por _dale_, _hombre_ por _varón_ (o _macho_) y _anímate_ por _animate_. Se usaría deberías o tendrías que (o directamente _tenés que_ si el objetivo es convencerlo de que venga)



Pues entonces a los que están aprendiendo no les interesa decirlo con "debías", porque aquí solo es una de las muchas posibilidades. También podríamos decir, como tú, "tendrías que", "tienes que", y por supuesto "deberías".


----------



## Ynez

roanheads said:


> And does any one ever translate " deber " as " ought to "? When I see " debo " my first thought is " I ought to ---- ". From my part of the world " ought to " is frequently heard, and it fits in with the infinite after " deber "
> Cheers.



I ought to = I should = Debería


----------



## NewdestinyX

Okay I think we've learned a very important distiction in the conversation between Bocha and Ynez. Bocha is from Argentina and Ynez from Spain -- and it would appear that in regards to 'debía' it carries a 'past connotation' in Argentina and in Spain it does not.

• In Spain, (as _A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_ (B&B)) states, 'debía' is heard as interchangeable for 'deberías' in all its forms. And as such is a 'present toward future' connotation = should. 

• In Argentina, and I'll wager a good guess that this is the case throughout Latin America as a whole - 'debía' is a past utterance and has a lighter self obligation as can be expressed in English with 'had to', 'was supposed to', 'needed to' and the lightest sense, 'was to'. 

And I will maintain that using 'should have' is more of a strong suggestion to do something (internal pressure/not external) at some past 'moment in time' - so 'debía', even in Latin America (projecting past), can't be translated as 'should have' since 'debía' in an imperfect past - not a moment in time. But other natives and our grammar books are okay with 'debió....' being translated to English as 'should have + PP' because the preterite in Spanish is a 'moment in time'. 

So there's a difference between Peninsular Spanish (Spain) and Latin American with regard to 'debía'.

----------------------------------------------
*Ynez and Bocha*... muchísimas gracias for those 3 posts, What a help!!!!!!

*Can you two give your perspective* on what I said about 'debió.....' there. Is 'debió...' a 'past utterance' in both your countries and does it state a strong suggestion about how a person or the self needed to have felt a strong internal duty about something at a moment in the past? And then the best to English is 'should have'?

Now this onion is really getting peeled! 

Thanks in advance,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Okay I think we've learned a very important distiction in the conversation between Bocha and Ynez. Bocha is from Argentina and Ynez from Spain -- and it would appear that in regards to 'debía' it carries a 'past connotation' in Argentina and in Spain it does not.




The conversation had nothing to do with that, I am afraid.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> *En Argentina*:_
> Debés ir a la fiesta._
> must, have to, (occasionally _are to_). Nunca usaría _should_.


Bocha, are you saying that in Argentina these are interchangeable?:
_
Debés ir a la fiesta._ = _T__enés que ir a la fiesta_.

¿Exactamente iguales?

Some inflections of 'Must' and all uses of 'have to' are reserved in English for the 'strongest sense' of external obligation only.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> The conversation had nothing to do with that, I am afraid.


How so? I believe I read the Spanish perfectly.

Here's what Bocha wrote:


> _Debías ir a la fiesta._
> Yo nunca la traduciría con _should_. Generalmente usaría _had to_, según el contexto podría a veces usar _were supposed to _o _were to_.


He is saying that 'debía' is a past utterance. This is not what you say. You say it is a present toward future - equal with 'deberías'. 

Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> How so? I believe I read the Spanish perfectly.
> 
> Here's what Bocha wrote:
> He is saying that 'debía' is a past utterance. This is not what you say. You say it is a present toward future - equal with 'deberías'.
> 
> Grant



I didn't say we can't use it in the past. I need to think about it before I talk about that, which I can't do right now. I'd be happy if someone else thinks of this for me.



The conversation was about this:

In Spain we can use "debías" for "deberías" whereas in Argentina they won't use it that way.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Some inflections of 'Must' and all uses of 'have to' are reserved in English for the 'strongest sense' of external obligation only.



I think that comment above is wrong.


----------



## Bocha

Hola:

Bueno, *Aspirante a políglota*, había preguntado por diferencias de uso de las distintas expresiones con deber, así que creo que las diferencias de uso de _debías_ en España y Argentina, sí tienen que ver con el tema del hilo. Quedó claro que en España el imperfecto puede ser una alternativa adicional para el condicional, lo cual no significa que sea la única alternativa, ni tampoco que el imperfecto y el condicional se identifiquen siempre.

Respecto a _deber_ en presente, _debés (tenés que)_, el rango de cuán "fuerte" es la obligación es muy subjetivo, el contexto en general indicará cuánta fuerza de obligación tiene. Sin embargo nunca alcanza (para mí al menos) a bajar al nivel de _deberías_ aunque puede acercarse bastante. Por eso que al traducir al inglés a veces un _debés_ es _must_ (have to) y otras un _need to_, _are to_.
Tengo entendido que la fuerza de obligación de must/have to tiene bastante variación también, según lo que se desprende de algunas discusiones al respecto en English Only.

*debió*
dos posibilidades
*had to:*
Cuando quedó viuda debió (tuvo que) volver a trabajar para mantenerse.
*should have to*
Ahora ya no puedo hacer nada, él debió decírmelo (debería habérmelo dicho) entonces.

Las alternativas entre paréntesis para _debió _son más frecuentes.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some inflections of 'Must' and all uses of 'have to' are reserved in English for the 'strongest sense' of external obligation only.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that comment above is wrong.
Click to expand...

I can only tell you, as a native speaker, how it's used here in America. There are exceptions to every rule. But what I stated is the "rule of thumb" I teach non-natives to use. 





			
				Ynez said:
			
		

> The conversation was about this:In Spain we can use "debías" for "deberías" whereas in Argentina they won't use it that way.


That was exactly my point. If debía = debería, then in can't be past. If I'm 'over-inferring' please help me. Suffice it to say there is a difference in Spain and that is very important to this discussion. That's why I'm reiterating and stating it in plain terms. I apologize if I'm frustrating you Ynez. It's not intentional. We've been discussing this for 3 years and students are still confused. I think it's helpful if we try to make some 'clear distinctions'. Your input is so helpful!!

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> *debió*
> dos posibilidades
> *had to:*
> Cuando quedó viuda debió (tuvo que) volver a trabajar para mantenerse.
> *should have *to (no 'to' is used there - only 'should have + PP')
> Ahora ya no puedo hacer nada, él debió decírmelo (debería habérmelo dicho) entonces.
> 
> Las alternativas entre paréntesis para _debió _son más frecuentes.



Qué interesante. A ver si puedo intentar esto en castellano...

Así que estás diciendo, Bocha, que 'debió...' puede transmitir ambos estos:

1)un error de acción en el pasado de que alguien se dió cuenta y resultó que sintió que un cambio fue necesario    -y-
2)Una sugerencia a alguien o a sí mismo sobre haber hecho algo diferente en el pasado

Uuuff.. Si es sí... ( y te creo que sí lo es) es algo que los libros de gramática 'no' nos enseñan. Lástima..

Gracias por la aclaración,
Grant


----------



## Bocha

> *NewDestinyX*
> un *error de acción*? en el pasado de que alguien se dió cuenta y resultó que sintió que un cambio fue necesario



¿Error? No necesariamente.

_Quedó viuda y debió volver a trabajar. (tuvo que, se vio obligada a)
Debí (tuve que, me vi obligado a) arreglármelas por mi cuenta porque no había nadie que me ayudara.
Debimos (tuvimos que, nos vimos obligados a) esperar más de dos horas para que nos atendiera._

Es raro que los libros de gramática que mencionas no contemplen este uso.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> un *error de acción*? en el pasado de que alguien se dió cuenta y resultó que sintió que un cambio fue necesario
> 
> 
> 
> ¿Error? No necesariamente.
Click to expand...

Claro que sí... intentaba explicar el contexto 'sin' usar las palabras que estamos estudiando.  lo cual resulta difícil en su idioma segundo ¿no?... Sí.. no es un 'error' necesariamente -- pero la persona, usando 'debí' se vio obligada a hacer algo diferente.. Ya lo entiendo. 



> Es raro que los libros de gramática que mencionas no contemplen este uso.


No enseñan 'debió...' = felt like__had to -- sí enseñan 'debió...' = should have (una sugerencia para hacer algo diferente en el pasado)
Un libro mío enseña que 'debía + infinitivo' = felt like___had to, was supposed to, was to -- para transmitir el concepto de 'imperfecto'. 

Creo que estamos más cerca a un 'entender lleno' de este tema ahora.

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

Hoy tengo mal día para pensar en esto, de verdad, pero creo que te gustará ver algunas ideas que podemos sacar con google:

Puse "venir" pensando que así veríamos usos informales.

Resultados 91 - 100 de aproximadamente 4.490 de "debió venir"
Resultados 181 - 190 de aproximadamente 80.100 de "tuvo que venir"

 Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 5.700.000 de debió

Mirando la primera página de "debió", vemos que hay bastantes "se debió" y usos formales (pero no he profundizado mucho en el análisis).


Ahora una frase concreta, para comparar "debía" y "tenía que" en estilo informal:

1.310 de "ella debía ir"
2.490 de "ella tenía que ir".

598 de "ella debía ir" site:es. 

En España también usamos "debía" con la idea de "tenía que".


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

Bocha said:


> Hola:
> 
> Bueno, *Aspirante a políglota*, había preguntado por diferencias de uso de las distintas expresiones con deber, así que creo que las diferencias de uso de _debías_ en España y Argentina, sí tienen que ver con el tema del hilo. Quedó claro que en España el imperfecto puede ser una alternativa adicional para el condicional, lo cual no significa que sea la única alternativa, ni tampoco que el imperfecto y el condicional se identifiquen siempre.
> 
> Respecto a _deber_ en presente, _debés (tenés que)_, el rango de cuán "fuerte" es la obligación es muy subjetivo, el contexto en general indicará cuánta fuerza de obligación tiene. Sin embargo nunca alcanza (para mí al menos) a bajar al nivel de _deberías_ aunque puede acercarse bastante. Por eso que al traducir al inglés a veces un _debés_ es _must_ (have to) y otras un _need to_, _are to_.
> Tengo entendido que la fuerza de obligación de must/have to tiene bastante variación también, según lo que se desprende de algunas discusiones al respecto en English Only.
> 
> *debió*
> dos posibilidades
> *had to:*
> Cuando quedó viuda debió (tuvo que) volver a trabajar para mantenerse.
> *should have to*
> Ahora ya no puedo hacer nada, él debió decírmelo (debería habérmelo dicho) entonces.
> 
> Las alternativas entre paréntesis para _debió _son más frecuentes.




Gracias a todos.  Me han aclarado muchas dudas.  

Gracias en particular a ti Bocha por tus excelentes aportes y ejemplos.

So, it seems that _debías _can be used with the same meaning as _deberías, _but likely only (or mostly) in Spain.  That clarifies that doubt for me.  I hadn't personally heard it used with that sense by the Spanish speakers I associate with, but I had read it in several books and had wondered how extensive its use was.

The second point that seems to have arisen out of all of this is that the constructions with _deberías_ are probably the safest and most universal.  That is, _deberías _doesn't carry as much ambiguity as some of the other options and can be used throughout the Spanish-speaking world.  

So, while _debías estudiar más_ can be used in Spain to mean _you should study more _and _hubieras estudiado más_ can be used in parts of Latin America to mean _you should have studied more_, the most universal way to express these meanings would be with _deberías_--i.e. _deberías estudiar __más _and _deberías haber estudiado __más._  Would that be correct?

Next we have the form with debieras--_debieras ir a la fiesta_--which most native Spanish speakers indicate to be virtually synonymous with _Debe__rías__ ir a la fiesta_.  That seems pretty clear to me.  A few native speakers have told me that _debieras_ sounds slightly more formal, but others think it has exactly the same meaning.  In any case, we can safely say that for all intents and purposes it is simply an alternative to _Debe__rías._

The other thing that seems to be apparent, based on your comments (Bocha) and the comments of others, is that despite what some books imply _deber _in the present tense is similar to_ tener que_ in terms of the intensity of obligation it implies.  In other words, _debes ir a la fiesta_ is much closer to _tienes que ir a la fiesta_ than it is to _debe__rías ir a la fiesta._ 
The main difference being that _debes ir a la fiesta_ sounds more formal and is not used as often as _tienes que ir a la fiesta, _similar to the difference in English between _you must go to the party_ and _you have to go to the party. _

Bocha, would you say that the above conclusions are correct?

Gracias de nuevo a todos por sus comentarios.  Se lo agradezco muchísimo.


----------



## Bocha

Hola Aspirante a Políglota:

Con respecto al uso en Argentina creo que captaste bien todo. Respecto al uso en España, creo que también, pero mejor que te lo confirme *Ynez* o algún otro compañero español.
Y si te ha sido útil mi aporte me alegro muchísimo.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

Sí Bocha, me has ayudado mucho.  Me has sacado de dudas en cuanto al uso de deber en presente.  Pero si no te molesta ¿podrías aclararme las diferencias de uso de las distintas formas de _deber_ en pasado?

Debiste ir a la fiesta 
Debías haber ido a la fiesta 
Debiste haber ido a la fiesta 
Deberías haber ido a la fiesta 
Hubieras ido a la fiesta 

Si no me equivoco todas estas expresiones pueden significar _you should have gone to the party.  _¿Qué diferencias hay entre ellas?

Gracias de nuevo.


----------



## Ynez

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> and _hubieras estudiado más_ can be used in parts of Latin America to mean _you should have studied more_, the most universal way to express these meanings would be with _deberías_--i.e. _deberías estudiar __más _and _deberías haber estudiado __más._  Would that be correct?



Your conclusions are all really good, Aspirante, except for this little thing:

In Spain we *also* say "hubieras estudiado más" for that idea above (at least where I live). You just must know that it is the most informal of all the options we've been dealing with, not something to write unless you are representing a common dialogue.

And "hubieras estudiado" also needs context more than the rest to show that meaning. For the party, it'd have to be something like:

_- Ayer tuve un día fatal, todo el día encerrado en casa.
- ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! Nosotros nos lo pasamos fenomenal._


In that example, you could also have used any of the other forms you wrote in your previous post.


----------



## Bocha

Ynez said:


> _- Ayer tuve un día fatal, todo el día encerrado en casa.
> - ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! Nosotros nos lo pasamos fenomenal._
> 
> In that example, you could also have used any of the other forms you wrote in your previous post.



Totalmente de acuerdo con Ynez, cualquiera de las cinco opciones cabría en este ejemplo.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

Muchísimas gracias a los dos por su ayuda.

Ok, so now I have clear confirmation that all of those versions essentially have the same meaning.  However, if you guys would be so kind, I have several questions regarding these forms.

First, how do these forms relate to one another in terms of the forcefulness of the obligation that they imply?  For example, if I tell my friend _debiste ir a la fiesta_ does it represent a stronger suggestion of what he should have done than if I said _deberías haber ido a la fiesta_?  Also, are there any other shades of meaning that might diferenciate these various constructions?

Second, it would be great if you guys could please rank these phrases in terms of how coloquial or formal they are.  I understand that _hubieras ido a la fiesta _is the most informal of the group (thanks Ynez), but how would the other forms rank in terms of formality?

Finally, I would really appreciate it if you guys could describe to me which versions are most common in your countries and more specifically which ones you use personally.  Which forms do you use in your daily lives and in which contexts?

Thank you so much for your help.  I am extremely grateful.

PD:  Oh, and if you guys have any questions or doubts about English I would be happy to answer them for you (in a thread or a private message).


----------



## Bocha

Hola:
Para mí son todas muy parecidas. La "fuerza" estará dada por el tono más que por elegir una u otra.

_Deberías haber ido _
La más frecuente.

_Hubieras ido_
Esta puede considerarse más coloquial se oye con frecuencia.

_Debiste ir a la fiesta 
Debías haber ido a la fiesta 
Debiste haber ido a la fiesta _

Estas tres últimas se oyen bastante menos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

The onion is almost peeled!!.  Great questions, Aspirante, and a great conclusion post too! I have a couple of updates for my course based on this thread. 

Bocha and Ynez, as always, thank you so much for your willingness to go so deeply into your native language and help with these minor nuances. I'm sure it must seem boring at times.  But it is well appreciated.

I will add that in Spain I personally stay away from 'debía' because of the ambiguity "I still feel" in certain contexts that could arise - though I know that for a native there is never any ambiguity. 

I also want to say, Aspirante, that the 'hubieras + PP' version is only really used for 'positive' contexts (and mostly in '2nd person') where somebody missed something really good or fun and another person is telling them 'you should'a been there'. If you're making a sharp suggestion about what someone should have done and didn't -- then 'hubieras + PP' would seem out of place in my experience. And as Ynez I think said it's not as much a written form - unless you're reading a novel with 'dialogue' or in a chat/forum setting like this where we 'converse'.

I'm still picking apart the last several posts and may have a few more questions myself.

Many thanks to all... Each 'deber' thread always goes long and new insights are found. Thanks for asking and reasking for the nuances, Aspirante -- that's the hard stuff to figure out about this little auxiliary verb and we're lost without native input - the grammar books are just so bad on this topic..

The only arena where I still stand a little on my own in this thread is the use of 'deber' in the present. When a native speaker uses 'debe/debo' it almost never translates to 'must or have to' in English as I hear them use it. At least not as I speak with my Spanish friends. It almost always is 'should/ought to' in English. But I guess some things we have to agree to disagree 'agreeably'. 

Grant


----------



## Bocha

Hola:



> *NewdestinyX*
> 'hubieras + PP' version is only really used for 'positive' contexts


Quizá la mayoría de las veces, pero no siempre.

_- Disculpame que ayer no hayamos venido, pero un amigo nos invitó a los tres a una fiesta.
- (tono irónico, ofendido y recriminatorio) Hubieras avisado ¿no?, tuve que tirar un montón de comida._

- El trabajo es una porquería y por cinco mangos roñosos.
- No hubieras aceptado. (= si aceptaste jodete; y además, necesitás los cinco mangos roñosos)

El tono con que se pronuncian estas construcciones "hubieras + pp" es crítico, por eso puse las aclaraciones entre paréntesis.



> NewdestinyX
> When a native speaker uses 'debe/debo' it almost never translates to 'must or have to' in English as I hear them use it. At least not as I speak with my Spanish friends


Es posible que esto sea así en algunas regiones, quizá en la mayoría de las regiones que hablan castellano (lo dudo) pero en Argentina, no.
_Debés hacerle caso a tu hermana_ no es igual a _deberías hacerle caso a tu hermana_, _debés venir ya_ _mismo_ no es lo mismo que _deberías venir ya mismo_.

_Debés venir ya, la situación es muy grave. You must come at once, the situation is very serious._

If you used _should_ to translate _debés..._ traduttore... tradittore

_debés_ no siempre es tan perentorio:

_Primero debés registrarte. First you need to check in._ (should doesnt't fit here either).

_Cuando entrés debés ponerte el casco. When you come inside you must _(have to, are to) _put the hardhat on_. (_should_ is not a choice)


----------



## la_machy

Todavía en esto?

"Chicos, creo que ya _*deberían*_ haber llegado a un acuerdo, despues de tan amplias explicaciones (es sugerencia,  no _tienen que)_."

"Pero _*debe *_ser muy dificil ya que, por lo que veo,  este verbo en particular se presta a muchas confusiones (despues de ver tan amplio debate _tengo que_ pensar que así es)."


(No me vayan a regañar mucho eh?)


Saluditos a todos!!


----------



## ilyasnemo

That's the tricky mistake deber / deber de.

Debí dejar las llaves en el trabajo = I should have left them there, so they would be at a safe place.
Debí de dejar las llaves en el trabajo = I'm almost sure I forgot my keys at the office. 

In Spain, both forms are very much confused, up to the point that you hear many people say: Debo de comprar leche, meaning "I really must buy some milk", when it literally means "I'm almost sure that I'm buying milk (but maybe the are just selling me white-colored water)". As I say, many people confuse this, but the rules are clear. 

By the way, I don't agree too much with the idea  that - in Spain - "deber" is somehow less imposing than "tener que". I would almost say it's the other way round: "Tienes que hacerlo" is used as no to pronounce such strong a sentence as "Debes hacerlo". Let's say both are the same. Of course "debería" is much less imposing, you may choose not to do it.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> _- Disculpame que ayer no hayamos venido, pero un amigo nos invitó a los tres a una fiesta.
> - (tono irónico, ofendido y recriminatorio) Hubieras avisado ¿no?, tuve que tirar un montón de comida._
> 
> - El trabajo es una porquería y por cinco mangos roñosos.
> - No hubieras aceptado. (= si aceptaste jodete; y además, necesitás los cinco mangos roñosos)
> 
> El tono con que se pronuncian estas construcciones "hubieras + pp" es crítico, por eso puse las aclaraciones entre paréntesis.


Gracias por la aclaración, Bocha. Pero ¿no creés que la mayoría de sus usos son más como decía yo? Esos dos ejemplos me parecen un poco 'raro'.. Pero sos vos el nativo.. Suelo oirlo solo en situaciones cuando una persona te dice que algo fue fenomenal y vos te lo perdiste.



> Es posible que esto sea así en algunas regiones, quizá en la mayoría de las regiones que hablan castellano (lo dudo) pero en Argentina, no.
> _Debés hacerle caso a tu hermana_ no es igual a _deberías hacerle caso a tu hermana_, _debés venir ya_ _mismo_ no es lo mismo que _deberías venir ya mismo_.


Interesante. No he estado diciendo que sean iguales, Bocha.. sino que 'debés' no es igual que o tan fuerte como 'tenés que'. Quizás me equivoco.
If you go to this google search of 'debes considerar' and look at the examples I don't think 'any of them' = tener que.. and 'none' of the contexts would translate to English as 'must'.. They would translate to English as 'should'. There is 'no obligation' implied. That's my point. 



> _Debés venir ya, la situación es muy grave. You must come at once, the situation is very serious._
> 
> If you used _should_ to translate _debés..._ traduttore... tradittore


 Agreed in that one -- we'd use - must.. but not 'have to'. 



> _debés_ no siempre es tan perentorio:
> 
> _Primero debés registrarte. First you need to check in._ (should doesnt't fit here either).


In this one 'need to' AND 'should' are good translations. "Should' would be way more common for this sentence.



> _Cuando entrés debés ponerte el casco. When you come inside you must _(have to, are to) _put the hardhat on_. (_should_ is not a choice)


Agreed. "Have to" and "are to" are very good. "Should" would not work.. And 'must' would also be common. So it seems that 'debés' in Spanish covers a wider range of 'suggestion---->obligation' than English.. But the closer you stay to 'suggestion' you must translate that to 'should' and the more toward obligation -- you must move to 'must/have to/are to'

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## la_machy

When I want to give a strong advice (even to myself) and I want to imply a certain degree of obligation, I use "*debes*" or "*tienes que*", ( I have to say both are the same to me since they are grammatical right). 

Eg. "Los niños _*deben/tienen que*_ ir a la escuela para recibir educación" (strong advice given for social service maybe)
" Los doctores _*tienen que/deben*_ lavarse las manos antes de una cirugía" (maybe doctors could get big troubles if they don´t )

At the other hand, when I am giving just a mere recommendation or one soft advice, I use "*deberías".*

Eg. "Los niños _*deberían* _tomar claces de piano por las tardes al salir de la escuela" (is a mere recommendation given to my friend becuase I know their childrend like so much playing piano).
"Los doctores _*deberían* _usar uniformes azules porque los verdes no me gustan" (is just a comment given to doctor´s assistant by one patient).

Guys, I´m afraid of is the same verb only with two different meaning and two different tense form. Maybe that´s the reazon why it´s so tricky. Anyway, that´s my personal explanation.

One more thing. As was said, voice inflexion has very much to do with it. Even if you are not pretty sure about the right choice to "deber" usage, giving the appropriate voice inflexion you will be right, that´s for sure.


Uff!! I did!!!


Saluditos


----------



## Bocha

Hola:


> No he estado diciendo que sean iguales, Bocha.. sino que 'debés' no es igual que o tan fuerte como 'tenés que'.


Grant, en Argentina (no puedo poner la mano en el fuego por los usos que hagan de los dos términos en otras partes) *debés y tenés que son iguales*, tenés que se usa muchísimo más, y si llegado el caso *yo* tuviera que elegir cuál de los dos es más "fuerte", optaría por debés.

Creo que estamos reproduciendo algunas de las discusiones en English Only cuando discutían must/have to. Ésta en particular.
Según la encuenta en ese hilo, 1 de cada 4 piensan que son intercambiables.
Leyendo las discusiones, hay quienes dicen que no son intercambiables siempre pero que casi siempre lo son.
Algo parecido pasa en castellano, y es imposible que puedas establecer un decálogo de cómo deben usarse, porque las variaciones son innumerables, no ya de región a región, sino incluso de persona a persona.
Ante consignas del tipo "_tenés que_ es más fuerte _debés_" o "debés y deberías se identifican con frecuencia" yo no podría hacer otra cosa que fruncir el ceño desaprobadoramente, en mi opinión no son consignas apropiadas para quienes están aprendiendo el idioma, puedo estar equivocado.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> Hola:
> Leyendo las discusiones, hay quienes dicen que no son intercambiables siempre pero que casi siempre lo son.
> Algo parecido pasa en castellano, y es imposible que puedas establecer un decálogo de cómo deben usarse, porque las variaciones son innumerables, no ya de región a región, sino incluso de persona a persona.
> Ante consignas del tipo "_tenés que_ es más fuerte _debés_" o "debés y deberías se identifican con frecuencia" yo no podría hacer otra cosa que fruncir el ceño desaprobadoramente, en mi opinión no son consignas apropiadas para quienes están aprendiendo el idioma, puedo estar equivocado.


Te oigo, mi profesor. Hay un punto donde hemos aprendido todo lo que es posible para 'un hilo'. Cada hilo sobre 'deber' nos presenta con algo nuevo. Y gracias por una lección nueva en vocabulario cuando me escribas. 
"desaprobadoramente"
"ceño"
"fruncir"
"consignas"

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

la_machy said:


> When I want to give a strong advice (even to myself) and I want to imply a certain degree of obligation, I use "*debes*" or "*tienes que*", ( I have to say both are the same to me since they are grammatical right).
> 
> Eg. "Los niños _*deben/tienen que*_ ir a la escuela para recibir educación" (strong advice given for social service maybe)
> " Los doctores _*tienen que/deben*_ lavarse las manos antes de una cirugía" (maybe doctors could get big troubles if they don't )
> 
> At the other hand, when I am giving just a mere recommendation or one soft advice, I use "*deberías".*
> 
> Eg. "Los niños _*deberían* _tomar claces de piano por las tardes al salir de la escuela" (is a mere recommendation given to my friend becuase I know their childrend like so much playing piano).
> "Los doctores _*deberían* _usar uniformes azules porque los verdes no me gustan" (is just a comment given to doctor´s assistant by one patient).
> 
> Guys, I´m afraid of is the same verb only with two different meaning and two different tense form. Maybe that´s the reazon why it´s so tricky. Anyway, that´s my personal explanation.
> 
> One more thing. As was said, voice inflexion has very much to do with it. Even if you are not pretty sure about the right choice to "deber" usage, giving the appropriate voice inflexion you will be right, that´s for sure.


Thanks, LaMachy! I am discovering, as Bocha said, that some of the confusion is in the distance between 'should ----> must' in English - in their ability to transmit 'obligation'. 

I think I still stand by this 'essential difference' the only exception to it being the 'present tense of 'deber''

*deber --- *_used to transmit "internal personal moral duty" or a 'suggestion to someone about such duty'_*

tener que --- *_used to transmit "external pressure to do something" where not doing so will bring bad consequences. _ 

In the present tense of 'deber' -- it seems in most contexts it's equal to tener que - but not all contexts - and tone of voice matters.

Thanks all!
Grant


----------



## Ynez

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Finally, I would really appreciate it if you guys could describe to me which versions are most common in your countries and more specifically which ones you use personally.  Which forms do you use in your daily lives and in which contexts?



La que yo diría no está en tu paquete 

_¡Tenías que haber ido a la fiesta! Nos lo pasamos fenomenal._


I already told you all the others can be used in my country.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Gracias por la aclaración, Bocha. Pero ¿no creés que la mayoría de sus usos son más como decía yo? Esos dos ejemplos me parecen un poco 'raro'.. Pero sos vos el nativo.. Suelo oirlo solo en situaciones cuando una persona te dice que algo fue fenomenal y vos te lo perdiste.



Los ejemplos eran estos:



> - Disculpame que ayer no hayamos venido, pero un amigo nos invitó a los tres a una fiesta.
> - (tono irónico, ofendido y recriminatorio) Hubieras avisado ¿no?, tuve que tirar un montón de comida.
> 
> - El trabajo es una porquería y por cinco mangos roñosos.
> - No hubieras aceptado. (= si aceptaste jodete; y además, necesitás los cinco mangos roñosos)



El uso de "hubieras" no es nada raro en esos ejemplos. Es normalísimo. Bocha escribe con su acento argentino, así que ahora pondré yo mi acento de España (bueno, no mi acento de verdad, porque ya sería demasiado lío  ) para mostrar lo que sí es raro para mí (su manera de acentuar y lo de "mangos roñosos"  )

_- *Disculpa/Discúlpame* que ayer no hayamos venido, pero un amigo nos invitó a los tres a una fiesta.
- (tono irónico, ofendido y recriminatorio) Hubieras avisado ¿no?, tuve que tirar un montón de comida.

- El trabajo es una porquería y por *cuatro duros*.
- No hubieras aceptado. (= si aceptaste, j*ó*dete; y además, necesit*a*s *los cuatro duros*)_


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Gracias por la aclaración, Bocha. Pero ¿no creés que la mayoría de sus usos son más como decía yo? Esos dos ejemplos me parecen un poco 'raro'.. Pero sos vos el nativo.. Suelo oirlo solo en situaciones cuando una persona te dice que algo fue fenomenal y vos te lo perdiste.
> 
> Interesante. No he estado diciendo que sean iguales, Bocha.. sino que 'debés' no es igual que o tan fuerte como 'tenés que'. Quizás me equivoco.
> If you go to this google search of 'debes considerar' and look at the examples I don't think 'any of them' = tener que.. and 'none' of the contexts would translate to English as 'must'.. They would translate to English as 'should'. There is 'no obligation' implied. That's my point.
> 
> Agreed in that one -- we'd use - must.. but not 'have to'.
> 
> In this one 'need to' AND 'should' are good translations. "Should' would be way more common for this sentence.
> 
> Agreed. "Have to" and "are to" are very good. "Should" would not work.. And 'must' would also be common. So it seems that 'debés' in Spanish covers a wider range of 'suggestion---->obligation' than English.. But the closer you stay to 'suggestion' you must translate that to 'should' and the more toward obligation -- you must move to 'must/have to/are to'
> 
> Thanks,
> Grant



En general solo puedo decir una cosa: No estoy de acuerdo.


Pon algunos ejemplos de lo que has dicho en el párrafo en rojo, por favor.


En inglés habrá expresiones típicas que se digan de uno u otro modo, pero estamos hablando en general. Cuando pienses en "I have to", piensa también en "I gotta", "I got to", "I've got to", o incluso como "I gota" se puede ver escrito.





> Thanks, LaMachy! I am discovering, as Bocha said, that some of the confusion is in the distance between 'should ----> must' in English - in their ability to transmit 'obligation'.
> 
> I think I still stand by this 'essential difference' the only exception to it being the 'present tense of 'deber''
> 
> deber --- used to transmit "internal personal moral duty" or a 'suggestion to someone about such duty'
> 
> tener que --- used to transmit "external pressure to do something" where not doing so will bring bad consequences.
> 
> In the present tense of 'deber' -- it seems in most contexts it's equal to tener que - but not all contexts - and tone of voice matters.
> 
> Thanks all!
> Grant



Los ejemplos de LaMachy estaban muy bien, y en todos podríamos intercambiar "deber" y "tener que", no siendo así con "deberías". Grant, no sé para qué nos preguntas si tú al final sigues con la misma cantinela de siempre, que no tiene nada que ver con lo que estamos diciendo ni con los ejemplos que te están dando.  Lo siento, pero realmente es frustrante.


----------



## Ynez

ilyasnemo said:


> That's the tricky mistake deber / deber de.
> 
> Debí dejar las llaves en el trabajo = I should have left them there, so they would be at a safe place.
> Debí de dejar las llaves en el trabajo = I'm almost sure I forgot my keys at the office.
> 
> In Spain, both forms are very much confused, up to the point that you hear many people say: Debo de comprar leche, meaning "I really must buy some milk", when it literally means "I'm almost sure that I'm buying milk (but maybe the are just selling me white-colored water)". As I say, many people confuse this, but the rules are clear.
> 
> By the way, I don't agree too much with the idea  that - in Spain - "deber" is somehow less imposing than "tener que". I would almost say it's the other way round: "Tienes que hacerlo" is used as no to pronounce such strong a sentence as "Debes hacerlo". Let's say both are the same. Of course "debería" is much less imposing, you may choose not to do it.



Lo de "de" o no "de" detrás de "deber", es verdad que cada uno decimos lo que nos parece. La RAE dice que deberíamos decir esto:



> deber. 1. Es regular; no son correctas las formas sincopadas del futuro y del condicional simple o pospretérito, debrá, debría, etc., normales en el español clásico, pero sentidas hoy como vulgares.
> 2. Funciona como auxiliar en perífrasis de infinitivo que denotan obligación y suposición o probabilidad:
> 
> a) deber + infinitivo. Denota obligación: «Debo cumplir con mi misión» (Mendoza Satanás [Col. 2002]). Con este sentido, la norma culta rechaza hoy el uso de la preposición de ante el infinitivo: «Debería de haber más sitios donde aparcar sin tener que pagar por ello» (Mundo [Esp.] 3.4.94).
> 
> b) deber de + infinitivo. Denota probabilidad o suposición: «No se oye nada de ruido en la casa. Los viejos deben de haber salido» (Mañas Kronen [Esp. 1994]). No obstante, con este sentido, la lengua culta admite también el uso sin preposición: «Marianita, su hija, debe tener unos veinte años» (VLlosa Fiesta [Perú 2000]).



www.rae.es --> _Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas_ --> *deber*

Resumen de lo que dice la RAE al respecto: *siempre es correcto sin "de"*.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> En general solo puedo decir una cosa: No estoy de acuerdo.





> Pon algunos ejemplos de lo que has dicho en el párrafo en rojo, por favor.


Lo haré lo antes posible.





> Grant, no sé para qué nos preguntas si tú al final sigues con la misma cantinela de siempre, que no tiene nada que ver con lo que estamos diciendo ni con los ejemplos que te están dando.  Lo siento, pero realmente es frustrante.


We're all learning here, Ynez. This is not an easy topic. When you tell me something is so in your native language I have to accept that. Unless I have a grammar book that says you are mistaken. But on this topic the grammar books are woefully depleted. I guess I need to ask the same thing for when I say something about English. I have to accept that when you and Bocha say that 'debes' and 'tienes que' can be interchangeable  -- I accept that. But there are many times, then, that debes and tienes que must be able to transmit lighter obligation or none at all.. Because I see many contexts where 'no obligation' is implied as in all the examples with 'debes considerar' that I mention in my last post from Google. In 'all' of those example 'only' 'should' is normal in the English. I'm hoping I'm making myself clear. 

Por ejemplo:
"Qué detalles _debes considerar_ para  comprar Ropa Intima?"
--"Only" 'should' would be a good translation to English in this sentence. never 'have to'. 'must'. They wouldn't be incorrect -- but grossly overstated. There's not even a hint of obligation in that context.

"Si tu compañía está impulsando una estrategia de infraestructura de tecnologías ecológicas, _debes considerar_ un nuevo conjunto de criterios cuando las *...*"
--Though there's a tiny hint of obligation in this context --again -- "Only" 'should' is the best translation to English.

If you look at the next 3 pages of examples with 'debes considerar' - they mostly all have no obligation in their contexts and therefore - in English 'should' is the best. I speak and read enough Spanish to know the contexts I'm reading and when I say in English it needs to be 'should' I hope you can trust me.

Sorry to have frustrated you. That's not my goal. I 'do' very much listen to everything you tell me. It's just I'm getting 'different and conflicting' answers sometimes and that's why I keep asking.

Grant


----------



## Ynez

Grant, search "you must consider" in google, and you'll see examples of that same style.

_5 things you must consider before cruising

3 Things You MUST Consider Before Buying Your First Radio_

Those are the first two examples I see on my google page.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

NewdestinyX said:


> Lo haré lo antes posible.We're all learning here, Ynez. This is not an easy topic. When you tell me something is so in your native language I have to accept that. Unless I have a grammar book that says you are mistaken. But on this topic the grammar books are woefully depleted. I guess I need to ask the same thing for when I say something about English. I have to accept that when you and Bocha say that 'debes' and 'tienes que' can be interchangeable  -- I accept that. But there are many times, then, that debes and tienes que must be able to transmit lighter obligation or none at all.. Because I see many contexts where 'no obligation' is implied as in all the examples with 'debes considerar' that I mention in my last post from Google. In 'all' of those example 'only' 'should' is normal in the English. I'm hoping I'm making myself clear.
> 
> Por ejemplo:
> "Qué detalles _debes considerar_ para  comprar Ropa Intima?"
> --"Only" 'should' would be a good translation to English in this sentence. never 'have to'. 'must'. They wouldn't be incorrect -- but grossly overstated. There's not even a hint of obligation in that context.
> 
> "Si tu compañía está impulsando una estrategia de infraestructura de tecnologías ecológicas, _debes considerar_ un nuevo conjunto de criterios cuando las *...*"
> --Though there's a tiny hint of obligation in this context --again -- "Only" 'should' is the best translation to English.
> 
> If you look at the next 3 pages of examples with 'debes considerar' - they mostly all have no obligation in their contexts and therefore - in English 'should' is the best. I speak and read enough Spanish to know the contexts I'm reading and when I say in English it needs to be 'should' I hope you can trust me.
> 
> Sorry to have frustrated you. That's not my goal. I 'do' very much listen to everything you tell me. It's just I'm getting 'different and conflicting' answers sometimes and that's why I keep asking.
> 
> Grant



Hey Grant, thanks again for your contributions.  However on this point I must disagree.  

I think the distinction you see between internal and external obligation is a little off base.  As I see it the use of _debes_ in the examples you have given above *could* be replaced by _tienes que _without changing the meaning.  Furthermore, I think that those sentences could be translated into English using _must_ or _have to.
_ 
For me _must_ and _have to_ in English are virtually synonymous.  The only difference is that _must _sounds more formal and isn't used as often in daily speech.  We have now had numerous native Spanish speakers tell us that the situation is exactly the same with _debes_ and _tienes que_, so that question is settled as far as I am concerned.

I mean, it might seem that _tener que_ should be used for some kind of external obligation (with consequences) and _deber_ should be used to indicate some kind of internal sense of duty, but that distinction doesn't really make sense to me.  In English and Spanish I have heard people say things like "you have to come to my party, it's going to be really fun!"  or "tienes que ir a mi fiesta, va a ser muy divertida".  In these cases the speaker is not saying that the listener has to go or else there is going to be serious consequences (other than missing a fun party).  What they are saying is that they want the other person to go and that they think the other person should go.

To me the different forms of _tener que_ and _deber_, as well as _have to_ and _must_, are all used to refer to different degrees of obligation.  It is simply a matter of how strong the implied obligation is and in which context you use it.  That is what I was trying to get to the bottom of in this thread and, at least in terms of the uses in the present tense, I think the native speakers have done a fantastic job of clearing that up for us.

Thanks again to all of you--Bocha, Ynez, la_machy, Grant, and every one else--you guys have been very helpful and it is greatly appreciated.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Grant, search "you must consider" in google, and you'll see examples of that same style.
> 
> _5 things you must consider before cruising
> 
> 3 Things You MUST Consider Before Buying Your First Radio_
> 
> Those are the first two examples I see on my google page.


Yes. No problem. But 'you should consider' is 10 times more used on Google. 

But I understand your point, Ynez.

The contexts of the ones with 'debes considerar' -could equally choose 'should' or 'must'-- but 'should' would be the more common. And  the 'must' in your Google examples in my opinion have 'no obligation' of any kind inferred from the context. I'm trying to establish that 'debo/debes' is 'not always as strong' as 'have to' -- it can be -- but isn't always. Do you agree?

You've already made quite clear that 'deberías' is not 'debes'. I understand that. But 'debes' can also project a 'light suggestion' it seems from the 'debes considerar' examples. Do you see any of the 'debes considerar' examples from Google that have 'any obligation' implied? That's my main point.

But the concession I need to make here is that it seems that both 'debes' and  'must' can transmit "..light suggestion ---->strong obligation.."

That's the part where I may have been pushing back too hard wanting to make too staunch a distinction. 

Let me just say that 'light suggestion' is more common in English as 'should'. When 'debes' is transmitting 'obligation' - use 'must' or 'have to' - when it's transmitting a lighter suggestion as in 'debes considerar' -- prefer 'should' -- but 'must' is fine too - but not 'have to'.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

I'll try to think more of this in the future, but right now I can tell you that those advertising examples in Spanish could also say "deberías":

_5 cosas que deberías tener en cuenta antes de comprarte una radio._

In Spanish "tener en cuenta" is more normal than "considerar". Both are common anyhow.

Most of those entries seem to be advertisements, and there may be a tendency in English for "should" and in Spanish for "debes". The idea in all these cases is clear, isn't it? And in other cases "must" and "should" (and debes/deberías) are not interchangeable, like in the examples LaMachy gave us.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Most of those entries seem to be advertisements, and there may be a tendency in English for "should" and in Spanish for "debes". The idea in all these cases is clear, isn't it? And in other cases "must" and "should" (and debes/deberías) are not interchangeable, like in the examples LaMachy gave us.


 Yes!!! Agreed totally!! 





Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Hey Grant, thanks again for your contributions.  However on this point I must disagree.
> 
> I think the distinction you see between internal and external obligation is a little off base.  As I see it the use of _debes_ in the examples you have given above *could* be replaced by _tienes que _without changing the meaning.  Furthermore, I think that those sentences could be translated into English using _must_ or _have to._


Though I've been making too staunch a distinction in both English and Spanish the dictionaries in Spanish and English make clear that they aren't synonymous words in either language. But I agree there is a lot or room for transmitting different varying degrees with each of them. That's what makes it hard.

What I wanted English speakers learning Spanish to understand about 'deber' in the present tense is that there many, many cases where 'should' is the more natural translation to English and not 'must' or 'have to'. That's what the grammar books really miss both the ones written for Spanish-speakers learning English and the English-authored Spanish grammar books.

But the most important nugget of this thread in my humble opinion, that hasn't yet been uncovered in the other 'deber' threads yet, is the use of 'debía' and its translations to English.

We're indebted to you Bocha and Ynez and the rest of the natives.

Grant


----------



## SevenDays

Hello

This is a long threat, and my observations, by now, may be irrelevant, obvious, or they may have already been made. 

In general, the construction _deber + infinitive _has built-in _obligation_ that the action of the infinitive verb must be carried out. _Tener que_ is a synonym and thus interchangeable. Whether to use one or the other is a choice. I don’t recall the teachers at Colegio De La Salle ever saying that the choice is governed by formality, degree of obligation, or by an obligation that is external or internal, but perhaps the teaching of Spanish has changed over the past three decades. 

_Debimos/tuvimos que ir a la fiesta_
_We had to go to the party_

This is not a rule carved in stone by a Higher Authority. In some cases, logic tells you there is no _obligation_ involved:

_Tienes que tomar leche para fortalecer tus huesos. (Necesitas tomar leche, pero no es obligación.)._
_Veo que Carlos corre por mi vecindario todas las mañanas. Debe vivir cerca. (Probablemente vive cerca. No es obligación que viva cerca )_

At times, the “have to” sense of _tener que_ takes precedence over _deber_:
_Alejandra tuvo que caminar porque perdió la micro._
Alejandra didn’t have an internal or external obligation to walk; she _had to_ walk because she missed the bus. 

Often, only context can you tell you what is meant, and context can only be provided by the writer, or by the speaker through voice inflection:

_El remedio debe estar en la mesa de la cocina._
Obligation: The medicine must be on the kitchen table (so that my dad remembers to take it with breakfast). 
Assumption: The medicine should be on the table (that’s where I left it in the morning, so I assume it’s still there).

If the intent is a_ suggestion_ rather than an _obligation_, then the conditional is used:

_Deberías_ _ir a la fiesta_
_You should go to the party._

In general, the construction, _deber + haber + verb_ (or _tienes que + haber + verb)_ means _supposition_:

_Alejandra debió haber ido a la fiesta cuando estaba durmiendo._ 
Alejandra didn’t have an obligation to go to the party while I was sleeping. I assume she must have gone to the party while I was sleeping. 

Again, rules can only take you so far. Often, only context, intent, logic, etc. can tell you what the speaker/writer actually means and whether “must,” “should,” have to,” etc. best fits in the translation, as LaMachy, Ynez, and Bocha have already pointed out. 

(An entirely separate issue is the use of “_deber_” and “_deber de.” _Strictly speaking, _deber _means “obligation” and _deber de_ means “possibility,” but the “_de_” in _deber de _is increasingly becoming optional in many contexts.)

Cheers


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> 
> This is a long threat, and my observations, by now, may be irrelevant, obvious, or they may have already been made.
> 
> In general, the construction _deber + infinitive _has built-in _obligation_ that the action of the infinitive verb must be carried out.  _Tener que_ is a synonym and thus interchangeable.  Whether to use one or the other is a choice.  I don’t recall the teachers at Colegio De La Salle ever saying that the choice is governed by formality, degree of obligation, or by an obligation that is external or internal, but perhaps the teaching of Spanish has changed over the past three decades.
> 
> _Debimos/tuvimos que ir a la fiesta_
> _We had to go to the party_
> 
> This is not a rule carved in stone by a Higher Authority.  In some cases, logic tells you there is no _obligation_ involved:
> 
> _Tienes que tomar leche para fortalecer tus huesos. (Necesitas tomar leche, pero no es obligación.)._
> _Veo que Carlos corre por mi vecindario todas las mañanas. Debe vivir cerca. (Probablemente vive cerca. No es obligación que viva cerca )_
> 
> At times, the “have to” sense of _tener que_ takes precedence over _deber_:
> _Alejandra tuvo que caminar porque perdió la micro._
> Alejandra didn’t have an internal or external obligation to walk; she _had to_ walk because she missed the bus.
> 
> Often, only context can you tell you what is meant, and context can only be provided by the writer, or by the speaker through voice inflection:
> 
> _El remedio debe estar en la mesa de la cocina._
> Obligation: The medicine must be on the kitchen table (so that my dad remembers to take it with breakfast).
> Assumption: The medicine should be on the table (that’s where I left it in the morning, so I assume it’s still there).
> 
> If the intent is a_ suggestion_ rather than an _obligation_, then the conditional is used:
> 
> _Deberías_ _ir a la fiesta_
> _You should go to the party._
> 
> In general, the construction, _deber + haber + verb_ (or _tienes que + haber + verb)_ means _supposition_:
> 
> _Alejandra debió haber ido a la fiesta cuando estaba durmiendo._
> Alejandra didn’t have an obligation to go to the party while I was sleeping. I assume she must have gone to the party while I was sleeping.
> 
> Again, rules can only take you so far.  Often, only context, intent, logic, etc. can tell you what the speaker/writer actually means and whether “must,” “should,” have to,” etc. best fits in the translation, as LaMachita, Ynez, and Bocha have already pointed out.
> 
> (An entirely separate issue is the use of “_deber_” and “_deber de.”  _Strictly speaking, _deber _means “obligation” and _deber de_ means “possibility,” but the “_de_” in _deber de _is increasingly becoming optional in many contexts.)
> 
> Cheers



Hola, SevenDays, thanks for your explanations.  This whole subject is fairly complex given that there are so many concepts involved:  suggestion, obligation, supposition, probability, etc.  But every contribution helps to make it clearer.

You said "if the intent is a_ suggestion_ rather than an _obligation_, then the conditional is used".  But isn't it possible to use other forms as well?  Especially when talking about what should have been done in the past?  Bocha and Ynez confirmed that the following forms could also be used:

_Debiste (ir a la fiesta)
Debías haber (ido a la fiesta)
Debiste haber (ido a la fiesta)
Hubieras (ido a la fiesta)_

So, while _deberías haber ido _might be the most common form to use it doesn't seem to be the only choice.  Is it that these other forms are correct, but just aren't used as much?  

The problem is that I encounter these forms fairly often when I read and would like to better understand how a native speaker chooses between these various forms. 

Gracias de antemano.


----------



## SevenDays

Hola Aspirante a Políglota:
 
Oh, absolutely.  I agree with Bocha and Inez.  Your examples sound perfectly natural as suggestions of things that should have been done in the past.  You certainly are not required to use the conditional and only the conditional to express suggestion.  Other forms may be used as well.  My rules, such as they are, are not rigid.  Context, for example, matters.  I too think _deberías haber ido_ sounds most natural, but that doesn’t mean your other examples are wrong or not used as much.   
 
I know you want to understand how your examples are used, and how one chooses one verb structure over the others.  That’s tough.  I suppose that, to make a suggestion you should have gone to the party, knowing that you could have gone, I would use some form of the indicative: _debiste, debías haber ido, or debiste haber ido a la fiesta_.  (If the suggestion refers to some undefined period in the past, I would probably use either of the _haber_ forms.) To express a suggestion that you should have gone to the party, not knowing whether you could have gone, I would use the subjunctive: _hubieras ido a la fiesta._  But I wouldn’t argue my thinking provides the best or even an adequate rationalization for your examples; it may very well be that I’m guilty of overanalyzing this topic.      
 
Hope I’m not confusing you….
Cheers


----------



## Ynez

I think we are recommending "Deberías haber ido" not because it is the best or the most natural, but because it is the clearest and less confusing; because it has less meanings than the rest. 

For instance, I already told you I'd personally use "Tenías que haber ido", but that phrase could also be used for real obligation. I just know that I will use the right intonation to make clear that my meaning is "oh, it's a pity you didn't go to the party". If you are not sure of intonation, "deberías haber ido" is a safe option.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I think we are recommending "Deberías haber ido" not because it is the best or the most natural, but because it is the clearest and less confusing; because it has less meanings than the rest.
> 
> For instance, I already told you I'd personally use "Tenías que haber ido", but that phrase could also be used for real obligation. I just know that I will use the right intonation to make clear that my meaning is "oh, it's a pity you didn't go to the party". If you are not sure of intonation, "deberías haber ido" is a safe option.


We all *love* the safe options.  Thanks!


----------



## NewdestinyX

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> 
> _El remedio debe estar en la mesa de la cocina._
> Obligation: The medicine must be on the kitchen table (so that my dad remembers to take it with breakfast).
> Assumption: The medicine should be on the table (that’s where I left it in the morning, so I assume it’s still there).


Thanks 7days for your input!. Your examples there should really be 'debe de estar' for the 'assumption' meaning to carry according to the 'RAE'. It's so hard for non natives to catch on when the natives don't even follow their own rules..  But of course we break our rules in English too. Your example there is compelling.. Will context always dispel the ambiguity? I sometimes wonder. If there is any ambiguity -- wouldn't 'tener que' be used in the first example to 'dispel' the ambiguity?

I will admit that I almost had and epiphany today as I considered how much easier the topic gets if you consider 'deber and tener que' equal with regard to denoting obligation -- and consider 'debería' the exception to the rule as it is 'a suggestion'. Wow.. if that's the case.... then his topic gets 'way' easier... 

Grant


----------



## Ynez

Grant, I already pasted what the RAE says about *deber/deber de*. It is always correct without "de". I also remember that in the past we were talking about this and I told you there is the same ambiguity as there is in English (zero).

Imagine again that you have to use a different "must" (like "must to" or anything you can invent) for "It must be true" and another one for "I must go". That's what we are supposed to do in Spanish, and what we, in general, don't do.

Yes, Spanish must be really difficult, like English is for us , but this grammar point should not be too difficult...it is not so different from English.


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

Thank you everyone for your continued help.

I guess the reason this issue is a little confusing for native English speakers is because in English there are really only two possibilities that can be used to suggest what someone _should have done_ in the past:  _you ought to have_ and _you should have_.  I honestly can't think of any other way to say it in English.  What's more, I almost never use the first one, because it sounds slightly more formal to my ears and just isn't used that much where I live.  So, 99% of the time I use one phrase:  _you should have_.  That's it.

When we express supposition or probability in the past we use _must have_--i.e. _he must have already left_.  And _must have_ is only used for supposition, not to make a suggestion of what someone should have done.

In Spanish we have around half a dozen different possibilities with _deber _alone.  Then we have to consider all the forms with _tener que_.  Well, I think it's easy to see why this leads to confusion for native English speakers.

I have been mostly ignoring the forms with _tener que_ in this thread simply because the subject is already confusing enough considering _deber_ alone.

I understand that all the forms I listed in my previous post can be synonyms in the right contexts and given the right tone of voice when speaking, but there must be some differences, no matter how subtle they might be.  The examples and explanations given by Ynez, Bocha, SevenDays and other native speakers really has helped to shed light on some of these differences, but I'm still searching for more clarity on a couple of points.

When reading I always got the feeling that _debiste + infinitivo _implied a slightly stronger sense of obligation than _deberías haber + participio pasado_.  That is, _no debiste golpearla_ sounds stronger to me than _no deberías haberla golpeado_.  I don't know if there is any truth to that, but that is the sense I have got from all the reading I have done.  Could someone please tell me if there is any truth to this?

Thank you so much guys.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Grant, I already pasted what the RAE says about *deber/deber de*. It is always correct without "de".


Yes you did. Thanks. The DPD represents a departure by the RAE from its past grammars on this topic and many other (they never used to accept 'con tal que' and now they do, etc). Be that as it may. We must accept what they say now about this topic.



> I also remember that in the past we were talking about this and I told you there is the same ambiguity as there is in English (zero).


Yes we did. But, with respect, I don't find that to be the case universally otherwise this thread would be ridiculous and unnecessary. "Sevendays'" example below is a perfect case study. The 'words' themselves are 'ambiguous'. 


> _El remedio debe estar en la mesa de la cocina._
> Obligation: The medicine must be on the kitchen table (so that my dad remembers to take it with breakfast).
> Assumption: The medicine should be on the table (that’s where I left it in the morning, so I assume it’s still there).


Without the 'de' - we don't know which meaning is to be understood. Now I would agree that the two people conversing would likely know the context -- and that would dispel the ambiguity. But I have read many an article and felt just like Aspirante.. It was 'not' clear which meaning was intended -- at least with the 'deber' versus 'deber de'. And Debía is still difficult and not clear in all its uses. I respect that for you as a native speaker, it's never ambiguous. But there's no simple mechanism in the language to dispel the ambiguity. In English there's zero ambiguity because we only use one perafrasis for 'supposition in past' - must have , one for 'past obligation' = should have, etc.. ;-)
 


> Yes, Spanish must be really difficult, like English is for us , but this grammar point should not be too difficult...it is not so different from English.


Maybe..


----------



## GARRAS

Hola a todos,
interesante este hilo!  Llevo poco escribiendo en los forum y he quedado alucinado de el nivel de detalle que gastáis. Permitidme que os escriba en castellano pues el vuestro es casi perfecto, no así mi inglés.  En España usaríamos una expresión que es: *estáis rizando el rizo*
Creo que tenéis un conocimiento de estas formas verbales casi mayor que nosotros mismos, nativos. Yo me he perdido al final con tantos matices. Creo que olvidamos el importante papel del contexto y si atendemos a como habla la gente, muchas de las diferencias son irrelevantes. Obviamente algunas formas de las que habláis no son intercambiables sobre todo: presente, pretérito perfecto simple, pretérito imperfecto, futuro y condicional, así como formas de indicativo y subjuntivo.

*Yo debo comprarle un regalo *
*Yo debería comprarle un regalo (menos obligación)*
*Yo debía comprarle un regalo *
*Yo debí comprarle un regalo*
*Yo deberé comprarle un regalo*

*Que yo debiera/debiese comprarle un regalo*
*Que yo deba comprarle un regalo*

  Sin embargo, formas compuestas y simples son a menudo intercambiables cuando las últimas se refieren al pasado.

*Debí comprarle un regalo* es muy parecida a debí *haberle comprado un regalo* y me resulta difícil encontrar en que contexto la una es mejor que la otra (desde un punto de vista formal seguramente hay diferencias)

  Incluso me atrevería a decir que a la hora de usar debes, deberías o tienes que en el lenguaje coloquial se intercambian de manera relajada teniendo que atender al contexto o sino explicitar de otro modo el grado de obligación (esto quizás tenga que ver con la cultura):

  Un amigo le dice a otro* tienes que ir al concierto. *Formalmente puede implicar obligación pero obviamente no la tiene y *deberías ir al concierto *puede tener un significado similar. El uso de uno u otro en este contexto puede tener que ver más con factores ajenos a la formalidad (forma de ser del hablante, nivel de confianza, región geográfica,…). Si realmente quisiéramos que nuestro amigo fuera le presionaríamos de otro modo que usando tienes que o debería (insistiríamos, diríamos que es el concierto de nuestra vida y no tenemos con quien ir o directamente le pagaríamos la entrada y las cervezas). Quizás es un tema cultural.

  Un jefe le dice a un empleado *deberías tener este trabajo para el lunes. *Aunque implica un menor grado de obligación, seguramente *tienes que tener el trabajo* para el lunes, el jefe simplemente está siendo amable lo que no quiere decir que no se vaya a enfadar si no lo tienes. Una vez más el uso de uno u otro en este contexto puede tener que ver más con factores ajenos a la formalidad (forma de ser del hablante, nivel de confianza, región geográfica,…). Si el jefe no necesita el trabajo para el lunes seguramente diría algo como*: intenta tenerlo para el lunes*, e incluso añadiría *sino no pasa nada.*


  En todo caso hablo de uso y no de forma (no soy un experto y me habéis puesto en un  aprieto con vuestro conocimiento). Seguramente necesitaríais un lingüista para poder resolver las dudas más formalmente y luego tendría poco efecto en la calle
  En cualquier caso es mi humilde opinión. Estaría bien saber que opinan otros nativos.

  Cosas de las que estoy más seguro:

*Debías* nunca lo escuche para el futuro ni para el presente, como bien indica New debías es siempre pasado (yo soy de Madrid y vivo en Barcelona, no sé en otras regiones, pero formalmente no sería correcto)

  Respecto al último post:
*Debí haber dejado* vs *debí de haber dejado* 
  Y *debí dejar* vs *debí de dejar* 

  La regla que bien conoces (New) sirve igual para las formas compuestas que para las simples. Si hay un *de* implica conjetura, nunca obligación. Sin embargo es frecuente que en el uso diario las intercambiemos aunque es un error.

  Espero haber aportado algo, aunque no se si sólo os interesaba los usos formales. La idea que he intentado transmitiros es: si de hablar en el día a día es de lo que se trata muchas de las distinciones carecen de utilidad. Hay factores como el contexto que son más importantes en algunos casos (por ejemplo tener que y debería) y muchos nativos no usarían correctamente muchas de las formas adecuadas (y no me refiero sólo a gente que habla mal, sino en general)

  Ciao
  Miguel


----------



## GARRAS

Perdón os solté un rollo y no me di cuenta que había muchos más post. No sé si mis notas son relevantes o alguien ya comentó algo parecido.
sorry


----------



## NewdestinyX

GARRAS said:


> Hola a todos,
> interesante este hilo!
> 
> Espero haber aportado algo, aunque no se si sólo os interesaba los usos formales. La idea que he intentado transmitiros es: si de hablar en el día a día es de lo que se trata muchas de las distinciones carecen de utilidad. Hay factores como el contexto que son más importantes en algunos casos (por ejemplo tener que y debería) y muchos nativos no usarían correctamente muchas de las formas adecuadas (y no me refiero sólo a gente que habla mal, sino en general)
> 
> Ciao
> Miguel


Muchas gracias, Miguel, por tus comentarios. Es interesante tu opinión sobre esto de 'debías'. Parece que algunos compañeros españoles tuyos no coinciden contigo. Pero bueno.. Estoy aprendiendo mucho. Gracias a todos.

Grant


----------



## Aspirante a Políglota

GARRAS said:


> Hola a todos,
> interesante este hilo!  Llevo poco escribiendo en los forum y he quedado alucinado de el nivel de detalle que gastáis. Permitidme que os escriba en castellano pues el vuestro es casi perfecto, no así mi inglés.  En España usaríamos una expresión que es: *estáis rizando el rizo*
> Creo que tenéis un conocimiento de estas formas verbales casi mayor que nosotros mismos, nativos. Yo me he perdido al final con tantos matices. Creo que olvidamos el importante papel del contexto y si atendemos a como habla la gente, muchas de las diferencias son irrelevantes. Obviamente algunas formas de las que habláis no son intercambiables sobre todo: presente, pretérito perfecto simple, pretérito imperfecto, futuro y condicional, así como formas de indicativo y subjuntivo.
> 
> *Yo debo comprarle un regalo *
> *Yo debería comprarle un regalo (menos obligación)*
> *Yo debía comprarle un regalo *
> *Yo debí comprarle un regalo*
> *Yo deberé comprarle un regalo*
> 
> *Que yo debiera/debiese comprarle un regalo*
> *Que yo deba comprarle un regalo*
> 
> Sin embargo, formas compuestas y simples son a menudo intercambiables cuando las últimas se refieren al pasado.
> 
> *Debí comprarle un regalo* es muy parecida a debí *haberle comprado un regalo* y me resulta difícil encontrar en que contexto la una es mejor que la otra (desde un punto de vista formal seguramente hay diferencias)
> 
> Incluso me atrevería a decir que a la hora de usar debes, deberías o tienes que en el lenguaje coloquial se intercambian de manera relajada teniendo que atender al contexto o sino explicitar de otro modo el grado de obligación (esto quizás tenga que ver con la cultura):
> 
> Un amigo le dice a otro* tienes que ir al concierto. *Formalmente puede implicar obligación pero obviamente no la tiene y *deberías ir al concierto *puede tener un significado similar. El uso de uno u otro en este contexto puede tener que ver más con factores ajenos a la formalidad (forma de ser del hablante, nivel de confianza, región geográfica,…). Si realmente quisiéramos que nuestro amigo fuera le presionaríamos de otro modo que usando tienes que o debería (insistiríamos, diríamos que es el concierto de nuestra vida y no tenemos con quien ir o directamente le pagaríamos la entrada y las cervezas). Quizás es un tema cultural.
> 
> Un jefe le dice a un empleado *deberías tener este trabajo para el lunes. *Aunque implica un menor grado de obligación, seguramente *tienes que tener el trabajo* para el lunes, el jefe simplemente está siendo amable lo que no quiere decir que no se vaya a enfadar si no lo tienes. Una vez más el uso de uno u otro en este contexto puede tener que ver más con factores ajenos a la formalidad (forma de ser del hablante, nivel de confianza, región geográfica,…). Si el jefe no necesita el trabajo para el lunes seguramente diría algo como*: intenta tenerlo para el lunes*, e incluso añadiría *sino no pasa nada.*
> 
> 
> En todo caso hablo de uso y no de forma (no soy un experto y me habéis puesto en un  aprieto con vuestro conocimiento). Seguramente necesitaríais un lingüista para poder resolver las dudas más formalmente y luego tendría poco efecto en la calle
> En cualquier caso es mi humilde opinión. Estaría bien saber que opinan otros nativos.
> 
> Cosas de las que estoy más seguro:
> 
> *Debías* nunca lo escuche para el futuro ni para el presente, como bien indica New debías es siempre pasado (yo soy de Madrid y vivo en Barcelona, no sé en otras regiones, pero formalmente no sería correcto)
> 
> Respecto al último post:
> *Debí haber dejado* vs *debí de haber dejado*
> Y *debí dejar* vs *debí de dejar*
> 
> La regla que bien conoces (New) sirve igual para las formas compuestas que para las simples. Si hay un *de* implica conjetura, nunca obligación. Sin embargo es frecuente que en el uso diario las intercambiemos aunque es un error.
> 
> Espero haber aportado algo, aunque no se si sólo os interesaba los usos formales. La idea que he intentado transmitiros es: si de hablar en el día a día es de lo que se trata muchas de las distinciones carecen de utilidad. Hay factores como el contexto que son más importantes en algunos casos (por ejemplo tener que y debería) y muchos nativos no usarían correctamente muchas de las formas adecuadas (y no me refiero sólo a gente que habla mal, sino en general)
> 
> Ciao
> Miguel



Sí, GARRAS, has aportado algo muy útil, te lo agradezco.

Entonces ¿no crees que _no debiste golpearla _implique un mayor grado de "obligación" (o una sugerencia) que _no deberías haberla golpeado?  

_Gracias.


----------



## Ynez

Aspirante, es difícil dar una respuesta definitiva para estas cosas, pero si hay que dar una, te diré que sí, que "debiste" puede tener más fuerza que "deberías haber". Pero la fuerza real la da el contexto.

_No debiste hacerlo.
No deberías haberlo hecho._

Las dos se podrían utilizar para decírselo a alguien que ahora ha ido a la cárcel por lo que hizo.

Grant, la verdad es que tan fácil no puede ser, claro. Yo más bien me refería a que siempre suele haber una opción cercana al inglés. Hay otras posibilidades, pero en inglés también hay miles de maneras de decir cada una de estas cosillas, aunque en algunos casos se digan ya sin verbos modales.


La frase que nos puso Sevendays podría ser en inglés:

_The medicine must be on the kitchen table.
The medicine must be on the kitchen table._

Sabríamos cuál es el significado por el contexto.


----------



## GARRAS

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Sí, GARRAS, has aportado algo muy útil, te lo agradezco.
> 
> Entonces ¿no crees que _no debiste golpearla _implique un mayor grado de "obligación" (o una sugerencia) que _no deberías haberla golpeado?
> 
> _Gracias.



Estoy de cauerdo con Ynez, formalmente implica un mayor grado de obligación, pero al ser usada por los hablantes el contexto tiene una mayor importancia. La gente las usa indistintamente y si nos guiamos sólo por aspectos formales nos llevaría a errores la mayor parte de las veces

creo que es complicado y simple a la vez. 

Yo en mi ejemplo del amigo y el profe utilizé deberías y tener que para que quedará más claro, pues en teoría ambas están más alejadas en el grado de obligación y sin embargo el contexto las puede hacer intercambiar igual


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Grant, la verdad es que tan fácil no puede ser, claro. Yo más bien me refería a que siempre suele haber una opción cercana al inglés. Hay otras posibilidades, pero en inglés también hay miles de maneras de decir cada una de estas cosillas, aunque en algunos casos se digan ya sin verbos modales.


Yes.. Thanks Ynez.. I think what I'm learning in this go-around with 'deber' is that context is really needed 'way more' with 'deber' than with other verbs/modal verbs because the 'words alone' don't make a distinction. I still maintain that English is clearer with the words alone in making the distinction bewteen supposition and obligation and in projecting the difference between suggestion and obligation. It's more "cut and dried". 




> La frase que nos puso Sevendays podría ser en inglés:
> 
> _The medicine must be on the kitchen table.
> The medicine must be on the kitchen table._


 Well I can't agree with you here. In English we would never use 'must' for the context where his mother 'has to' take the medication at a certain point. Mainly because 'must' is a more formal tone and older sounding word when referring to obligation. In English we'd make the distinction with a difference in 'word choice'. We'd use 'has to be/needs to be' in the one context and 'must be' in the supposition context. 'Must be' has some use for obligation -- but so much smaller than its supposition use. And 'must have been' is 'only' supposition.. 

But your overall point that 'context is everything' I surely agree with. I think there is great chance for ambiguity (in the words alone) in Spanish than there is in English in communicating: obligation, supposition, suggestion.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

I thought "must" was with the meaning of "has to" in the following examples from google:

"the medicine must be in the"

_The medicine must be in the medicine containers with the prescription or store label on it. 

The medicine must be in the original bottle

The medicine must be in the original container with the label on it

The medicine must be in the packaging that is was prescribed in

If you intend for your child to self-medicate, the medicine must be in the original container with the prescription information on it.

The medicine must be in the original container labeled with the child’s full name and the date brought to the Second Baptist Preschool

 The medicine must be in the original container ...

The medicine must be in the original container and delivered to the principal or school nurse by the parent. 

The medicine must be in the original container with specific instructions for the child whom it is prescribed for.
_


All the examples on the first google page. They are from English speaking countries.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I thought "must" was with the meaning of "has to" in the following examples from google:
> 
> "the medicine must be in the"
> 
> _The medicine must be in the medicine containers with the prescription or store label on it.
> 
> The medicine must be in the original bottle
> _


Ynez, I acknowledged several posts ago that 'must' is used in more formal settings. Most of those examples from Googleare official written notice from the companies about how to use their products. "Must" will be used in those documents commonly because of their formality. 

The example SevenDays gave was from an 'informal conversation'. I must ask you to believe me when I offer that 'must' would not be used in the 'medicine context' that SevenDays posed - or at best, it would sound forced in conversational English.

_Ahora voy empezando a sentir algo de frustración...  - pero bueno.. ._. 

Gracias Ynez por los desafíos.. Tus argumentos hacen que yo piense de mi idioma con más cuidado.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> I must ask you to believe me when...



Grant, you should realize that of the "medicine on the table" was just an example...it is simply not normal to ask people to have the medicine on the table either in formal or informal language, English or Spanish.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Grant, you should realize that of with regard to the "medicine on the table", it was just an example...it is simply not normal to ask people to have the medicine on the table either in formal or informal language, English or Spanish.


Interesting. The thread was closed for a while and now opened again. Okay -- then.. I'll post my challenge here that I recently sent in PM.

7Days' sentence wasn't 'asking them' to 'have' it on the table - it was placing the obligation upon them to 'make sure' it was on the table -- and that would be a perfectly normal context in English or Spanish... So it was either a supposition or a statement of how something needed to be; ambiguous in the words, alone, in Spanish - but not ambiguous in English since we'd use different words to express one or the other of the contexts.

My final point here if it's allowed --

If we want to say that there is the 'same clarity' in both languages with context - I agree.

If we want however to pose that there is the same 'lack of clarity' without context in both languages.. I would say -- English is way more clear in its use of the modals, in the words alone, for obligation or suggestion or supposition.

¿Qué me falta?

Grant


----------



## Ynez

> Grant, you should realize that of the "medicine on the table" was just an example






> Grant, you should realize that of with regard to the "medicine on the table", it was just an example...



I didn't make any comment on this in my previous answer, but I will here now.  

I can see my sentence was poorly expressed, but I meant _that of the "medicine on the table"_ as the subject of the sentence. I was not using "that" as a relative pronoun" (_that *example* of the medicine on the table_). Thanks for correcting me, anyhow. Please, do so. But I am interested to know what you think if you see it from this new angle.

Regarding your other questions, you know I don't know what to say at the moment. Maybe tomorrow I can think of something.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I didn't make any comment on this in my previous answer, but I will here now.
> 
> 
> 
> Grant, you should realize that of the "medicine on the table" was just an example
> 
> 
> 
> I can see my sentence was poorly expressed, but I meant _that of the "medicine on the table"_ as the subject of the sentence. I was not using "that" as a relative pronoun" (_that *example* of the medicine on the table_). Thanks for correcting me, anyhow. Please, do so. But I am interested to know what you think if you see it from this new angle.
Click to expand...

Hi Ynez. Using 'that of..." as a subject doesn't quite work in English. At least not easily. It seems like a direct translation attempt of 'lo de' or 'eso de'.. which won't work. If you want that whole phrase to be a subject (therefore not needing 'it' before 'was') then you have to/should D) use something like you put in parentheses above. 
"That _*example*_ of 'the medicine on the table' was....."

You can't express the phrase as a subject without 'example' or some noun 'between' "that" and "of". You can eliminate the noun in Spanish (since 'lo' = that thing about - which includes the 'noun' in the concept of 'lo') but not in English. English and Spanish both have many 'ellipsis' possibilities where a word/concept, understood by all, can be dropped and still carry meaning. But 'lo de/eso de' can't be translated to 'that of'. 'Lo de' takes several words to translate to English.  just like 'aprovecharse de' does -- and other words from Spanish that need several words in English to express.

As I think about it a little more -- 'that of' can be used in English but it only seems to work as a predicative nominative (I think) in something like --
"The idea he specified was *that of* many different nations trying the project together."

I hope that's clear..
Grant


----------



## Ynez

Muchas gracias.


----------



## Cerros de Úbeda

Aspirante a Políglota said:


> Lo que pasa es que existen tantas posibilidades y como el español no es mi lengua materna a veces tengo dudas acerca de qué forma sea más adecuada.




Hay dos usos del verbo "deber" con significados claramente distintos, "deber" (= obligación, responsabilidad), y "deber de" (= deducción; posibilidad, probabilidad):


1- Deber => Obligación
(En distintos grados de intensidad; responsabilidad, obligación)
- Must / To have to + inf 
(Need / Want to + inf)

2- Deber de => Probabilidad / Deducción
(Probabilidad - En sus distintos grados, desde "Posibilidad", a "Probabilidad")
(Deducción - La probabilidad vista por el hablante, desde un plano subjetivo; el cálculo o la expresión de la probabilidad, desde la "suposición", al "cálculo", pasando por la "deducción")
- May / Must 


(*) NOTA
1- Debes / Debe de
Hay que destacar cómo "deber" suele ir dirigido a una persona concreta, normalmente "tú" (la segunda persona de singular), mientras que el "deber de" suele tener un sujeto impersonal, o no personal (porque habla de la hora o el tiempo, y si no de una cosa), por lo que el verbo suele estar en tercera persona de singular; "Debe de..."

2- Ser / Verbos activos 
Obsérvese que "deber de" normalmente va seguido de "ser", o un verbo de significado parecido. No verbos activos, de acción, como "deber", sino más bien de 'estado', 'situación' (para hablar de la hora, el tiempo, cálculos, etc).


*(1)  OBLIGACIÓN*

- *Debes ayudarme* a hacer esto
- *You must help me* to do this.

- *Debes decirme* a qué hora vas a venir, si quieres que te espere.
- *You must tell me* what time you're going to come, if you want me to wait for you.

- *Debes rellenar* el impreso
- *You need to fill in* the form.


*(2)  DEDUCCIÓN*

- *Deben de ser* las tres.  (Time)
- *It must be* three.

- *Debe de* hacer frío. Vamos a ponernos los abrigos.  (Weather)
- *It must be cold,* let's get our coats on.


- Esto *debe de costar *bastante; mira qué envoltorio más lujoso. 
- This* must be rather expensive; *look what fine wrapping.

- *Debe de ser *tu hermano quien llamó; le conozco la forma de llamar.
*- It must be *your brother that knocked; I recognise his way of calling.


Estas son las dos formas básicas. Después, en el uso, hay muchas posibilidades distintas (el condicional "deberías" (que es algo menos definitivo o tajante), o sus  variantes coloquiales "debías" / "debieras"), dependiendo de la conjugación del verbo "deber" y los distintos posibles tiempos verbales. Los que generan más confusión son el pasado, el subjuntivo, y el condicional.
Pero sus significados tienen más que ver con sus correspondientes tiempos verbales, que con el significado del "deber" per se.


----------

