# I would have had to leave



## ALEX1981X

Salve a tutti


Da un articolo di giornale ho letto il commento di un politico:

"*I would have had to leave the administration over this bill*," said the  former Democratic National Committee chairman a few days before the  reform measure was passed by the House. "I think the reason I wasn't on  the inside is that it was very predictable that I was going to be much  more reform-minded."

La frase in grassetto sarebbe: Avrei dovuto lasciare l'amministrazione durante/ dopo il progetto di legge/mandato ??

E' corretta?

Un ultima curiosità  :

In questo contesto sarebbe stata giusto anche usare "I should have left the administration..." invece della struttura con Would ?..Rappresenta sempre un Dovere o no ? (magari con Would sarebbe un dovere più "sentito" dal politico che imposto da terzi)  


Grazie a tutti


----------



## phillyitalianstudent

"*I would have had to leave the administration over this bill*," said the former Democratic National Committee chairman a few days before the reform measure was passed by the House. "I think the reason I wasn't on the inside is that it was very predictable that I was going to be much more reform-minded."

My interpretation:  the congressman favored a bill that called for a lot of reforms.  If the proposed bill did not include a sufficient amount of reforms, he would have considered it his moral duty to leave the government.


----------



## TrentinaNE

ALEX1981X said:


> Un ultima curiosità  :
> 
> In questo contesto sarebbe stata giusto anche usare "I should have left the administration..." invece della struttura con Would ?..Rappresenta sempre un Dovere o no ? (magari con Would sarebbe un dovere più "sentito" dal politico che imposto da terzi)


Non sono uguale. "would have had to" indicates a personal feeling/preference not a responsiblity.

Elisabetta


----------



## CPA

Il significato,_ credo_, è che lui si sarebbe sentito in dovere di dimettersi a causa di questo progetto di legge che probabilmente non lo soddisfaceva. Infatti, non lo avevano coinvolto nell'elaborazione del progetto perché si sapeva che lui propendeva per delle riforme molto più incisive. 

Ho tirato a indovinare. Aspetta altri pareri...


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ok ragazzi sostanzialmente voi tutti avete ragionato nello stesso modo

Cioè: la struttura WOULD HAVE HAD TO viene usata più per esprimere un dovere morale/personale di chi parla o anche una necessità personale.D'altronde la presenza di Will/would trasmette maggiormente la volontà/spontaneità di chi parla più che con Shall/should che tende più ad esprimere un Dovere    Può essere corretto il ragionamento??

Mentre appunto la forma con Should implicherebbe più "duty/strong advice" from the outside (magari imposto/consigliato dalla compagine di governo o da terzi)

Quindi quando è un dovere o un qualcosa che, quando parliamo, ci sentiamo "personalmente" obbligati a fare è meglio usare Would ? Ho capito bene?



Grazie a tutti


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Non proprio, Alex. Prendi questi due enunciati:
1. _Se (tu) accettassi quel lavoro a NY_ you would have to find an apartment in town. (la necessità di trovar casa dipende dalle circostanze: ne è la logica conseguenza—ti troveresti a dover....)
2._ Dato che hai deciso di andare a lavorare a N_Y you should try to find an apartment in town (la necessità la creo io che parlo, dandoti il consiglio di cercarti casa—faresti bene a...).
Noterai che in entrambi i casi si tratta comunque di un "dovresti", ma nel primo caso colui che parla "non mette becco" se non per farmi notare cosa discenderebbe da certe scelte. Nel secondo caso invece la persona che parla "mette becco" nel senso che, consapevole della sua autorevolezza, dall'ascendente sull'interlocutore,ecc. sente di dover "consigliare" una certa condotta.
Non è facile dire quale delle due costruzioni sia più "forte": se è innegabile che SHOULD segnala la forte presenza del parlante, è innegabile che la struttura WOULD HAVE ha dalla sua la "forza delle circostanze".
Spero di essermi spiegato.


----------



## Einstein

Aggiungo:
*I should have done it*: it was necessary but I didn't do it.
*I would have had to do it*: in a hypothetical situation it would have been necessary (but in reality it wasn't).

In both cases the translation is _Avrei dovuto farlo._


----------



## ALEX1981X

Quindi..
we use Should have done   in this context when we want to talk about *past events that                did not happen*, but *should have happened whereas *Would have had to* when we talk about a past conditioned necessarity (third conditional)

*Quindi il significato originario di Will/would (Volontà) e Shall/should (Dovere) non hanno alcuna influenza in questi contesti?*..

To sum up..What's the difference in meaning between these two ?

*If I  had seen him at the meeting, I would have had to ask him
If I had seen him at the meeting,I should have asked him 

Grazie a tutti*


p.s per Giorgio

*1. _Se (tu) accettassi quel lavoro a NY_ you would have to find an  apartment in town. (la necessità di trovar casa dipende dalle  circostanze: ne è la logica conseguenza—ti troveresti a dover....) In questo caso abbiamo un third conditional e non c'è nessun consiglio da parte di nessuno e nessuna volontà esplicita se non esprimere una condizione/possibilità oggettiva !

2._ Dato che hai deciso di andare a lavorare a N_Y you should try  to find an apartment in town (la necessità la creo io che parlo, dandoti  il consiglio di cercarti casa—faresti bene a...). In questo caso con Should chi parla,da un consiglio,ed esprime ad un altra persona la necessità che venga fatta qualcosa! Possiamo anche esprimerla all'interno di un Third conditional ma viene enfatizzato l'aspetto del consiglio da parte di un terzo ( il consigliere che parla)

Giorgio fammi sapere cosa ne pensi grazie


----------



## Einstein

> To sum up..What's the difference in meaning between these two?
> 1) *If I had seen him at the meeting, I would have had to ask him*
> 2) *If I had seen him at the meeting,I should have asked him*


1) Se l'avessi visto alla riunione, avrei dovuto chiederglielo (mi sarebbe stato necessario).

2) is a bit strange.
If I had seen him at the meeting, I *would* have asked him.
_Se l'avessi visto alla riunione, gliel'avrei chiesto._
You can substitute _would_ with _should_ in the first person, with no change in meaning, but it's rather elegant and old-fashioned; in general for a simple conditional we use _would_ in all persons.
_Should have_ in the sense of _avrei dovuto_ is not normally used in a hypothetical sentence; we could use it in the following sentence:
_I saw him at the meeting but didn't ask him; I should have asked him!_

A literal translation of your sentence no. 2 is:
_If I had seen him at the meeting, I should have asked him_
Se l'avessi visto alla riunione, cavolo, glielo dovevo chiedere!
... which isn't very logical.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ok Einstein

quindi Should è molto old fashion nelle ipotesi e non è proprio un dovere più marcato (mi sembra di capire)

1) *If I had seen him at the meeting, I would have had to ask him*
2) *If I had seen him at the meeting,I would have asked him*

Queste quindi hanno lo stesso significato? A parte che la prima mette più l'accento sulla necessarietà/urgenza di fare la domanda !

Ma nell'ipotesi che il mio datore di lavoro mi avesse  obbligato a fare determinate domande appena avrei visto un altro collega (per esempio) come sarebbe la questione?

Usiamo sempre Would anche se l'obbligo è più sentito oppure Should esprimerebbe meglio la situazione??


----------



## wonderment

ALEX1981X said:


> Da un articolo di giornale ho letto il commento di un politico:
> 
> "I would have had to leave the administration over this bill," said the  former Democratic National Committee chairman a few days before the  reform measure was passed by the House. "I think the reason I wasn't on  the inside is that it was very predictable that I was going to be much  more reform-minded."
> 
> La frase in grassetto sarebbe: Avrei dovuto lasciare l'amministrazione durante/ dopo il progetto di legge/mandato ??
> 
> E' corretta?


Hi Alex and everybody I agree with CPA’s interpretation. It makes most sense to see this as an implicit past conditional/hypothetical: _Avrei dovuto lasciare l'amministrazione a causa di questo progetto di legge (se non mi avesse soddisfatto). _



> In questo contesto sarebbe stata giusto anche usare "I should have left the administration..." invece della struttura con Would ?..Rappresenta sempre un Dovere o no ? (magari con Would sarebbe un dovere più "sentito" dal politico che imposto da terzi)


Generally speaking, uses of _should_ convey a sense of obligation or correctness (for which _would_ cannot be substituted). In the expression _would have had to_, what expresses obligation is _had to_, not _would have_ (have to leave = must/need to leave). 

_Would_ can express preference in certain contexts, e.g.: _given the choice between chocolate soufflé and tiramisu, I woud choose tiramisu_ *or* _given the choice between leaving and staying, I would have left._ 

On usage I give you advice from the _Oxford American Dictionary_:


> The traditional rule is that _should_ is used with first person pronouns ( _I_ and _we_), as in: _I said I should be late_, and _would_ is used with second and third persons ( _you, he, she, it, they_), as in | _you didn't say you would be late_. In practice, however, _would_ is normally used instead of _should_ in reported speech and conditional clauses: | _I said I would be late_; | _if we had known, we would have invited her._





> 1) *If I had seen him at the meeting, I would have had to ask him*
> Se l'avessi visto alla riunione, gli avrei dovuto chiedere.
> 2) *If I had seen him at the meeting,I would have asked him*
> Se l'avessi visto alla riunione, gli avrei chiesto.



HTH


----------



## Einstein

> quindi Should è molto old-fashioned nelle ipotesi e non è proprio un dovere più marcato (mi sembra di capire)
> 
> 1) *If I had seen him at the meeting, I would have had to ask him*
> 2) *If I had seen him at the meeting, I would have asked him*
> 
> Queste quindi hanno lo stesso significato?


Niente affatto! La seconda frase non contiene nessun senso di obbligo, spiega semplicemente quello che sarebbe successo se l'avessi visto.
Credo che la spiegazione di *wonderment* sia esauriente.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ok Wonderment

Hai scritto:

"Generally speaking, uses of _should_ convey a sense of obligation  or correctness (for which _would_ cannot be substituted). In the  expression _would have had to_, what expresses obligation is _had  to_, not _would have_ (have to leave = must/need to  leave)"

Quindi nel Third conditional (implicito nella frase) è obbligatorio usare Would poichè Should non è consigliato giusto? Quindi ipotesi di terzo grado con la struttura  Should non esistono? 

Quindi il politico avrebbe potuto dire?
"I should have left the administration because i wasn't satisfied of that bill but I didn't and I'm still part of the coalition"...in questo caso la presenza di Should è un obbligo/necessità che aldilà di preferenze/obblighi o tendenze personali, *andava rispettata*, ma nella realtà non è stata concretamente portata a termine 
Io intendevo sotto questo aspetto la diversità tra Should have left e Would have had to....Entrambe le forme esprimono un obbligo.  Would è più "sentito" da chi parla (una decisione presa troppo in ritardo) e Should era (a posteriori) la cosa giusta da fare. 

Potrebbe essere corretto?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Scusa, Alex, ma vedo solo ora il tuo post in cui mi chiedi cosa penso dei tuoi commenti in rosso.
Beh, le tue osservazioni iniziali sono condivisibili, ma sono un po' imbarazzato: un po' perché no sono abituato a usare la tua metalingua grammaticale (1°, 2°, 3° condizionale), e un po' perché il mio secondo esempio mi pare abbia ben poco a che fare con la condizionalità: infatti, potrei sempre dire, anche "out of the blue", "You should read Shakespeare's sonnets" (= secondo me, sarebbe una buona cosa se tu li leggessi); al contrario " You'd have to read S's sonnets" non potrei dirlo "out of the blue" perché comunque sarebbe un commento a qualcosa che è già stato detto _prima_, a qualcosa che è già _nell'aria_, del tipo " What if I decided to sit the English Lit. exam?". Sono due scenari comunicativi del tutto diversi, così come le presupposizioni sui quali si fondano, ecc.
Fammi capire se hai capito.


----------



## wonderment

ALEX1981X said:


> Quindi nel Third conditional (implicito nella frase) è obbligatorio usare Would poichè Should non è consigliato giusto? Quindi ipotesi di terzo grado con la struttura  Should non esistono?


Oh, they must exist (in rare cases, maybe in really old books?) because according to the traditional rule of usage it’s not obligatory to use _would_ with 1st person pronouns (_I_ and _we_). But this rule is so antiquated, very few people are even aware of it. Use _would_ with 2nd hypothetical and _would have_ with 3rd hypothetical, and nobody gets hurt or confused. And keep in mind that _would_ and _would have_ do not connote senses of duty or correctness.



> Quindi il politico avrebbe potuto dire?
> "I should have left the administration because i wasn't satisfied of that bill but I didn't and I'm still part of the coalition"...in questo caso la presenza di Should è un obbligo/necessità che aldilà di preferenze/obblighi o tendenze personali, *andava rispettata*, ma nella realtà non è stata concretamente portata a termine
> Io intendevo sotto questo aspetto la diversità tra Should have left e Would have had to....Entrambe le forme esprimono un obbligo.  Would è più "sentito" da chi parla (una decisione presa troppo in ritardo) e Should era (a posteriori) la cosa giusta da fare.
> 
> Potrebbe essere corretto?


1. _I should have left the administration because I wasn't satisfied with that bill._

In this context _should have_ expresses duty/correctness (la cosa giusta da fare) after the fact. (Before the fact --> _should_: _I should leave if the bill doesn’t satisfy me._) A decision was made not to leave, and the speaker now regrets this decision. Also, necessity is expressed by _have to _or _must_. _Should_ expresses senses of duty/correctness (not necessity); that’s why it’s also used in giving or asking advice (rather than in giving commands): _You should read Shakespeare’s sonnets._ 

2. _I would have had to leave the administration over this bill if it had not included a public insurance option. _

_Would have had to_ expresses a hypothetical duty/correctness in the past. A decision was never made to leave (and never needed to be made) because the situation was completely hypothetical (the speaker was never Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services). So regret is not expressed on this case.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Wonderment eccezionale spiegazione davvero  Sei stato gentilissimo e penso di aver capito gran parte delle differenze. 

Considera però che abbiamo confrontato queste due frasi :
1. _I should have left the administration because I wasn't satisfied  with that bill. (there's no condition or Hypothesis but regret maybe)
_2. _I would have had to leave the administration over this bill if it  had not included a public insurance option. _(ipotesi/condizione)

..e il tuo ragionamento lo condivido appieno ! 

Ma in relazione a *Should* frugando in rete ho trovato questo link sull'uso di Should nel Third conditional volto ad esprimere *ADVICE IN THE PAST* (NECESSITY/BEST THING TO DO IN THE PAST)  ..hence it can be used to express hypotetical past,something that didn't happen, and also regret, depending on the context.

Have a look
http://www.learnenglish-online.com/grammar/thirdconditional.html
http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/english-conditionals-third-conditional.html

So:
Maybe they have the same meaning (in this following example)

If  you had known about the party, you should have told me.
If  you had known about the party, you would have had to tell me

I think that at the end, if we imagine these two structures inside a Third conditional situation they may have the same meaning more or less.The obligation/strong advice is more emphasized in both the sentences
At least I think so 


Tell me how you see my point of view

Thanks again


----------



## wonderment

ALEX1981X said:


> Ma in relazione a *Should* frugando in rete ho trovato questo link sull'uso di Should nel Third conditional volto ad esprimere *ADVICE IN THE PAST* (NECESSITY/BEST THING TO DO IN THE PAST)  ..hence it can be used to express hypotetical past,something that didn't happen, and also regret, depending on the context.
> 
> Have a look
> http://www.learnenglish-online.com/grammar/thirdconditional.html
> http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/english-conditionals-third-conditional.html


Good point! Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn’t even considered these other variations of the 3rd conditional with modals other than _would_. I was thinking of the standard 3rd conditional of the form: “If ... had + past participle, ... would have + past participle” ~ “Se... congiuntivo trapassato, ...condizionale passato.” Of course changing the modal to _should_, _could_ or _might_ also changes the meaning of the then-clause (apodosis). 



> So:
> Maybe they have the same meaning (in this following example) Actually, I don't think they do.
> 
> If  you had known about the party, you should have told me.
> If  you had known about the party, you would have had to tell me
> 
> I think that at the end, if we imagine these two structures inside a Third conditional situation they may have the same meaning more or less.The obligation/strong advice is more emphasized in both the sentences
> At least I think so



1. _If you had known about the party, you should have told me._
To be honest, this sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. I think the speaker intends: _If you knew _[indicative, not subjunctive] _about the party, you should have told me._ In this condition, there is a possibility that the addressee knew about the party--the speaker is unsure. But if the addressee knew, it was the right thing for her to tell the speaker (but she didn’t tell). The 3rd hypothetical (_If you had known..._) presumes that the addressee indeed didn’t know. And if she absolutely did not know, what would be the point of  the advice? 

2. _If you had known about the party, you would have had to tell me._
If you had known (but you really didn’t know), it would have been necessary for you to tell me.  Standard 3rd hypothetical. 

Sentence #1 perplexes me (if someone could help me understand the logic of it, that would be super). Anyhow, _should have _(expressing senses of duty/correctness, even regret) and _would have had to do_ (expressing necessity) do not mean the same thing even if they are both part of a 3rd conditional. We need help from our bilingual friends (Hello CPA, are you still reading this thread?)


----------



## Einstein

1 If you had known about the party, you should have told me.
2 If you had known about the party, you would have had to tell me




> Originally Posted by *wonderment*
> Sentence #1 perplexes me (if someone could help me understand the logic of it, that would be super).


I had the same reaction! I agree with your correction:
- If you knew about the party, you should have told me.
_- Se sapevi della festa, avresti dovuto dirmelo_ (in informal Italian: _me lo dovevi dire_).
We could paraphrase it as:
- If you knew about the party, why didn't you tell me?
There's nothing hypothetical about it.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ok Wonderment ho letto il tuo post 

Allora io penso che siano  corrette entrambe le forme e penso anche che:

Innanzitutto non vedo tante  illogicità con "Should" sinceramente 

1.  _If you had known about the party, you should have told me._
To be honest, this sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. I think the  speaker intends: _If you knew _[indicative, not subjunctive] _about   the party, you should have told me._ In this condition, there is a  possibility that the addressee knew about the party--the speaker is  unsure. But if the addressee knew, it was the right thing for her to  tell the speaker (but she didn’t tell). The 3rd hypothetical (_If you  had known..._) presumes that the addressee indeed didn’t know. And if  she absolutely did not know, what would be the point of  the advice?
Il motivo che spinge una persona a dire "You should have  told me" è strettamente connessa alla condizione e non capisco la tua  domanda finale. Infatti la questione è che se lo avessi saputo  avresti dovuto dirmelo (ma solo in quel caso).Ovviamente il consiglio è  molto logico e viene fatto dalla persona che alla festa non è andata ma  che si aspettava di essere invitata.Ovviamente è un consiglio ipotetico  relativo al passato ormai concluso.
Poi il fatto che in realtà  all'epoca dei fatti la persona non sapesse della festa non cambia il  senso di niente.Non vedo anomalia in una frase di questo tipo a livello  di logica.
Colui che esprime la condizione è la persona che  sicuramente/probabilmente non è andata alla festa e avvisa all'altra che *se* *fosse  stato avvisat*o sarebbe probabilmente venuto ma l'altro può anche  avere mentito; cioè in realtà sapeva della festa ma non lo ha  avvisato lo stesso,magari per dispetto,magari perchè si è dimenticato e  si vergogna...etc..Quindi il Third conditional rappresenta un ipotesi  su un evento passato (reale o immaginario che sia) che è andato  diversamente da come ci aspettavamo. In certi contesti una persona (lo  speaker) può imporre delle condizioni dando per scontato che l'amico non  sapesse.
Quindi io posso e potrei all'occorrenza dire " If you had  known the party you should have known me" dando per scontato che tu  (amico mio) nel passato non sapevi/non sapessi della festa e di  conseguenza (apodosi) non mi hai detto niente, ma avresti dovuto nel  caso contrario.
Io, dicendo questo, posso anche solo ribadire una  condizione che sarebbe dovuta accadere nel passato;  sarebbe una cosa  logica e anche abbastanza normale . Quindi per me è tutto logico e  accettabile dalla parte di chi crea questa condizione di terzo grado,  ossia da parte dello speaker.

2. _If you had known about the party, you would have had to tell me._
If you had known (but you really didn’t know), it would have been  necessary for you to tell me.  Standard 3rd hypothetical. 

Quindi "Would have had to.." risulta esprimere più una necessarietà  che un obbligo in sostanza?? 


P.s  In italiano possiamo dire entrambe le cose anche usando l'indicativo  come ha fatto notare Einstein ma è solo una questione di preferenza in  quanto usiamo l'Indicativo al posto del Congiuntivo a volte.Ma entrambi  sono corretti e precisi per esprimere una situazione di questo tipo !

Se  lo sapevi me lo dovevi dire (non proprio corretta ma è passabile)
Se  lo sapevi me lo avresti dovuto dire/avresti dovuto dirmelo 
Se tu lo  avessi saputo me lo avresti dovuto dire (Potrei  soltanto voler ribadire la condizione perchè non sono sicuro della  lealtà del mio amico)
Se tu lo avessi saputo era tuo dovere  avvisarmi/dirmi della festa...

In inglese se usassimo "If you  knew about the party you should have told me" sarebbe certo corretta  e comprensibile ma anche in questo caso si *presume* che la  persona (l'amico) non sapeva niente e quindi non ha avvisato di  conseguenza. Ma poteva comunque sapere e non dire niente apposta e  sarebbe molto logico lo stesso come nel caso con Past perfect (If you  had known...).Il problema è che la persona che parla e che esprime la  condizione non può sapere se effettivamente il suo amico, in quel  momento nel passato, sapeva davvero o non sapeva affatto .  Dicendo ciò vuole solo specificare una condizione relativa a un  qualcosa accaduta nel passato *che sarebbe dovuta accadere* a  determinate condizioni (per obbligo/per necessità) ma che probabilmente  non è accaduta.Ma nessuno gli impedisce di  esprimere un costrutto del  genere 

 Penso  quindi che il Third conditional debba essere usato quando :We talk  about a condition in the past that did *not* happen,and there's now  no possibility for this condition in the present.Ma in certi contesti  penso che possa trarre in inganno.Penso che non vada vista cosi  rigidamente il fatto che "l'amico" non sapeva assolutamente della  festa a priori. SHOULD HAVE e WOULD HAVE HAD TO esprimono comunque un  qualcosa che nel passato doveva essere fatto o comunque era necessario  fare se la condizione X si fosse verificata.

Ho convinto qualcuno  ? 

Grazie  a tutti


----------



## wonderment

Alex, I'm still wavering a bit on: _If you had known, you should have told me. _It still sounds a little odd to my ears. But after consulting with some friends, I agree that it's fine to substitute “should have” with “would have” in a 3rd conditional. 

Googling a little, I found a nice example that sounds perfectly grammatical and logical to me, and that I can vary to show you the distinctions among “would have”, “should have”, and “would have had to”. 



> If he is smart he should not give any interviews, and if he had been smarter he should have consulted with someone beyond his lawyers when preparing this statement, because there are definite flaws in his statement that led me to question even more what happened.


 
If he had been smarter, he *would have consulted* with someone. 
Se fosse stato più intelligente, *avrebbe consultato* qualcuno.

If he had been smarter, he *should have consulted* with someone.
If... , the right thing for him to do would have been to consult with someone. 
Se fosse stato più intelligente, *avrebbe dovuto consultare* qualcuno.
Quel “should have” ha il senso di "la giusta cosa da fare per lui sarebbe stato consultare qualcuno, avrebbe fatto bene a consultare qualcuno."

If he had been smarter, he *would have had to* consult with someone. 
If... , it would have been necessary for him to consult with someone. 
Se fosse stato più intelligente, *avrebbe dovuto consultare* qualcuno.
Quel “would have had to” ha il senso di "sarebbe stato proprio necessario per lui consultare qualcuno."

Ciao!


----------



## rrose17

My 2 cents.
_If you knew about the party you should have told me._
You might have known about the party up until this moment and you didn't tell me but you should have. The party could have already happened or it could be next Saturday night.
_If you had known about the party you should have told me._ 
The party's over. This happened before the party was held, and if you had known then that there was going to be a party you should have let me know.


----------



## ALEX1981X

rrose17 said:


> My 2 cents.
> _If you knew about the party you should have told me._
> You might have known about the party up until this moment and you didn't tell me but you should have. The party could have already happened or it could be next Saturday night.
> _If you had known about the party you should have told me._
> The party's over. This happened before the party was held, and if you had known then that there was going to be a party you should have let me know.



Ok rrose..

just a clarification 

When you write "If *I knew *about the party...." Do you intend it (If I knew) like a simple past tense or a subjunctive??...
Does "if I knew" in this sentence refer to present/future hypotetical condition or possibility? Am I right?

I mean : "_If you knew about the party (if you knew it in the past) you should have told me_ (always in the past)

Is it what you intend in this sentence with this conditional instead of using the past perfect?

Thanks


----------



## wonderment

rrose17 said:


> My 2 cents.
> _If you knew about the party you should have told me._
> You might have known about the party up until this moment and you didn't tell me but you should have. The party could have already happened or it could be next Saturday night.
> _If you had known about the party you should have told me._
> The party's over. This happened before the party was held, and if you had known then that there was going to be a party you should have let me know.


Hi, rrose! Thanks for your 2 cents. That makes sense. Are you also presuming that the person in fact had not known about the party that took place? With the gradual loss of the subjunctive, I'm wondering how many speakers still make the distinction. There are other ambiguities that have been kindly pointed out to me:



> Is it "You should have told me before now". or "Then you should have already told me"?
> 
> Is it "You should have told me what you knew", or "You should have told me that you have (always) known"?
> 
> What is implied by "If you had known"?:
> (You have never known, but) if you had (ever) known, ...
> (You did not know yet, but) if you had known (yet), ...
> (I think you had known earlier, but) if you had known (before that time), ...


--------
Edit add: 

I just want to clarify that it’s the English sentence (with "should have") that perplexes me, not the Italian.

_Se tu lo avessi saputo me lo avresti dovuto dire._
If you had known, you would have had to tell me.​Sono convinta che la frase italiana è perfettamente corretto. Va bene anche la traduzione inglese. Nel periodo ipotetico, la funzione del congiuntivo trapassato è quella di indicare un passato irreale/impossibile. L’introduzione del modale “dovere” modifica la funzione del congiuntivo trapassato che assume il significato di “nel caso in cui” e il condizionale può essere inteso come “cosa giusta/buona/conveniente/necessaria da fare”.


----------



## rrose17

ALEX1981X said:


> When you write "If *I knew *about the party...." Do you intend it (If I knew) like a simple past tense or a subjunctive??...
> Does "if I knew" in this sentence refer to present/future hypotetical condition or possibility? Am I right?


Let's see. You know in English, generally we are taught that there is no subjunctive other than the rare use of "If I were". But hanging out at this site has taught me this isn't true and that often the past is used in a subjunctive way. That being said, I admit I don't know the answer for sure. But I can always surmise...
I believe here "I you knew..." is the simple past. "If you knew where the party was we could go there right now." to me this is in the subjunctive. You don't know but if you did then we could go. 

@Wonderment


> Are you also presuming that the person in fact had not known about the party that took place?


The first one I think it could go either way.
_If you knew about the party you should have told me._
I know, I forgot, sorry.
I swear I didn't know either!
The second one I think this other person knew and just didn't say.
_If you had known about the party you should have told me._
I know but you told me you don't like going to her house.


----------



## wonderment

rrose17 said:


> The second one I think this other person knew and just didn't say.
> _If you had known about the party you should have told me._
> I know but you told me you don't like going to her house.


Yes, that explains everything! Now that you remind me, this mini dialogue actually sounds familiar, and yet I’ve been conditioned (damn you, Latin!) to think of the 3rd conditional as contrafactual. This means that you presume the premise of the if-clause is false, e.g.: 

_If you had studied _[subjunctive], _you would have passed the exam._
You didn’t study, but if you had studied, you would have passed the exam. ​But if I force myself to forget about the subjunctive, then I could think of the same sentence this way:

_If you had studied _[indicative], _you would have passed the exam._
The exam was yesterday. If you had studied before the exam was given, you would have passed it. The statement also implies that you hadn't studied. ​-----
Now, let’s substitute “would have” with “should have”:

A: _I pulled an all-nighter studying for that exam. I can’t believe I failed!_
B: _If you had studied [indicative], you should have passed the exam._​The statement makes total sense to me with the indicative. I don’t see how it could work as a traditional contrafactual 3rd conditional with the subjunctive. It would be nonsense to presume that the person had not in fact studied. Ok, the subjunctive is dead here, and I shouldn’t try to resurrect it. So for this statement to make sense, I must forget about the subjunctive, and assume that the premise of the if-clause is true, that you had indeed studied. And "should have" in this context indicates a desirable or expected state, not duty/correctness.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Sorry but a still don't understand the sequence of tenses in this one:

"If you knew about the party you should have told me"

You told that you think "if you knew" is a simple past Indicative,right?

But what if I tell you that it can be a present tense (Past Subjunctive) ?

The doubt is if in English,when you write a Hypothesis,after "if" you can use the simple past Indicative,intending it as related to the Past, instead of using the more common Past Subjunctive (that as you know,is always related to a Present)?

In italiano possiamo dirlo e usarlo:

Se sapevi (Past Indicative-Past Time) della festa dovevi dirmelo : *se lo sapevi prima,ieri,nel passato*

Se sapessi (Past Subjunctive-Present Time) della festa dovresti dirmelo : *se tu sapessi ora,in questo momento*

But in English?..It seems to me we have a sort of mixed conditional in this sentence

Look at this 
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

After "if" the tense is always intended *in the present* and it is a (Past Subjunctive)...not a past tense using the Indicative.
The tense is conjugated in the past (knew) obviously, but it is related to a present situation .


Think it over and enlighten me

Thanks


----------



## Einstein

Alex, I don't who who told you that


> after "if" the tense is always intended *in the present* and it is a (Past Subjunctive)...not a past tense using the Indicative.


"Knew" is past tense and is therefore used for:
1) real past time (past indicative)
and
2) hypothetical present time (past subjunctive).
Of course English makes no distinction between the two except in the verb _to be_ (_I was_ [ero] and _if I were_ [se io fossi]).

What about "if"? We have conditional sequences, where "if" introduces a possible or hypothetical condition. But "if" is also used with another meaning, to say: "given that..." (Dato che...). In this sense, all combinations of tense are possible:
If you knew, why didn't you tell me? (se lo sapevi, perché non me l'hai detto?)
If you have lost your credit card you should tell the bank. (se hai perso... dovresti dirlo...).
As you see, also after "if" we can use "knew" with a past indicative meaning (exactly as in Italian).

_If you knew, you should have told me_
This is neither a standard (1st, 2nd or 3rd) nor a mixed conditional sequence. It means: _Se (è vero che) lo sapevi, avresti dovuto dirmelo._
The reply could be:
_But I didn't know! If I had known, I would certainly have told you!_
Ma non lo sapevo! Se l'avessi saputo, certo che te l'avrei detto!
And this, I grant you, is a 3rd Conditional.

To give some other examples:
_It's likely to rain; you should take an umbrella._
We use _should_, not because it's a 2nd conditional, but just as a "soft" version of _must_. The past form is:
_It rained and you got wet! You should have taken an umbrella!_
Again, this is not a 3rd conditional; _should have taken_ is a comment, a criticism, not the result of a hypothetical condition.

To summarize: We use _should do_ and _should have done _to make judgements about present or past situations, which can be described, if we wish, with "if", followed by whatever tense is appropriate for the description.
For Conditional sequences, to describe hypothetical circumstances, we use would _have to_ and _would have had to_, not _should_ and _should have_:
If it were raining, we would have to take an umbrella (but it's not raining, so it's not necessary).
If it had rained, we would have had to take an umbrella (but it didn't rain, so it wasn't necessary).


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ok Einstein

clear as usual 

So what about this one?

"If they invited me, I would have come to the party !"

Does "if they invited" in this case related to past Indicative (se mi invitavano) or a past Subjunctive with present meaning? 

It looks like a mixed conditional to me



Thanks


----------



## Einstein

ALEX1981X said:


> "If they invited me, I would have come to the party !"
> 
> Does "if they invited" in this case related to past Indicative (se mi invitavano) or a past Subjunctive with present meaning?
> 
> It looks like a mixed conditional to me


This is wrong. It's either
_If they had invited me I would have come to the party_ (past hypothetical situation, they didn't invite me)
or
_If they invited me I would go to the party_ (present hypothetical, they might still invite me).

A mixed conditional (perfectly legitimate) could be:
_If they had invited me I would be at the party now._
Se mi avessero invitato, sarei alla festa adesso.

You give the example "se mi invitavano". This would be part of the informal Italian construction:
_Se mi invitavano, venivo alla festa._
But this has no equivalent in English because it really means
_Se mi avessero invitato, sarei venuto alla festa_, a past hypothetical sentence, translated as above.


----------



## ALEX1981X

I'm a bit confused

What about the mixed second/third conditional then?

Have you checked out the link i posted?

If Sam spoke Russian (now,at the present), he would have translated the letter for you (before,yesterday). 

Why is it so different from what i posted before?

If they invited me,I would have come to the party 


Thanks Einstein


----------



## anglomania1

Hello ALEX1981X, 
wow, so many posts!!
Going back to your original question, I think:

*I would have had to* *leave *=  Come frase condizionale, "avrei dovuto lasciare" (nel senso "sarei stato obbligato" a lasciare il posto), se ...... 
Qui, "had to" da il significato di dovere, non "would".

*I should have left* = "Avrei dovuto lasciare" (nel senso "sarebbe stato meglio se avessi lasciato... ma non l'ho fatto"). Un rimpianto di ciò che NON ho fatto nel passato.

I hope this helps
Anglo


----------



## Einstein

ALEX1981X said:


> If Sam spoke Russian (now,at the present), he would have translated the letter for you (before,yesterday).
> 
> Why is it so different from what i posted before?
> 
> If they invited me,I would have come to the party


It's different because _Sam speaks Russian_ is a characterisation of Sam; you could translate _If Sam spoke Russian_ as _Se Sam fosse russofono_ (si dice?)
_If they invited me_ is a hypothetical event. What would the sentence mean, also in Italian? :
_Se mi invitassero, sarei venuto alla festa._
_Se mi invitavano, sarei venuto alla festa._
Neither sentence makes sense.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Einstein said:


> It's different because _Sam speaks Russian_ is a characterisation of Sam; you could translate _If Sam spoke Russian_ as _Se Sam fosse russofono_ (si dice?)
> _If they invited me_ is a hypothetical event. What would the sentence mean, also in Italian? :
> _Se mi invitassero, sarei venuto alla festa._
> _Se mi invitavano, sarei venuto alla festa._
> Neither sentence makes sense.



and the mixed conditional are events or situations as well!

They're always conditions!


Sorry Einstein but this part is a little puzzling to me

P.s : Se sam sapesse parlare russo/parlasse russo (in general) avrebbe tradotto la lettera. 

Non capisco perchè in inglese non si possa dire lo stesso senza usare il past perfect


----------



## Einstein

ALEX1981X said:


> and the mixed conditional are events or situations as well!
> They're always conditions!
> Sorry Einstein but this part is a little puzzling to me
> 
> P.s : Se sam sapesse parlare russo/parlasse russo (in general) avrebbe tradotto la lettera.
> Non capisco perchè in inglese non si possa dire lo stesso senza usare il past perfect


Ma certo che si può dire!
_If Sam spoke Russian he would have translated the letter._
La spiegazione l'hai data tu fra parentesi: "in general". È possibile parlare russo "in generale". Ma invitare qualcuno ad una festa "in generale"? Cosa vuol dire?
Si potrebbe ottenere un mixed conditional con un piccolo cambiamento:
_Se mi invitassero alle loro feste, sarei stato a quella di sabato_. Qui si intende un invito permanente; _se avessi un invito permanente alle loro feste...._ Traduzione:
If they *invited* me to their parties, I *would have come* to the one on Saturday.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Einstein said:


> Ma certo che si può dire!
> _If Sam spoke Russian he would have translated the letter._
> La spiegazione l'hai data tu fra parentesi: "in general". È possibile parlare russo "in generale". Ma invitare qualcuno ad una festa "in generale"? Cosa vuol dire?
> Si potrebbe ottenere un mixed conditional con un piccolo cambiamento:
> _Se mi invitassero alle loro feste, sarei stato a quella di sabato_. Qui si intende un invito permanente; _se avessi un invito permanente alle loro feste...._ Traduzione:
> If they *invited* me to their parties, I *would have come* to the one on Saturday.



Si infatti hai colpito nel segno 

è quello che volevo dire con "in general". Cioè se loro *fossero* soliti a invitarmi (ma non è da loro) *avrei partecipato* alla festa di sabato e parteciperei alle loro feste sempre !

Right?


----------



## Einstein

ALEX1981X said:


> Si infatti hai colpito nel segno
> 
> è quello che volevo dire con "in general". Cioè se loro *fossero* soliti a invitarmi (ma non è da loro) *avrei partecipato* alla festa di sabato e parteciperei alle loro feste sempre !
> 
> Right?


Right!


----------

