# EN: il avait dû passer



## HaoDanYi

Hi,
I'm still not at ease with past tenses in english, and I'd like some help to translate: "il avait dû passer".

The complete sentence is: "...tout le temps qu'il avait dû passer à écrire cela..."


----------



## melu85

quelle est ta suggestion?


----------



## HaoDanYi

Je crois que j'en étais restée à: "all the hours he must had spend writing it down", mais j'ai hésité pendant tellement de temps que les possibilités se mélangent un peu.


----------



## HistofEng

HaoDanYi said:


> Je crois que j'en étais restée à: "all the hours he must had spend writing it down", mais j'ai hésité pendant tellement de temps que les possibilités se mélangent un peu.



On ne peut pas mélanger "must" et "had" dans cette maniere. On pourrait simplement dire "all the hours he had to spend writing." 

Si tu introduisais "must" dans la formulation, il y aurait un certain élément d'incertitude, meme si c'est petit. Mais, si tu voudrais l'utiliser, il faut dire "must have spent" or "must have had to spend". Desolé que je ne peux mieux t'aider, c'est difficile à décrire.


----------



## Philip(pe)

all the time (that) he must have spent writing it...

"That" is optional (facultatif).


----------



## marget

Philip(pe) said:


> all the time (that) he must have spent writing it...
> 
> "That" is optional (facultatif).


 
I agree with you.


----------



## melu85

I would translate "il a dû passer..." by "he must have spent..."
That's why I'm confused on how to translate "il avait dû passer..."


----------



## HistofEng

I would translate "il a dû passer..." as "he had to spend" which has a different meaning than "he must have spent".

"Il a dû aller à Paris parce que ses parents sont morts." 

serait:

"He had to go to Paris because his parents have died."

et pas:

"he must have gone to Paris because his parents have died."

ce qui signifie autre chose.


----------



## HaoDanYi

> On ne peut pas mélanger "must" et "had" dans cette maniere. On pourrait simplement dire "all the hours he had to spend writing."
> 
> Si tu introduisais "must" dans la formulation, il y aurait un certain élément d'incertitude, meme si c'est petit. Mais, si tu voudrais l'utiliser, il faut dire "must have spent" or "must have had to spend". Desolé que je ne peux mieux t'aider, c'est difficile à décrire.



Je crois que j'ai compris, et je vais bien noter ça quelque part au cas ou j'oublierais à nouveau.

Si j'ajoute must, la traduction serait plutôt: "toutes les heures qu'il avait *sûrement* passé à écrire", c'est cela?

Merci à tous pour votre aide.


----------



## HistofEng

HaoDanYi said:


> Je crois que j'ai compris, et je vais bien noter ça quelque part au cas ou j'oublierais à nouveau.
> 
> Si j'ajoute must, la traduction serait plutôt: "toutes les heures qu'il avait *sûrement* passé à écrire", c'est cela?
> 
> Merci à tous pour votre aide.



Oui, tu as bien compris ce que je voulais exprimer.


----------



## marget

melu85 said:


> I would translate "il a dû passer..." by "he must have spent..."
> That's why I'm confused on how to translate "il avait dû passer..."


 
Maybe we could say "he had to have spent"


----------



## Alleycat_763

HistofEng said:


> On ne peut pas mélanger "must" et "had" dans cette maniere. On pourrait simplement dire "all the hours he had to spend writing."
> 
> Si tu introduisais "must" dans la formulation, il y aurait un certain élément d'incertitude, meme si c'est petit. Mais, si tu voudrais l'utiliser, il faut dire "must have spent" or "must have had to spend". Desolé que je ne peux mieux t'aider, c'est difficile à décrire.


 
Peut être " Must *have* had ....."?? (if someone could traslate this to french i would be impressed


----------



## marget

Alleycat_763 said:


> Peut être " Must *have* had ....."?? (if someone could traslate this to french i would be impressed


 
He must have had spent sounds unusual to me.


----------



## radagasty

marget said:


> He must have had spent sounds unusual to me.


 
I would go so far as to say that _he must have had spent_ is grammatically unacceptable.

I think we have to abandon constructions with _must_, since the only two possibilities are _he must spend_ (il doit passer) and _he must have spent_ (il a dû passer) and there is no way to put _must_ in the past tense to produce the pluperfect, as in the quoted suggestion.

Thus, we are left with the construction _to have to_, for which the following are possible:

_he has to spend_
_he had to spend_
_he has had to spend_
_he had had to spend_
_he has to have spent_
_he had to have spent_

Now, the question is, what are the French equivalents? I'm afraid it is difficult for me to distinguish between the sense of _il a dû passer_ and _il avait dû passer_, but I would suggest the following:

_he has to spend _- il doit passer
_he had to spend _- il devait passer
_he has had to spend _- il a dû passer
_he had had to spend _- il avait dû passer
_he has to have spent _- il doit avoir passé
_he had to have spent _- il devait avoir passé

I have some reservations about the last two, both in French and in English. Comments?


----------



## Alleycat_763

thx Radagasty for your effective (but a little long lol) post


----------



## HistofEng

> _he has to spend_
> _he had to spend_
> _he has had to spend_
> _he had had to spend_
> he has to have spent
> _he had to have spent_



Je ne dirais jamais ca.


----------



## KenInPDX

I think "he has to have spent" is OK depending on the context.

How about something like, "I gave him the money a week ago and told him to spend it right away.  He has to have spent it by now."

Granted, I think one would be more likely to say "He must have spent it by now" but I don't think the former is incorrect.


----------



## HistofEng

KenInPDX said:


> I think "he has to have spent" is OK depending on the context.
> 
> How about something like, "I gave him the money a week ago and told him to spend it right away.  He has to have spent it by now."
> 
> Granted, I think one would be more likely to say "He must have spent it by now" but I don't think the former is incorrect.



hmm..perhaps.

but as you mentioned, in that situation I would more likely say: "he must have spent it by now"...or..."he had to have spent it by now"


----------



## KenInPDX

In any case, I agree that "he must have spent it by now" is a more idiomatic construction.


----------

