# should have eaten before going out



## Teena

Hola 

Tengo una pregunta for favor.

Si quisiera decir "He should have eaten before going out" podria yo decir "Debe haber comido antes de salir"
O seria mejor decir "Debia haber comido antes de salir" porque es en el pasado?
Y que de "Deberia haber comido antes de salir" ? Hay alguna diferencia entre "Debe haber comido..." y "Deberia haber comido.." ?

Muchas Gracias,

- Kristina


----------



## Tacherie

Hi,

*Debería haber comido. *(--->should,_ suggestion in the past ***the past is denoted by "haber"***)_

"Debe" is used to denote _"obligation"_, like "must". "Debe haber comido" doesn't make any sense, because if the person didn't eat, how can you force them to have eaten?

In Argentina -only- "Debe haber comido" would be used to make a_ supposition_, as in: He must have eaten before, because he's not hungry now.
But in Spain and other places in Latin America, that would be a mistake, and they'd say: "Debe de haber comido".
...However, this last use is not the one you need for your sentence.

I hope this helps. Regards


----------



## Bocha

Hola:

Debe haber comido (suposición)  he must have eaten
Debería haber comido (conducta aconsejable) he should have eaten


----------



## Teena

Muchas gracias!

Asi yo podria decir "Debe (de) haber sido muy inteligente" porque es un suposicion?

Y "debe haber comido" no tiene sentido porque es un obligacion (debe hacer algo) con deber en el presente pero con "haber" que refiera al pasado? 

Y se puede decir "Debia haber comido antes de salir"?

Gracias!


----------



## Bocha

Hola:

El uso de la preposición de después de deber para indicar suposición es optativo:

*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]).

(del DPD)


debía haber comido (suposición en el pasado)


----------



## maghanish2

Este tema me interesa porque muchas veces me he preguntado cuál tiempo de *deber* debería usar.

Así que *debe (de) haber comido* significa_ he must have eaten*.*_

Entonces, qué significa *debía (de) haber comido*?

Lo siento por simplemente entrar la conversación pero me re interesa.


----------



## Teena

Bocha,

Asi Debe (de) Y Debia (de) haber comido refieran a probilidad 
Y solo "Deberia haber comido" refiera a un obligacion 

Le entendi?

Gracias,
- Kristina



maghanish2 said:


> Este tema me interesa porque muchas veces me he preguntado cuál tiempo de *deber* debería usar.
> 
> Así que *debe (de) haber comido* significa_ he must have eaten*.*_
> 
> Entonces, qué significa *debía (de) haber comido*?
> 
> Lo siento por simplemente entrar la conversación pero me re interesa.


 

Pienso que significa (casi?) lo mismo que "debe (de) haber comido. Probilidad en el pasado. A lo mejor un poco mas en el pasado que "debe de haber..??


----------



## Tacherie

Debe + infinitivo es una locución que significa "obligación". Deber + de + infinitivo es una frase que significa "probabilidad, suposición". Es muy frecuente la confusión entre estos dos usos, que conviene distinguir, cuidadosamente, por sus valores semánticos diferentes. Muchos hablantes emplean solo la primera locución para expresar los dos significados. El uso indebido de deber + de + infinitivo, con el sentido de obligación, es más vulgar que el de de + infinitivo, con el significado de probabilidad, pero los dos son incorrectos.

(De _Diccionario de los usos correctos del español, _María Luisa Olsen de Serrano Redonnet, Alicia María Zorrilla de Rodriguez -por este uso se rigen todavía las editoriales, en lo personal me molesta mucho no poder usar "debe" sin de como probabilidad o suposición, pero bueno...)



Teena said:


> Pienso que significa (casi?) lo mismo que "debe (de) haber comido. Probilidad en el pasado. A lo mejor un poco mas en el pasado que "debe de haber..??


 
Debe [de](present) haber comido (past)--> Utterance in the present, I'm saying now that he must habe eaten (...)
Debía [de](past) haber comido (past)--> Telling something in the past. Only used if the sentences before that one are in the past also. eg: Estaba cansado y le dolía la panza. Debía de haber comido alguna comida muy pesada.

So, I guess you're right


----------



## Teena

Tacherie said:


> Debe + infinitivo es una locución que significa "obligación". Deber + de + infinitivo es una frase que significa "probabilidad, suposición". Es muy frecuente la confusión entre estos dos usos, que conviene distinguir, cuidadosamente, por sus valores semánticos diferentes. Muchos hablantes emplean solo la primera locución para expresar los dos significados. El uso indebido de deber + de + infinitivo, con el sentido de obligación, es más vulgar que el de de + infinitivo, con el significado de probabilidad, pero los dos son incorrectos.
> 
> (De _Diccionario de los usos correctos del español, _María Luisa Olsen de Serrano Redonnet, Alicia María Zorrilla de Rodriguez -por este uso se rigen todavía las editoriales, en lo personal me molesta mucho no poder usar "debe" sin de como probabilidad o suposición, pero bueno...)



Yo entiendo que deber + inf = obligacion y que "deber de + inf" significa probilidad.

Lo que yo no entiendo es porque "Debia haber comido" tambien debe de significar probabilidad sin "de" (como habia dicho Bocha)
Podria decir algo como "Debia hacerlo" para decir "I should (have) done it" como una obligacion en el pasado? O solo puede significar el uso de "debia (de) hacerlo para decir "I must have done it (probilidad) ??

Gracias,
 - Kristina


----------



## Tacherie

Teena said:


> Podria decir algo como "Debia hacerlo" para decir "I should (have) done it" como una obligacion en el pasado?
> 
> No, "debía hacerlo" significa "I had to do it".
> Debería haberlo hecho--> I should have done it
> Debo hacerlo--> I must/have to do it
> Debería hacerlo--> I should do it
> 
> O solo puede significar el uso de "debia (de) hacerlo para decir "I must have done it (probilidad) ??
> mmm, no: I must have done it: Debo [de] haberlo hecho
> She had to have done it: (Ella) Debía [de] haberlo hecho
> 
> Gracias,
> - Kristina


 
Is this any clearer? I feel I'm making it worse 
About the dropping of the "de" it's something used in some regions. In Argentina, for example, using the "de" would be considered low-standard by regular speakers.


----------



## Grammar2

Teena said:


> Hola
> 
> Tengo una pregunta for favor.
> 
> Si quisiera decir "He should have eaten before going out" podria yo decir "Debe haber comido antes de salir"
> O seria mejor decir "Debia haber comido antes de salir" porque es en el pasado?
> Y que de "Deberia haber comido antes de salir" ? Hay alguna diferencia entre "Debe haber comido..." y "Deberia haber comido.." ?
> 
> Muchas Gracias,
> 
> - Kristina



Debía de+ infinitivo  probabilidad
Debe+ infinitivo  obligación

*Debía de* haber comido antes de salir ( se refiere al pasado)
*Debe de *haber comido antes de salir ( se refiere al momento de una acción reciente)  José el hijo mayor cenó y salió enseguida llegó la mamá y le preguntó a su esposo si José había comido, el contesta debe de haber comido antes de salir pue estaba en la Biblioteca leyendo
*Debería de *haber comido antes de salir = Indica una probabilidad, cuando el condicional se da en cláusulas independientes, es decir un solo verbo.

Grammar2


----------



## Teena

Tacherie said:


> Is this any clearer? I feel I'm making it worse



You're certainly not making it worse. It is clearer but I still have some questions
(obligacion)
Debía hacerlo - I had to do it
Debía haberlo hecho  would mean the same? Or you cant use it this way at all without referring to the use with "de" ? My question is whether this use automatically assumes the "unsaid" presence of "de" and means probability?

y
(probabilidad)
Debía [de] hacerlo  
and
Debía [de] haberlo hecho - I must have done it

So if you dont use the "de" in the 2nd examples, its just ambiguous? 

Thank you!


----------



## aunaprendo

Si no les importa quisiera añadir algo a la discusion-

-¿Sería mal dicho "no debias haber hecho tal cosa"? Ejemplo, Me refiero a cuando alguien te esta regañando.  ¿a la oracion le hace falta la preposicion "de"?

-¿No se escucha tambien "no debiste hablar con él....!"? por ejemplo

-en cuanto a "debe + de + haber + el participio" se usa mas en una sugerencia ¿no?  Ejemplo, " Ud. deberia de haber estudiado mas " o "Deberia de estudiar mas"  

gracias por su ayuda


----------



## Teena

aunaprendo said:


> Si no les importa quisiera añadir algo a la discusion-
> 
> -¿Sería mal dicho "no debias haber hecho tal cosa"? Ejemplo, Me refiero a cuando alguien te esta regañando.  ¿a la oracion le hace falta la preposicion "de"?
> 
> -¿No se escucha tambien "no debiste hablar con él....!"? por ejemplo
> 
> -en cuanto a "debe + de + haber + el participio" se usa mas en una sugerencia ¿no?  Ejemplo, " Ud. deberia de haber estudiado mas " o "Deberia de estudiar mas"
> 
> gracias por su ayuda



Yo tambien no entiendo si a la frase como "no debias/debiste haber hecho algo" le falta "de" y en verdad solo puede significar probabilidad.

- Kristina


----------



## Tacherie

Teena said:


> You're certainly not making it worse. It is clearer but I still have some questions
> 
> Debía hacerlo - I had to do it
> Debía haberlo hecho would mean the same? Or you cant use it this way at all without referring to the use with "de" ? My question is whether this use automatically assumes the "unsaid" presence of "de" and means probability? --->Exactly, it can only mean probability/supposition, Debía haberlo hecho *is not =* debía hacerlo
> 
> y
> Debía (trird person) [de] hacerlo (??? you can't use "de" here meaning probability, unless the sentence goes on: debía [de] hacerlo bien-> He must have been good at it)
> and
> Debía (first person) [de] haberlo hecho - I (first person)must have done it
> 
> So if you dont use the "de" in the 2nd examples, its just ambiguous?
> 
> Thank you!


 


aunaprendo said:


> Si no les importa quisiera añadir algo a la discusion-
> 
> -¿Sería mal dicho "no debias haber hecho tal cosa"? Ejemplo, Me refiero a cuando alguien te esta regañando. ¿a la oracion le hace falta la preposicion "de"? No, acá lo que está mal es la conjugación del verbo "deber", al retar a alguien diríamos: No *deberías* haber hecho tal cosa.
> 
> -¿No se escucha tambien "no debiste hablar con él....!"? por ejemplo Esto es correcto (no es frecuente en Arg. pero sí en otros países)
> 
> -en cuanto a "debe + de + haber + el participio" se usa mas en una sugerencia ¿no? Ejemplo, " Ud. deberia de haber estudiado mas " o "Deberia de estudiar mas" Justamente acá, usar "de" es un error. El "de" sólo puede usarse cuando queremos indicar probabilidad, suposición y este no es el caso.
> 
> gracias por su ayuda


----------



## Teena

Ahh, I think I understand...thank you Tacherie.

Debia (de) hacerlo.... Podria yo decir algo como "(El) debia de finirlo cuando (ella) llego(pasado)  ?  O debo decir "(El) debia de haberlo finito cuando (ella) llego(pasado) ?  (me refiero a probabilidad)

Thank you!


----------



## Tacherie

Teena said:


> Ahh, I think I understand...thank you Tacherie.
> 
> Debia (de) hacerlo.... Podria yo decir algo como "(El) debia de finirlo cuando (ella) llego(pasado) ? O debo decir "(El) debia de haberlo finito terminado cuando (ella)* llego(pasado) ? (me refiero a probabilidad) La segunda ... excepto porque es *terminado o finalizado.*
> 
> *and... you do need the pronoun "ella" there, otherwise you would think it's "El", as in the subject. (But that's a different story)


----------



## Teena

Thank you once again!

I just dont understand why you can say "debía [de] hacerlo bien"
but not "debía [de] terminarlo cuando ella llego"  to indicate probability in both.

I cant see the difference


----------



## Grammar2

Teena said:


> Yo tambien no entiendo si a la frase como "no debias/debiste haber hecho algo" le falta "de" y en verdad solo puede significar probabilidad.
> 
> - Kristina



Esta perífrasis modal *deber de+infinitivo* es = probabilidad/posibilidad.

la *preposición 'de' *es mejor usarla para evitar confundirla con deber+infinitvo= obligación.

Grammar2


----------



## Tacherie

Teena said:


> Thank you once again!
> 
> I just dont understand why you can say "debía [de] hacerlo bien"
> but not "debía [de] terminarlo cuando ella llego" to indicate probability in both.
> 
> I cant see the difference


 
Debía de hacerlo (tocar el piano) bien---> He must have been good at it (playing the piano) --> meaning he* regularly *played the piano, and he must have done it well (because he always got standing ovations, for example).

Debía de haberlo terminado *cuando* ella llegó. -->meaning, *that specific day, at that specific time - it's a one-time action*, he must have finished it when she got there


----------



## Teena

Tacherie said:


> Debía de hacerlo (tocar el piano) bien---> He must have been good at it (playing the piano) --> meaning he* regularly *played the piano, and he must have done it well (because he always got standing ovations, for example).
> 
> Debía de haberlo terminado cuando ella llegó. -->meaning, *that specific day, at that specific time - it's a one-time action*, he must have finished it when she got there




I believe I understand. 
So I could say
Debia de amarla mucho? 
and also..
Debia de haberla amado mucho. 
?


----------



## Tacherie

Teena said:


> I believe I understand.
> So I could say
> Debia de amarla mucho?
> and also..
> Debia de haberla amado mucho.
> ?


 
Yes, both are correct!!!


----------



## Teena

Tacherie said:


> Yes, both are correct!!!



Thank you so very very much.

I'm very grateful for the help!

- Kristina


----------



## Grammar2

Teena said:


> Thank you once again!
> 
> I just dont understand why you can say "debía [de] hacerlo bien"
> but not "debía [de] terminarlo cuando ella llego"  to indicate probability in both.
> 
> I cant see the difference



Debía de haberlo terminado cuando llegó
Debería de haberlo terminado cuando llegó
Debiera de haberlo terminado cuando llegó


All above are probabilities, we should remember that the pattern should+have+past participle is something we expected to occur and the past tense of the modals are modal+have+pp.

Grammar2


----------



## NewdestinyX

Teena said:


> Thank you so very very much.





			
				Tacherie said:
			
		

> No, "debía hacerlo" significa "I had to do it"."Had to", in English, only translates to 'tener que' in Spanish - never 'deber'
> Debería haberlo hecho--> I should have done it
> Debo hacerlo--> I must/have to do it Much more like 'I should do it'
> Debería hacerlo--> I should do it
> 
> 
> 
> Teena said:
> 
> 
> 
> O solo puede significar el uso de "debia (de) hacerlo para decir "I must have done it (probilidad) ??
> 
> 
> 
> mmm, no: I must have done it: Debo [de] haberlo hecho
> She had to have done it: (Ella) Debía [de] haberlo hecho  No -- see below
Click to expand...

Teena, I hate to confuse your world.. And I really like Tacherie's general input on this -- but I have to say very strongly -- that using 'debía/debió + infinitive does 'not' translate to 'had to' in English..

This is one of the most difficult interlingual translation conundrums in the Spanish language and clearly Tacherie is fluent in English... but it's very difficult to understand the very stark difference in English between 'had to' and 'should'. 

Deber -- in Spanish -- 'always', 'always', 'always' only translates to the ideas of 'internal personal duty' -- which is 'should' and 'ought to' in English and occasionally 'must'.  'Have to' is the strongest sense of obligation in the English language.. It always means -- 'if I don't do what I 'have to'  -- there will be consequences. "Deber" never transmits that in Spanish -- only 'tener que' does in Spanish..

And because English has no 'past tense' for the modal verb 'should' -- English has only 'should have', as you said early on -- as it's translation for 'both' "debía hacerlo" and "debía haberlo hecho". 

Both of those are -- I should have done it. And in Spanish after hundreds of interviews with natives for the course I wrote -- they tell me there is really no difference between the two.

Now when it comes to the 'supposition' uses which is mostly what this thread was about.. I would 'accept' 'have to' for a translation of 'debía de'..

In English 'he had to have done it' -- is a supposition syntax and not an obligation syntax.. But only that 'one' use of 'had to have + participle' in the English language expresses a supposition. 'ALL' other uses in all other tenses of 'have to' transmit 'only obligation' in English..

So to your original question.
He should have eaten before going out... is translated only in two ways to Spanish..
Debía/Debió comer antes de que...
Debía/Debió haber comido antes de que..

This is a fascinating topic about which I'm very passionate and it's so terribly misunderstood by students.

Ask any questions you like... And sorry I didn't respond sooner.. I usually look for these threads but I missed this one..

Again -- Tacherie did a 'great job' of answering all your difficult questions -- there is only one translation that was inaccurate from my understanding of English and Spanish.

Grant


----------



## Tacherie

NewdestinyX said:


> Deber -- in Spanish -- 'always', 'always', 'always' only translates to the ideas of 'internal personal duty' -- which is 'should' and 'ought to' in English and occasionally 'must'. 'Have to' is the strongest sense of obligation in the English language.. It always means -- 'if I don't do what I 'have to' -- there will be consequences. "Deber" never transmits that in Spanish -- only 'tener que' does in Spanish..
> 
> And because English has no 'past tense' for the modal verb 'should' -- English has only 'should have', as you said early on -- as it's translation for 'both' "debía hacerlo" and "debía haberlo hecho".
> 
> Both of those are -- I should have done it. And in Spanish after hundreds of interviews with natives for the course I wrote -- they tell me there is really no difference between the two. (???????)
> 
> So to your original question.
> He should have eaten before going out... is translated only in two ways to Spanish..
> Debía ***NO*** (obligation)/Debió comer antes de que... (Ambiguous: it could also mean "supposition" - Unnatural in Argentina, I'm sorry I'm not familiar with this use, may be it's accepted as correct in other Spanish speaking countries)
> Debía****NO**** wrong use (see below)/Debió haber comido antes de que../ Debería haber comido


 
Hi, just to clarify:

Deber = (moral) obligation.

*1 *tr. Con un verbo en infinitivo, tener *obligación de hacer lo que ese verbo expresa. Corrientemente, expresa obligación moral: ‘Debe venir, aunque le moleste hacerlo. Los ciudadanos deben obedecer las leyes’.
(from María Moliner)

It's the strongest in Spanish too, only not frequently used (as far as I'm concerned). In Argentina we would express any kind of obligation, with or without consequences, with "tener que".
However, your comment on the difference between "deber" and "have to" will be duly noted 

But please notice: "debía hacer algo" IS NOT the same as "debía haber hecho algo"
Debía hacer X ----> (moral) obligation---> MUST? OUGHT TO?
Debía haber + participio -----> used colloquially instead of "debería haber + participio"----> SHOULD HAVE
For me this last use of "Debía haber + participio" is wrong, but maybe some speakers would disagree.
See this if you want some more info:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=700822

Saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> Hi, just to clarify:
> 
> Deber = (moral) obligation.
> 
> *1 *tr. Con un verbo en infinitivo, tener *obligación de hacer lo que ese verbo expresa. Corrientemente, expresa obligación moral: ‘Debe venir, aunque le moleste hacerlo. Los ciudadanos deben obedecer las leyes’.
> (from María Moliner)



I have no problem with Moliner's definition, Tacherie -- but 'obligation' is 'exteral pressure' to do something in the 'English' language. SO our problem is in communicating to English speakers here. It's much better to separate Deber and Tener que by using the terms 'Obligation' for Tener que and 'Personal sense of Duty' for Deber.. With Deber -- in the mind of the native Spanish speaker I'm sure you will agree that there is 'no one telling you to do anything'. Agreed? Obligation, in English, means 'you have to do something' or there will be consequences. That is 'not' Deber in Spanish. agreed? So Moliner's definition is fine because she states 'moral obligation'. I think we agree about the 'general difference' between deber and tener que -- they are 'very, very different' and never mean the same thing.



> It's the strongest in Spanish too, only not frequently used (as far as I'm concerned). In Argentina we would express any kind of obligation, with or without consequences, with "tener que".
> However, your comment on the difference between "deber" and "have to" will be duly noted


 Again I've done hundreds of interviews including with Argentinians and 'deber' is alive and well in Argentina and doesn't mean 'strong obligation'. There is a clear distinction between deber and tener que with the Argentinians I've interviewed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.. Maybe you're saying that 'all obligation' is tener que in Argentina.. If that's what you're saying I agree with you.



> But please notice: "debía hacer algo" IS NOT the same as "debía haber hecho algo"
> Debía hacer X ----> (moral) obligation---> MUST? OUGHT TO?


No I'm sorry. That is not correct. Firstly - 'must' is only used for present tense. And 'must have' can only express a supposition. Must and Should in English are 'Defective' modal verbs which means they cannot express certain tenses. So English has difficulty translating the difference between these two.. Let's for the purpose of our discussion leave out the dropping of 'de' example for 'deber de'... That will serve only to confuse matters more.. There is only 1 way to translate 'Debía/Debió hacer' into English and it's as I said - He should have done... There is no past tense of 'should' - the only way to transmit into the past with 'should' is to use - 'should have'. 


> Debía haber + participio -----> used colloquially instead of "debería haber + participio"----> SHOULD HAVE


Yes.. agreed. But as you can see they translate to the same thing in English. If there is a difference to your ears in the Spanish between the two? Please give a sentence example using the two with different contexts to 'show' the difference. I would be interested in your viewpoint. 


> For me this last use of "Debía haber + participio" is wrong, but maybe some speakers would disagree.


Yes, many natives have said that 'debía haber + part' is a substitution for 'debería haber + PP' but that breaks all sorts of rules for timing concordance. 


> See this if you want some more info:
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=700822


I've already read the thread you cite. If you believe there's a difference between the two above -- please give me an example of how they're different. I've already told you how they translate to English -- as either 'should have' or 'ought to have' but never 'must'. Again -- please let's not add in the tendency for Argentina to 'drop the 'de'' in 'supposition syntaxes. Let's 'pretend' everyone in the Spanish speaking world used 'deber de' for supposition and 'deber' for moral duty.  Otherwise it will get too confusing.

Thanks for your help,
Grant


----------



## Tacherie

NewdestinyX said:


> I have no problem with Moliner's definition, Tacherie -- but 'obligation' is 'exteral pressure' to do something in the 'English' language. SO our problem is in communicating to English speakers here. It's much better to separate Deber and Tener que by using the terms 'Obligation' for Tener que and 'Personal sense of Duty' for Deber.. With Deber -- in the mind of the native Spanish speaker I'm sure you will agree that there is 'no one telling you to do anything'. Agreed? Actually, no, the sense of duty comes from the pressure of the eye of the other, it's never internal... but that is a philosophical question and I don't wish to add any more controversy... as I said before, I've taken into account your view on the diffence between deber-have and left it aside in my latest post. Obligation, in English, means 'you have to do something' or there will be consequences. That is 'not' Deber in Spanish. agreed? No, take for example "Los ciudadanos deben obedecer la ley" obligation is both moral and legal, you may not obey the laws... and be punished for it (deficiencies of our judicial system aside). So Moliner's definition is fine because she states 'moral obligation'. I think we agree about the 'general difference' between deber and tener que -- they are 'very, very different' and never mean the same thing. Moliner points out, it's _generally_ used as MORAL obligation, then again... we have discussed this already.
> 
> Again I've done hundreds of interviews including with Argentinians and 'deber' is alive and well in Argentina and doesn't mean 'strong obligation'.
> Of course every single person in Argentina, including illiterates, know what "deber" means. Conduct an study on the actual use of it in every day language or modern literature and you'll find out: it is NOT used. Every publisher I know has its use extrictly forbidden for translations post 1950. There is a clear distinction between deber and tener que with the Argentinians I've interviewed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.. Maybe you're saying that 'all obligation' is tener que in Argentina.. If that's what you're saying I agree with you. That's exactly it: "tener que" is used for obligation, regardless of your point of view on it being moral, interal, external, and so on.
> 
> No I'm sorry. That is not correct. Firstly - 'must' is only used for present tense. Must -grammatically- can be used in the past (I've been taught)... I don't use it, I don't like the way it sounds. And apparently neither do you. Agreed. And 'must have' can only express a supposition. Must and Should in English are 'Defective' modal verbs which means they cannot express certain tenses. So English has difficulty translating the difference between these two.. Let's for the purpose of our discussion leave out the dropping of 'de' example for 'deber de'... That will serve only to confuse matters more.. There is only 1 way to translate [s]'Debía[/S] + INFINITIVO = ONLY OBLIGATION***NEVER SUGGESTION IN THE PAST!!!/Debió hacer' into English and it's as I said - He should have done... There is no past tense of 'should' - the only way to transmit into the past with 'should' is to use - 'should have'. I don't discuss "should have" and I'm more than aware of its use: but your Spanish translation is wrong. I think I've heard outside Argentina the "debió [tense: past; aspect: *PERFECT (only)*] + inf." structure used to convey that meaning, so I will accept it. Then again, it sounds completely unnatural to my River Plate ears. Debía [tense: past; aspect: imperfect], on the other hand, could NEVER be used to convey the idea of "should have".
> Yes.. agreed. But as you can see they translate to the same thing in English. If there is a difference to your ears in the Spanish between the two? Please give a sentence example using the two with different contexts to 'show' the difference. I would be interested in your viewpoint.
> Yes, many natives have said that 'debía haber + part' is a substitution for 'debería haber + PP' but that breaks all sorts of rules for timing concordance. This is the only way in which I've ever seen it used. As I've said before, that use -Debía haber hecho" for me is *wrong*... that is the only "difference" I hear between the two.
> I've already read the thread you cite. If you believe there's a difference between the two above -- please give me an example of how they're different. I've already told you how they translate to English -- as either 'should have' or 'ought to have' but never 'must'. Again -- please let's not add in the tendency for Argentina to 'drop the 'de'' in 'supposition syntaxes. Let's 'pretend' everyone in the Spanish speaking world used 'deber de' for supposition and 'deber' for moral duty.  Otherwise it will get too confusing. I uderstand, but that would actually be like speaking a different language. As stated before, the use of "de" is actually a mistake in my "dialect"... Notice it is not only an Argentine use.
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> Grant


 
As for the translations, I stand by the principle (haha) and reafirm the ones in my previous post (except for "must" in the past that I wouldn't use either, just included for the sake of illustration)

On a different note, I do appreciate your input on _English_ uses and will most definitely take them into account from now on.


----------



## Chepito2

aunaprendo said:


> Si no les importa quisiera añadir algo a la discusion-
> 
> -¿Sería mal dicho "no debias haber hecho tal cosa"? Ejemplo, Me refiero a cuando alguien te esta regañando.  ¿a la oracion le hace falta la preposicion "de"?
> 
> -¿No se escucha tambien "no debiste hablar con él....!"? por ejemplo
> 
> -en cuanto a "debe + de + haber + el participio" se usa mas en una sugerencia ¿no?  Ejemplo, " Ud. deberia de haber estudiado mas " o "Deberia de estudiar mas"
> 
> gracias por su ayuda



Hay que distinguir el contexto de la oración si se trata de 'obligación moral' o si se trata de una posiblidad o 'probabilidad'

You should have talked to your teacher 'hindsight advice' the speaker was saying you that talking to the teacher was important but you didn't do it.
deberías/debieras/debías haber hablado con el profesor ( obligación lógica)
ahora de probabilidad Is Gene at home? asking it  at downtown, well he should be there ( probabilidad) el debe/debería/debiera/debía *de *estar allí.

Chepito2


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Moliner's definition, Tacherie -- but 'obligation' is 'exteral pressure' to do something in the 'English' language. SO our problem is in communicating to English speakers here. It's much better to separate Deber and Tener que by using the terms 'Obligation' for Tener que and 'Personal sense of Duty' for Deber.. With Deber -- in the mind of the native Spanish speaker I'm sure you will agree that there is 'no one telling you to do anything'. Agreed?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, the sense of duty comes from the pressure of the eye of the other, it's never internal... but that is a philosophical question and I don't wish to add any more controversy... as I said before, I've taken into account your view on the diffence between deber-have and left it aside in my latest post.
Click to expand...

Yes -- the difference is philosophical and if you lived in places that used 'deber' more commonly you would make the distinction too. 



Tacherie said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I've done hundreds of interviews including with Argentinians and 'deber' is alive and well in Argentina and doesn't mean 'strong obligation'.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course every single person in Argentina, including illiterates, know what "deber" means. Conduct a study on the actual use of it in every day language or modern literature and you'll find out: it is NOT used. Every publisher I know has its use extrictly forbidden for translations post 1950.
Click to expand...

 I'm sorry to disagree but I have done the study and it is not absent from writings in Argentina. You live there and I have to respect that - but you are overstating your case.



Tacherie said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear distinction between deber and tener que with the Argentinians I've interviewed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.. Maybe you're saying that 'all obligation' is tener que in Argentina..If that's what you're saying I agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly it: "tener que" is used for obligation, regardless of your point of view on it being moral, interal, external, and so on.
Click to expand...

 Well okay. But only in Argentina and the Southern Cone. Remember that this particular forum has mostly students from non-Spanish native speaking countries. And the Spanish that they will encounter will not use the regionalisms of the Southern Cone. Teena is clearly a new student of Spanish. A ella se le *tiene que* enseñar un castellano 'estándar'. De ahí que yo haya hecho mis declaraciones. Esto de _un uso singular_ _(tener que)_ para expresar 'todo lo de obligación' no es estándar en el castellano de la inmensa mayoría del mundo. 



> No I'm sorry. That is not correct. Firstly - 'must' is only used for present tense.
> 
> 
> 
> Must -grammatically- can be used in the past (I've been taught)...
Click to expand...

 Lo siento pero se te enseñó incorrectamente. "Must", en el pasado, tiene que aparecer con 'have' y conjuntos 'siempre' transmiten una 'suposición'. Tienes que confiar en mí. 



> And 'must have' can only express a supposition. Must and Should in English are 'Defective' modal verbs which means they cannot express certain tenses. So English has difficulty translating the difference between these two.. Let's for the purpose of our discussion leave out the dropping of 'de' example for 'deber de'... That will serve only to confuse matters more.. There is only 1 way to translate Debía/Debió hacer' into English and it's as I said - He should have done...
> 
> 
> 
> Debía[/s] + INFINITIVO = ONLY OBLIGATION***
Click to expand...

 Only in Rio Platense - in rest of Spanish speaking world it is 'inward personal/moral duty' as we've agreed before. 


> Debía[/s] + INFINITIVO =NEVER SUGGESTION IN THE PAST!!!


 Possibly only in Rio Platense. Not everywhere else. If, by 'suggestion', you mean 'should have'.. "Suggestion" isn't a word we've used up until this point to explain 'deber'.



> There is no past tense of 'should' - the only way to transmit into the past with 'should' is to use - 'should have'.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't discuss wasn't discussing "should have" and I'm more than aware of its use: but your Spanish translation is wrong.
Click to expand...

Which one is incorrect? I haven't made any incorrect translations for 'un castellano estándar'. 




> Debía [tense: past; aspect: imperfect], on the other hand, could NEVER be used to convey the idea of "should have".


 Then I believe you must not be understanding 'should have' in English. Because 'debía' is an 'imperfect past' in the Spanish language. And the imperfect past of 'should' in English is 'should have'. Now -- I will accept that if you are referring to the 'subsitution' in literature of 'debía' for 'deberían' then it = 'should'.. I have read that and there is a lot of conflicting viewpoints about the difference between debía haber + pp and debería haber + pp. But 'debería + infinitivo' and 'debía + infinitivo', in the 'standard' Spanish taught in native-Spanish-authored grammar books, are never the same meaning. Debería hacer --> toward future. Debía hacer --> in the past. 



> As for the translations, I stand by the principle (haha) and reafirm the ones in my previous post


 "Had to" does not = debía -- that is an incorrect translation. 



> On a different note, I do appreciate your input on _English_ uses and will most definitely take them into account from now on.


My pleasure and thanks I appreciate your input too. I am always learning. But I've done so much research on this topic that I won't easily be told I'm wrong on what I've presented. Espero de no ofenderte. 

Chao, 
Grant


----------



## Tacherie

I can't multi-quote in my computer so I'll try my best like this, so sorry:

1. Let's try an exercise: How would you translate the following sentences?
Debo ir a su casa.
Debía ir a su casa.

In the second, I assume, you do not use "must", since "must is only right for the present tense". Then you use.... ?

2. I'm sorry if my terminology confuses you, but I had never agreed to use the terms "inward personal duty" -just accepted that you used it-; may be Spanish works better for you: Debía (pretérito imperfecto)---> obligación (en el pasado)
Ej: _Estaba cansada y había sido un día muy largo, pero debía terminar el trabajo antes de terminar el día._

3. I have used "suggestion in the past" before, for lack of a better term, I admit. Check previous posts.

4. Translating "debía + infinitivo" as "should have" or vice versa is a serious mistake. 

5. I do understand "should have", I think the problem is you don't understand "debía".
Debía hacer algo---> en el pasado - obligación-
Debería hacer algo---> en el futuro -sugerencia-
(so far so good, and... this is by no means different from español rioplatense)
Debía [pretérito imperfecto] haber hecho [infinitivo perfecto]---> ?????????? (please, if you find it, show me a sentence where this expression can be used with other meaning than "debería haber hecho", because I haven't, and I'm growing curious by your theory)---> en el pasado -sugerencia
Debería [condicional] haber hecho [infinitivo ]---> paraphrase: desde mi punto de vista en el presente digo que, en el pasado,tendría que haber hecho algo, pero no lo hizo/hice--> en el pasado - sugerencia

In regards to your comment on "imperfection", they might be both imperfect but they are NOT equivalent in meaning!
eg.
debía comer--> se sentía moralmente obligada a comer
debió comer--> seguramente comió*/ debería haber comido
debéría haber comido: debía haber comido*--> hubiera sido conveniente que comiera antes (pero no lo hizo)

6. Had to is not debía. But of course!! I never said otherwise. I would never have translated "had to" as "debía", first because I don't use "debía", and even if I wanted to my publishers wouldn't allow it. Have to = tener que
For the purpose of answering the original post I did translate "debía" for "had to" (it's not the same, backtranslation is not an option here) I just didn't want to use must. And "should have" or "must have" have very different meanings.
May be you could answer my first question in point 1 and enlighten me.

I will not continue the discussion on Argentine uses (namely, the dropping of "de" and the use of "tener que"), since it does not contrubute to the original question and my position obviously stands.

To sum up, and answering the original post (again)
*He should have eaten before going out = Debería haber comido antes de salir.*
*You might hear some people colloquially say: Debía haber comido antes de salir, but there's controversy as whether this use is correct. *
*And using the structure Deber + de here would be a mistake, since "deber de" is used only for suppositions.*

Of course I am not offended, I'm just sorry my explanations are not good enough to explain why "debía + infinitivo" is not the same as "debía + infinitivo perfecto".


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> Of course I am not offended, I'm just sorry my explanations are not good enough to explain why "debía + infinitivo" is not the same as "debía + infinitivo perfecto".



Thank you so much, Tacherie. Now, with your taking out all the Rio Platense regionalism, I can finally understand the points you wish to make. And it seems we only have 'one issue' of difference between us. The translation of 'debía + infinitivo' -- That is the 'only disagreement we have'.. It is very late here in the northeastern US (1 am) so I will address your comment fully tomorrow as I have the opportunity. It is 'wonderful' to get the input of 'translator for a publisher' which it sounds like you are from your comments. Certainly you have great experience in this area and I respect it. I am an avid student and teacher of Spanish for advanced college level students and do my fair share of translating too. This issue of Deber -- is very, very difficult in translation and with respect many translators -- native Spanish speakers - to English -- don't understand 'should', 'should have', and must, and the nature of 'defective modal verbs' in English. It is a very difficult subject. And sadly I see errors in the translations of hotel information materials 'all the time' as I travel in Spanish speaking countries (mostly in Spain). I have offered my suggestions for proper translations to many hotels and airlines and they've done changes. I'm honored they'd consider it.

Let's continue our look at this tomorrow. You make some compelling points here.. Ultimately my approach to all this is not just from 'interviews' with people as native speaker very often don't understand their own grammar well. It's important to follow the grammar rules on these issues and not simply 'what people say' -- though in translation I know you DO have to translate to the 'daily language' of the people. So let's try to figure this out once and for all about 'debía'.

I'll respond later today (Friday 10/17)

Thanks again for taking the time to make your points so clear. Your writing in green in the midst of a single quote block was getting harder to read.

Talk soon,
Grant


----------



## mhp

I offer some translations from my dictionary. I chose them because I think they are relevant. I also think they are good translations:
*she told him he must apologize* le dijo que tenía que or debía disculparse
*tuve la corazonada de que debía regresar* I had a strong feeling that I should go back
*he must have been in a generous mood!* ¡debía sentirse de lo más generoso or dadivoso!
(Oxford)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> 1. Let's try an exercise: How would you translate the following sentences?
> There
> Debo ir a su casa.
> Debía ir a su casa.
> 
> In the second, I assume, you do not use "must", since "must is only right for the present tense". Then you use.... ?


 
I will start with this one item. We're going to have such difficulty solving this unless you accept that there's a difference in English and Spanish between 'obligation' and 'moral inward sense of duty'. It's impossible to do a correct translation to English of 'deber' without accepting that there's a 'huge' difference between 'tener que' and 'deber' in the Standard Spanish.. and that there's a huge difference between 'real obligation' (that has consequences) and 'inward moral duty'. This is 'not my definition' it is the defintions of 'all Spanish and English 'grammarians. "All of them", Tacherie. As you can read from the Diccionario de la RAE:

*deber**1**.* (Del lat. _debēre_).
* 1.     * tr. Estar obligado a algo por la ley divina, natural o positiva. U. t. c. prnl. _Deberse a la patria._
* 2.     * tr. Tener obligación de corresponder a alguien en lo moral.
* 3.     * tr. Cumplir obligaciones nacidas de respeto, gratitud u otros motivos.

The definition from the RAE shows 'no consequences' for 'not doing' what is mentioned after 'deber'.. In English 'have to' always has consequences for not doing. SO:

Spanish:
Deber hacer algo = la 'sensación' internal que algo se tiene que hacer - pero no hay consecuencia alguna al no hacerlo
Tener que hacer algo = una obligación real y external.. y hay consecuencias reales o imaginadas que requieren que se haga algo de tu parte.

This is how the Spanish grammarians make the differentiation and how the majority of the Spanish speaking world understands the difference from my study of the grammarians and from native interviews.

English:
should/ought to/must* = suggestion to oneself
should/need to/be obliged to/ought to/must = inward sense that something must be done but without any consequences for not doing it
Have to/had better/has got to = obligation with consequences
(* "must" is also used as strongly as 'have to' in some contexts)

Now here's the part that starts to get hard... with the tenses in English. We have to make analyse each definition above separately. We'll start with the 2nd one I wrote:

["The sensation inwardly that something has to be done for moral or self imposed
reasons. But there are no real consequences for not doing anything"]: =

Present tense = should/ought to/must + bare infinitive
Simple past = should have/ought to have + past participle
Conditional = should/ought to + bare infinitive
Future tense = should/ought to + bare infinitive
Present perfect = should have/ought to have + pp
Past Perfect = had needed to + bare infinitive ??

Now English has no 'pretérito imperfecto' like Spanish.. But there are contexts the present an 'ongoing' sense of moral obligation in the past.. And I think that's where our trouble in translation is. Debió hacer is a one time 'feeling of the obligation'. Agreed? So 'should have' expresses that correctly and naturally. But how do we express in English an ongoing sense of the obligation for a period of time?

The other day I should have finished my work before I went home. But I didn't. ----> Ongoing sense of moral obligation in the past.. That 'should be' "debía terminar" in Spanish... But you are saying it wouldn't be.. Right?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> I offer some translations from my dictionary. I choose them because I think they are relevant. I also think they are good translations:
> 
> *she told him he must apologize* le dijo que tenía que or debía disculparse
> *tuve la corazonada de que debía regresar* I had a strong feeling that I should go back
> *he must have been in a generous mood!* ¡debía sentirse de lo más generoso or dadivoso!
> (Oxford)


Unbelievable. 'must' and 'should' are defective verbs and can't transmit back in time without 'have'.  Maybe in British English they are fine. But in AMerican English -- The English in sentences 1 and 2 mean 'should' in the future from that point and 'must' now or in the future from that point. If they want to transmit 'should' in the past -- it must be 'should have'. But I can see the conundrum with 'debía' -- Spanish gives a greater shading of the time frame than English can.. The first two English sentence sound very awkward to me. I would never say them. In British English maybe they can be said and that's Oxford's slant on English.

In American English it's way more natural to say..
I had a strong feeling that I should have gone back.
She told him he needed to apologize/should have apologized.

The first one, in the Oxford version, sounds like reported speech using the 'narrative present'.

The plot thickens... 
Grant


----------



## Tacherie

I'm sorry, I didn't waste any time on the first part of your post because it's not relevant to the discussion of the error in your translation. There are no real synonyms in Spanish, but for a few exceptions, so "deber" and "tener" are not the same, yet the difference is far from being as significant as you point out. No need for DRAE on this one...

The problem is not so much semantic, it's grammatical. Let me try to explain one last time:

Shoud + have* + participle = modality (condition*) + aspect (you said imperfect, but have is a marker of "perfect"... let's just overlook this right now) + main verb (and aspect)
_He should have eaten_

Correct translation:
Debería + haber + participio = condition + aspect (perfect) + verbo (y aspecto en -ado)
_Debería haber comido_

Incorrect:
Debía + infinitivo = [perífrasis verbal] = deber (obligación moral+ tiempo: prtérito, aspeto: imperfecto, simple) + verbo--> missing: condición en el verbo "deber"/ aspecto "perfectivo" para el verbo "comer"
_Debía comer_

This is the point I've been trying to make all along. I don't know if it's clear enough now. "Debía comer" is not "He should have eaten". The thought is completely absurd. That's not Spanish. It's "He had to (or any other verb denoting a perhaps less strong obligation, in the past... I'll leave that choice to you) eat".
From this analysis I could also conclude that the sentences "Debío comer" y "Debía haber comido" are also wrong to translate "Should have", but since they are sometimes used, and use eventually determines the norm, let's leave it at that.

It's my time to go to bed now. I promise to re-read your post later today in case there's need for further explanations.
Regards

----------------------------------------------------------------
* I'm calling it condition, but I'm afraid it's not the term you actually use in English grammars. "Should have" is a Modal Perfect, used to speculate about events, or imagine the opposite had happend (as in this case), to talk about past events when we are not sure whether they happende or not _[They should have got there by now],_ and to talk about possibility in the present and future _[You should have already gone through immigration by the time I get to the airport]. (_Source: _Grammar and Vocabulary for Cambridge Advanced and Proficiency,_ byRichard Side and Guy Wellman)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't waste any time on the first part of your post because it's not relevant to the discussion of the error in your translation. There are no real synonyms in Spanish, but for a few exceptions, so "deber" and "tener" are not the same, yet the difference is far from being as significant as you point out. No need for DRAE on this one...



There's always a need for the DRAE in discussions like this to make sure we are all talking about the same variables. Natives have so many 'opinions' about what these words mean. But they only mean 'one' thing. Our perceptions and 'personal usages' are immaterial. That's why we have dictionaries - to dipel any doubts. Grammar is like math. We have to be talking about the same 'variables; so the DRAE definition of 'deber' was 'very' germane to the discussion and to my translations..... 

*Though* -- _you will be happy that I'm 'coming around' to your way of thinking about that translation_, Tacherie!!!.. Good work!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you for hanging in there with me and reminding me of something I had forgotten in my research. Because this is such a difficult topic interlingually it is indeed difficult to keep straight -- probably much more for us who speak English than you who speak Spanish since you have such rich expression in the many verb conjugations - even with your modals. What triggered me to go back to my research was your sentence in your second to last post here.. You challenged me to translate this:


> Ej: _Estaba cansada y había sido un día muy largo, pero debía terminar el trabajo antes de terminar el día._


I looked and looked and looked at that sentence and for a moment I though that 'debía' must be incorrect in that sentence -- the 'only choice' would have to be - 'tenía que'... But then I remembered my own definitions and those of the RAE -- 'tener que' is for 'strong obligation' but in 'your' sentence there -- it is clearly a context of 'internalsense of moral obligation' and that is* 'for sure' 'deber*' in Spanish. So now I had a problem. How does 'English express' this interal 'sense' of moral obligation in an 'ongoing - pretérito imperfecto' way???? "Should have" is NOT the answer. You are correct. Completely correct.. And my assertion that 'should have' = debía + inf is 'not' right. Thanks for your patience.. I had found many notes in my research that had tried to figure out how English has the ability to project a 'durative past' sense with this 'sense of internal moral obigation'. Here are the verbs in my notes that we settled on as the 'most accurate'.

needed to
felt obliged to
felt like --ought to
felt like -- should
--and, yes, even (felt like)__'had to'

As I said -- in the English 'have to' is used for only the strongest of obligation senses.. BUT - in the past -- the 'had to' expresses both 'internal sense of moral obligation' -and- 'obligation with consequences for not doing'. 

One of the things you said that triggered me rethinking was when you started using the term 'suggestion'.. which is one common use for "should have". Unfortunately your article citation from Cambridge refers to a use of 'should have' which is 'conjecture' in English. So that 'should have' must be translated to a 'conjecture' syntax like 'debió de haber + pp' or some other conjecture syntax.

But in keeping focused here.. Let me again say that the English grammarians and natives I was consulting with -- agreed that the us of 'had to' for "past durative" (pretérito imperfecto) is a little too ambiguous to be a trusted translation for 'debía + inf'. My error was asserting that 'should have' was the way of expressing this in English. It is not. I was correct to say that the only way to express the past of 'should' is 'should have'. I stand by that assertion.

For the very best translation professionally of 'debía + infinitivo' you should use:
..__ needed to..
..felt like __ had to/ought to/should
..__ felt obliged to

All of your grammar presentation material in this last post I agree with mostly.. If I see something that bothers me later today I will write again when I have time. Thanks for all your time with this issue. I may have more questions of you if that's okay.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

tacherie, I think it's not only in Argentina that people use "deber/deber de" wrongly. I think it happens everywhere: some of us use "deber" all the time and some others use "deber de" all the time. Only when writing do people reflect on the ideas and get them right, if they know the rules (not many people do). But that is just my general impression, I am not completely sure.


----------



## Tacherie

NewdestinyX said:


> needed to
> felt obliged to
> felt like --ought to
> felt like -- should
> --and, yes, even (felt like)__'had to'
> 
> Thank you, this is what was missing for me to use your theory in practice.
> 
> I was correct to say that the only way to express the past of 'should' is 'should have'. I stand by that assertion.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Thanks for all your time with this issue. I may have more questions of you if that's okay.
> 
> I would love to... it's challenging to have to think about your own language in these terms, I'm constantly learning Spanish too
> 
> Chao,
> Grant


 
Just one minor comment; the first use of "should have" that I quoted from Cambridge is this case we have been discussing: imaginining things had been done differently. He should have eaten---> Debería haber comido; You should have told me you were coming---> Deberías haberme dicho que venías.

The conditional + the perfect tense in Spanish (I dare not make up a name for this construction... I'm sure grammarians call it something, but I'm not familiar with whatever the term is) is the most accurate way to translate what you call "conjecture" in English (in the first example at least, I confess I haven't studied the other two in depth).

Unfortunatelly, the systems of these two languages are not equivalent through and through, and they sometimes express the same meaning by using different means. For example, Spanish expresses the subjuntive through verb conjugation, changing the endings of the verbs. English resorts to other things: using "were", the infinitive... you know the rest...

Or take, for example, the sentence above:
*You should have told me you were coming*
S *+* modal perfect *+* main verb (past) *+* IO *+* DO [embedded clause: S + verb (past continuous)]

In Spanish:
*Deberías haberme dicho que venías.*
S (tácito: tú/vos) *+* conditional* *+* main verb (past perfect)(=auxiliary infinitive *+* OI + participle) *+* DO [embedded cl: S (tácito: tú/vos) + verb (past simple)]

The OI in Spanish is mixed up in the main verb, modality is expressed differnetly (*we have no modal verbs in Spanish), and as you see, in the coloured part, the tenses used cannot be the same; but it's not a mistake, it's just the way each language expresses the concepts. Or what I like to call "genio de la lengua".
Also, remember "debería" (as conditional) functions in a way that is very different from "deber" and its variations. This is the reason why the conditional tense was originally deemed a "mood", called "potencial". So the rules that apply for "deber" do not always apply for "debería", and I think that is the case of the use of "de" to difference obligation from supposition, since that difference, in the conditional, is not longer substancial.

Well, thanks again for the list of alternatives to "had to".
Looking forward to hear more of your input, _hopefully _in a new topic .


----------



## Tacherie

Ynez said:


> tacherie, I think it's not only in Argentina that people use "deber/deber de" wrongly. I think it happens everywhere: some of us use "deber" all the time and some others use "deber de" all the time. Only when writing do people reflect on the ideas and get them right, if they know the rules (not many people do). But that is just my general impression, I am not completely sure.


 
First, we do not use "deber" wrongly. In Argentina, as I mentioned, "deber" without "de" is the norm.
It just does not coincide with the use accepted by RAE and other grammarians as general rule -though RAE does now, at least, recognize its existance. In the publishing business, it is avoided, because the target is a bigger market than just one country, and we have to try to use vocabulary and syntax that will not sound incorrect or confuse a group of people within that target.

As for it being an Argentine use, examples have come up here where it's used in other countries aswell. Then again I have to limit myself to what I know for sure; it would be disrespectful of me to include names of countries that may or may not use it, without a previous research on my part.

Regards


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> (*we have no modal verbs in Spanish), .


This is actually not correct, Tacherie. Deber, Poder, Tener que, are all modal verbs in Spanish according to all grammar sources I've ever read.. Maybe we're using the word 'modal' differently.

*But*-- I have a different question for you.. related to this topic. Since you used the term 'suggestion' for 'should' as opposed to 'obligation' I've been rethinking how 'should' is used in English as it deals with our difficulty in going over into Spanish. Here's an example from my course and I'd be interested in how you'd translate it to English.

Él insistía en que debiéramos empezar más temprano.

Of course -- any other forero input would be greatly appreciated.

Grant


----------



## Tacherie

NewdestinyX said:


> This is actually not correct, Tacherie. Deber, Poder, Tener que, are all modal verbs in Spanish according to all grammar sources I've ever read.. Maybe we're using the word 'modal' differently.
> 
> *But*-- I have a different question for you.. related to this topic. Since you used the term 'suggestion' for 'should' as opposed to 'obligation' I've been rethinking how 'should' is used in English as it deals with our difficulty in going over into Spanish. Here's an example from my course and I'd be interested in how you'd translate it to English.
> 
> Él insistía en que debiéramos empezar más temprano.
> 
> Of course -- any other forero input would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Grant


 
Indeed, my definition of "modal vebs" does not include verbs that are conjugated... so Spanish does not have "modal verbs" as English does -which is not the same as to say verbs can't express modality. On that, I'm sorry, I'm going to trust my teachers and the grammars _I've_ read.
What you call "modals" in Spanish are studied as "perifrasis verbales", there are different types, if you are interested: http://www.asmadrid.org/spanish/gram/perifras.htm, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per%C3%ADfrasis_verbales 

In _Él insistía en que debiéramos empezar más temprano, _I understand from the structure of the sentence that you are using "debiera" as "debería", therefore I would still translate it as "should". 
Then again, since "debiera" is the past of the subjunctive and not a conditional, I would never use it like that (It's sounds completely unnatural to me, to be honest, and even harder to pronounce). But apparently some people do use it... may be they can be of more help.


----------



## Bocha

Hola:


> *Tacherie*
> En _Él insistía en que debiéramos empezar más temprano, _I understand from the structure of the sentence that you are using "debiera" as "debería", therefore I would still translate it as "should".


Yo también.



> *Tacherie*
> Then again, since "debiera" is the past of the subjunctive and not a conditional, I would never use it like that


Yo tampoco.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> Indeed, my definition of "modal vebs" does not include verbs that are conjugated... so Spanish does not have "modal verbs" as English does -which is not the same as to say verbs can't express modality. On that, I'm sorry, I'm going to trust my teachers and the grammars _I've_ read.
> What you call "modals" in Spanish are studied as "perifrasis verbales", there are different types, if you are interested: http://www.asmadrid.org/spanish/gram/perifras.htm, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perífrasis_verbales


Thanks for the article. Yes I've studied this extensively. And verbal perifrases is an all inclusive term. Any verb that cannot, in its conjugated form (in Spanish) or not (in English) stand alone is considered 'modal'. Poder, as a verb cannot stand alone. It must have another verb in its infinitive unless that infinitive is ellipsed. Yo no puedo (hacerlo). But people learn terminologies differently. Emilio Alarcos, a member of the RAE in his writings uses the term 'modal' and 'perifrasis'. But we are talking about the same phenomenon grammatically and that's what matters.



> In _Él insistía en que debiéramos empezar más temprano, _I understand from the structure of the sentence that you are using "debiera" as "debería", therefore I would still translate it as "should".
> Then again, since "debiera" is the past of the subjunctive and not a conditional, I would never use it like that (It's sounds completely unnatural to me, to be honest, and even harder to pronounce). But apparently some people do use it... may be they can be of more help.


 ACtually no, I wasn't using 'debiera' for 'debería' because 'insistía en que' requires the subjunctive in the subclause. I've heard many natives tell me that the 'deba' and 'debiera' sound strange in all applications. Even if the main clause 'requires' the subjunctive natives will tend toward using the Indicative. Add to that Argentina's aversion to 'deber' and I can understand your dislike for it at all. Thanks for your help as always, Tacherie.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> Yo tampoco.


Bocha,
Can you give me an example of a sentence where 'deba' and 'debiera' would sound perfectly normal in their role as 'subjunctive'? Not where 'debiera' is substituting for 'debería'.

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## Bocha

NewdestinyX said:


> Bocha,
> Can you give me an example of a sentence where 'deba' and 'debiera' would sound perfectly normal in their role as 'subjunctive'? Not where 'debiera' is substituting for 'debería'.
> 
> Gracias,
> Grant


 
_Haga Ud. lo que sea que deba hacerse para evitar males mayores._
_No veo razón para que yo deba darle ningún tipo de explicación a Ud._

_Pero si llegada la situación debiera elegir entre la vida de mi mujer y la vida de mi hija, elegiría la vida de mi mujer._


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> _Haga Ud. lo que sea que deba hacerse para evitar males mayores._
> _No veo razón para que yo deba darle ningún tipo de explicación a Ud._
> 
> _Pero si llegada la situación debiera elegir entre la vida de mi mujer y la vida de mi hija, elegiría la vida de mi mujer._


Thanks very much. For 'debiera' can you think of any 'non-conditional' syntax where 'debiera, pretérito imperfecto verdadero', would be natural?

What I'm looking for is an 'indirect command' example..

Like -- He was demanding that we 'should'....... (how would this be translated to Spanish?)

Grant


----------



## Tacherie

While you wait for Bocha's response... I'm thinking your sentence is missing a main verb, as for example "...He was demanding that we should _go_".
In that case "should" is just a marker of subjunctive, and is not translated as any form of "deber" in Spanish... only the subjunctive form of the main verb:

Nos demandaba que fuéramos

Regards


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> While you wait for Bocha's response... I'm thinking you're sentence is missing a main verb, as for example "...He was demanding that we should _go_".
> In that case "should" is just a marker of subjunctive, and is not translated as any form of "deber" in Spanish... only the subjunctive form of the main verb:
> 
> Nos demandaba que fuéramos
> 
> Regards


Very, very intriguing observation!!  More often the Imperfect Subjunctive in the the subclause translates to English as 'would' not 'should'. In British English there is a slight preference for 'should' in some places 'would' is expected in American English.. But let me think about this further. Is there a semantic difference then between these two?

He was demanding that we {would} be the first group to see it. (This is an aggressive tone -- a simple demand)
He was demanding that we _should_ be the first group to see it {because of some reason}. (This implies that the demanding person feels there is a 'moral reason' why we _deserve_ to be first)

It's a nuance -- but the two are different in the English in my opinion.

Grant


----------



## Tacherie

NewdestinyX said:


> He was demanding that we {would} be the first group to see it. (This is an aggressive tone -- a simple demand)
> He was demanding that we _should_ be the first group to see it {because of some reason}. (This implies that the demanding person feels there is a 'moral reason' why we _deserve_ to be first)
> 
> It's a nuance -- but the two are different in the English in my opinion.
> 
> Grant


 
They sound different, I agree.

Since I'm not a native, and I use "would" in other constructions, in the first sentence (simple demand) I would lose "would" altogether and just use the bare infinitive -or "should" if appropiate. I understand it if I see it, but I wouldn't think of using it (and, let's face it, in my daily routine the opportunity to use a subjunctive in English doesn't come often...)

If you want to reproduce that difference between "would" and "should", may be you can compensate somehow:

-[WOULD] Demandaba que fuéramos los primeros... (the element of "simple demand" is in the verb "demandar" and that's suffiecient) 

-[SHOULD] Decía (more neutral)/Insistía en que deberíamos ser los primeros... ("Decía" marks the statement of the utterance, "insistir" is a little different since it connotes repetition, and the idea of "reason/deserving" is in "deberíamos")

These are just options. But I would never say something like:_ Estaba demandando que deberíamos ser los primeros en..._ (awful Spanish!) so I guess some elements are lost in translation. But what's important: I think the core mening of the sentence is still conveyed.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Tacherie said:


> in the first sentence (simple demand) I would lose "would" altogether and just use the bare infinitive


Agreed. The 'would' is forced.



> but I wouldn't think of using it (and, let's face it, in my daily routine the opportunity to use a subjunctive in English doesn't come often...)


The English subjunctive is alive and well in every day speech.  
1-The judge requested that they be given.... ('are' is 'awful' there)
2-It's not fair that she be treated... ('is' would be awful there)
--in fact for many of the cases Spanish uses subjunctive, English does too. It's just harder to spot since it's only in the 3rd person or with the verb 'to be'.


> If you want to reproduce that difference between "would" and "should", may be you can compensate somehow:
> 
> -[WOULD] Demandaba que fuéramos los primeros... (the element of "simple demand" is in the verb "demandar" and that's sufficient)


Agreed!



> -[SHOULD] Decía (more neutral)/Insistía en que deberíamos ser los primeros... ("Decía" marks the statement of the utterance, "insistir" is a little different since it connotes repetition, and the idea of "reason/deserving" is in "deberíamos")


Yes.. and the more I think about it -- you can only 'share' the idea that something 'should be' a certain way. You can't create an 'command clause' that "makes someone 'should'".. No es posible: Hace que alguien _deba_ hacer algo.. That doesn't make sense? So I understand why you were uncomfortable with the verb 'insistir en que' -- because it sounds like 'rogar'.. And you can't 'rogar que' alguien deba hacer algo'... Right? This is getting clearer. There just aren't as many options, outside of a conditional dual clause where 'debiera' works.



> These are just options. But I would never say something like:_ Estaba demandando que deberíamos ser los primeros en..._ (awful Spanish!)


Well that's awful Spanish because 'demandar que' + subject change *requires* the Subjunctive. ¿No te parece?

Thanks for your help Tacherie! This is getting clearer..

Grant


----------



## Tacherie

NewdestinyX said:


> The English subjunctive is alive and well in every day speech.
> 
> Of course, I only meant that as my poor excuse not to be familiar with -or rather, not feel comfortable using- some constructions, for example this of "would"... since I'm not in an English speaking country, and there's only so much you can learn/practice when you are not exposed to a language 24/7.
> 
> Yes.. and the more I think about it -- you can only 'share' the idea that something 'should be' a certain way. You can't create an 'command clause' that "makes someone 'should'".. No es posible: Hace que alguien _deba_ hacer algo.. That doesn't make sense? So I understand why you were uncomfortable with the verb 'insistir en que' -- because it sounds like 'rogar'.. And you can't 'rogar que' alguien deba hacer algo'... Right? This is getting clearer. There just aren't as many options, outside of a conditional dual clause where 'debiera' works.
> 
> Right, in Spanish your original sentence is contradictory... first you "demand" and then you make it softer by arguing "deservability"... it's kind of funny. Its one of those things in language that reflect the differences among cultures.
> 
> Well that's awful Spanish because 'demandar que' + subject change *requires* the Subjunctive. ¿No te parece?
> 
> I would still not use "Demandaba que debiéramos...". It requires the subjunctive but in the main verb -whichever it is-, the modal "should" in English (in this example, at least) does not need to be replaced by an auxiliary/"perifrasis modal" in Spanish, just the subjunctive mood.
> 
> Thanks for your help Tacherie! This is getting clearer..
> 
> Glad to help , when I can
> 
> Grant


----------



## Ynez

> Él insistía en que debiéramos empezar más temprano.


Para tu oración, creo que lo más normal sería:

Él insistía en que debíamos empezar más temprano.

Él insistía en que teníamos que empezar más temprano.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Para tu oración, creo que lo más normal sería:
> 
> Él insistía en que debíamos empezar más temprano.
> 
> Él insistía en que teníamos que empezar más temprano.



¡Gracias, Ynez! Tacherie me ayudó a darme cuenta de que uno sí puede 'insistir (como si dijera 'declarando fuertemente' -
pero sigue siendo 'diciendo' algo) en que algo *es* así o *debería* ser así... pero decir tal -- es una declaración -- de modo que
-- lleva el indicativo... 

Pero hay situaciones en las que 'insistir en que' funciona como 'rogar que' o 'demandar que' alguien 'h*aga*' algo.. ¿no?
Sencillamente alguien no puede rogar que alguien deb*a* hacer algo... 

Pero en esta oración concordarías conmigo en que el subjuntivo se tiene que emplear. ¿no?
"Él insistía en que nos fuéramos inmediatamente."

El subjuntivo es normal allí.. ¿Estamos de acuerdo?

Grant


----------



## GaboTino

"He should have eaten before going out"
*
Debería haber comido antes de salir*

Como yo lo entiendo es lo que se le recomienda al sujeto *(He)*, no denota obligación sino recomendación

Si fuera una obligación sólo diría *He had to eat = Tenía **que** comer

 He must eat before going out =  Debe comer antes de salir* es una oración en presente que denota obligación pero que no expresa el tiempo en el que está la oración original;

Bueno, es mi opinión!!!


----------



## NewdestinyX

GaboTino said:


> "He should have eaten before going out"
> *
> Debería haber comido antes de salir*
> 
> Como yo lo entiendo es lo que se le recomienda al sujeto *(He)*, no denota obligación sino recomendación
> 
> Si fuera una obligación sólo diría *He had to eat = Tenía **que** comer
> 
> He must eat before going out =  Debe comer antes de salir* es una oración en presente que denota
> obligación pero que no expresa el tiempo en el que está la oración original;
> 
> Bueno, es mi opinión!!!


Al tratar de determinar los matices entre los dos idiomas con respecto a "deber" versus "should"
-- he concluido esto..

*El español:*
Deber, en 1ra persona singular/plural, en todos tiempos salvo el condicional: es una obligación moral que
uno siente dentro de su alma. No es una obligación real sino percibido.

Deber, en 2da y 3ra persona singular/plural, en todos tiempos salvo el condicional: es una obligación moral
que el hablante cree que otra necesita sentir. 

Deber, en todas las personas, en el condicional, como has dicho, significa una recomendación o sugerencia
a sí mismo o a otra. 

Eso es -- en el español.

*El inglés:*
El problema es en el inglés donde-- 'should'/'should have' pueden expresar esta obligación moral dentro 'y'
una recomendación. Ambos aspectos. En el pasado -- como descubrimos Tacherie y yo -- 'should have' es
diferente que 'debía' - pero semejante a 'debió'. 'Debía' (como otros verbo en el pretérito imperfecto) se
refiere a una época de tiempo  - durante el cual el hablante sentía o alguien necesitaba haber sentido una
obligación moral para hacer algo. En inglés esto (lo de 'debía') es: '*felt like __ had to*' -- pero no justo
'had to'. "had to" = tenía que/tuvo que. Aunque he concordado con la conclusión que en inglés, por elipsis,
es posible usar 'had to' por 'felt like __ had to'.

Pero "should have" transmite un 'momento' en tiempo. De ahí que pueda traducir bien 'debió.....' y 'debió haber....'

Es un tema muy interesante. 

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

He aquí mis conclusiones de nuestras conversaciones sobre el tema de deber (dando por sentado que todos estamos haciendo una distinción entre 'deber' y 'deber de'). Dime qué opinaís. (de mi curso)

*DEBER - *This verb has many regional variations and is not discussed exhaustively in grammar books. We have many words in English that
imply obligation/personal duty (must, should, ought to, have to, need to, had better, got to) where, in Spanish there are really mainly two:
 “Deber” (should, ought to, feel the need to, had better) is used for ‘lighter’ senses of ‘subjective’ personal duty/moral obligation in the 1st
person and suggestion of another’s duty in the 2nd and 3rd person -and-
 “Tener que” (have/has to, have/has got to) is used for the ‘strongest’ senses of obligation in all persons implying some outside force o
 authority requiring action or consequences could ensue. This verb needs to be carefully translated to English so listed below are a few
more tenses to assure accuracy.​*Present-*
You must/should/ought to (practice more).____ Tú debes (practicar más)_.
[in 1st person - a strong sense of moral obligation; in 2nd and 3rd person a strong suggestion/recommendation to others]
*Conditional-*
He should/really ought’a (fly).____†Debería/Debiera (volar)_.
[a very light suggestion/opinion to oneself or others]
*Future-*
I should/will need to (prepare _tonight_).___ Deberé (preparar esta noche)._
[in 1st person - a sense of moral obligation; in 2nd and 3rd person a suggestion/recommendation to others]
*Past (period of time)-*
..but I {felt like I} needed to (work more).____..pero debía (trabajar más)_.
[in all persons a sense of moral obligation]
*Past (moment in time)-*
He should have (worked harder that day)...____ Debió (trabajar más duro aquel día)/Debió haber (trabajado más duro aquel día)…_
[in 1st person - a sense of moral obligation; in 2nd and 3rd person a suggestion/recommendation to others]
*Past Perfect-*
I should have (looked for another)... ____   _††Debería haber/Debía__ haber (buscado otro)…_
[in 1st person - a sense of moral obligation; in 2nd and 3rd person a suggestion/recommendation to others]
*Pres.Subj.-*
(I don’t see any reason why) I should (tell you anything)._____ (No veo razón para que yo) deba (__decir__te nada)._
[The first clause here has to trigger the subjunctive syntactically for '_deba_' to be used]
*Imp.Subj.-*
(If they {felt like they}) had to (do it I would understand why)…   ___ _(Si lo) debieran hacer (yo entendería por qué)_...
[The first clause here has to trigger the subjunctive syntactically - and a Type 2 or 3 conditional is pretty much the only syntax to trigger '_debiera_']*NOTE* In the present tense, “_deber_” is often translated: “must” which can carry as strong a sense of obligation as “_tener que_” (have to)
but it’s an internal sense. Referring to ‘personal duty’ in the past, in English, has two aspects depending on whether the 'duty sense' was over
time or in a single moment. A single moment of this inward sense of duty is a suggestion to oneself or to others and is 'should have'. If the
sensing was over time it is expressed as 'felt obliged to' or in more modern language 'felt like__had to', where the 'felt like' is often dropped.
 †The Imperfect Subjunctive conjugation of “_deber_” is often used interchangeably for the conditional (“_Debería/Debiera ir._” are both
“I should/really ought’a go.”)
 ††Finally, and seemingly illogical, both ‘_debía haber_ +_ pp_’ and ‘_debería haber + pp_’ really communicate the same thing. ​_©2006 New Destiny Publishing. International copyright secured. Copying prohibited.
_​


----------



## Bocha

Hola:
mis versiones

*Present-*
You must practice more: _Tenés que practicar más._
You ought to/should practice more. _Deberías practicar más._

*Conditional-*
He ought to/should practice more. (él) Debería practicar más.


 *Future-*
I should leave now. Es mejor que me vaya.
I will need to leave now. Me es preciso partir.
*
Past 
*..but I felt like I needed to work more.___ pero (yo) sentía que debía esforzarme más.

 *Past (moment in time)-*
He should have (worked harder) _Debería haberse esforzado más._

*Past Perfect-*
I should have (looked for another)... _Debería haber buscado otro…_

*Pres.Subj.-*(I don’t see any reason why) I should (tell you anything).____No veo razón para que yo deba (tenga que) decirte nada.

_ *Imp.Subj.-*(If they {felt like they}) had to do (it I would understand)… 
Si sintieran que esa es su obligación (yo) lo entendería.


Creo que antes mencionaste que el cono sur somos algo reacios a utilizar _deber_, me parece que tienes razón.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> Hola:
> mis versiones
> 
> *Present-*
> You must practice more: _Tenés que practicar más._
> You ought to/should practice more. _Deberías practicar más._
> 
> *Conditional-*
> He ought to/should practice more. (él) Debería practicar más.
> 
> 
> *Future-*
> I should leave now. Es mejor que me vaya.
> I will need to leave now. Me es preciso partir.
> *
> Past
> *..but I felt like I needed to work more.___ pero (yo) sentía que debía esforzarme más.
> 
> *Past (moment in time)-*
> He should have (worked harder) _Debería haberse esforzado más._
> 
> *Past Perfect-*
> I should have (looked for another)...  _Debería haber buscado otro…_
> 
> *Pres.Subj.-*(I don’t see any reason why) I should (tell you anything).___ _No veo razón para que yo deba (tenga que) decirte nada.
> 
> _ *Imp.Subj.-*(If they {felt like they}) had to do (it I would understand)…
> Si sintieran que esa es su obligación (yo) lo entendería.
> 
> 
> Creo que antes mencionaste que el cono sur somos algo reacios a utilizar _deber_, me parece que tienes razón.



Gracias Bocha -- pero te aseguro que no es necesario que se traduzcan los 'felt like' a palabras  más que 'deber'. En el pasado -- la únican manera en la que el inglés puede transmitir el sentido de 'pretérito imperfecto' es por añadir este 'felt like + had to'. Tus traducciones no son incorrectos pero están 'demasiado traducidos'... si me entiendes..  Y muchos nativos me han explicado que en el presente -- 'debo' no es más fuerte que 'debería'. En inglés 'must' realmente es muy fuerte y tiene que traducirse a español como 'tengo que'.... 

En inglés -- "I should" no es 'es mejor que yo'.. Es: "had better".
'Should' en todos sus formas es una obligación internal - no una opinión. "Es mejor que" es una opinión.. 

En los tiempos futuros -- tiene que haber una palabra del futuro antes de que se pueda usar una conjugación del futuro en español. ¿No? Tú has usado las palabras 'now'... lo cual nunca usaría el futuro en ninguno de los idiomas.

¿Qué te parece?
Grant


----------



## Bocha

Hola:



> *NewDestinyX*
> Tus traducciones no son incorrectas pero están 'demasiado traducidas'... si me entiendes..


Sí creo que te entiendo, es muy posible que uno (yo) tienda a "sobretraducir" cuando quiere(o) acercarse(me) lo más posible al significado original.



> *NewDestinyX*
> Y muchos nativos me han explicado que en el presente -- 'debo' no es más fuerte que 'debería'.


Es sorprendente hasta que punto pueden diferir entre sí las opiniones de los nativos sobre cuestiones lingüísticas presuntamente básicas.



> *NewDestinyX*
> En inglés 'must' realmente es muy fuerte y tiene que traducirse a español como 'tener que'....


No podría estar más de acuerdo, eso sí el uso de _tener que_ en castellano es más amplio y a veces no es tan fuerte como el _must_.



> NewDestinyX
> En los tiempos futuros -- tiene que haber una palabra del futuro antes de que se pueda usar una conjugación del futuro en español. ¿No? Tú has usado las palabras 'now'... lo cual nunca usaría el futuro en ninguno de los idiomas.


No entendí muy bien este comentario pero sí es posible usar _ahora_ con un verbo en futuro, al menos en castellano (me parece que en inglés también).

_Todo este tiempo no le he dicho nada para no mortificarla, pero ahora se lo contaré todo._

_No has aprendido nada a pesar de todos mis esfuerzos así que ahora vamos a tener que empezar desde el principio.


_NB: en el ejemplo del futuro creo que falta a un *me* (deberé prepararme)

Saludos.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Pero en esta oración concordarías conmigo en que el subjuntivo se tiene que emplear. ¿no?
> "Él insistía en que nos fuéramos inmediatamente."
> 
> El subjuntivo es normal allí.. ¿Estamos de acuerdo?
> 
> Grant



Sí estamos de acuerdo, así exactamente es como lo diríamos.

Veo dos diferencias fundamentales con el verbo "insistir".

1. Insistir en algo.

Él insistió en que la pared *estaba* pintada de verde, pero todos la veíamos azul.

2. Insistir en que alguien haga algo.

Insistió en que nos *tomáramos* otro aperitivo.

Lo de la excepción de "deber" no lo comprendía, pero ahora veo la razón por lo que contáis.


----------



## Ynez

En cuanto a tus explicaciones generales sobre "deber/must" y todo eso, te cuento de manera superficial mi idea:

*must = deber
should = debería
have to = tener que
*
En muchos casos los matices son subjetivos en ambos idiomas.

Excepciones:

tener que haber hecho algo --> en inglés no se puede decir con "have to", y se dice con "should have....."

Tenía que haber terminado ya.
I should have already finished.

en español en lenguaje coloquial es normal que digamos "tener que" para dar indicaciones sobre cómo hacer algo, y en inglés no se dice "have to" para esto:

Tienes que ir hasta la esquina y allí verás un letrero que dice....
Tienes que apretar el tornillo y después.....

Newdestiny, tu descripción del uso de esos modales en inglés no se corresponde con la de los libros. Creo que ahí está el problema, en tu descripción del uso en inglés.

Piensa en frases en inglés y veamos cómo las diríamos en español, ya verás como en general es lo mismo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Bocha said:


> Es sorprendente hasta que punto pueden diferir entre sí las opiniones de los nativos sobre cuestiones lingüísticas presuntamente básicas


Aún me quedo perpleja... ¿Dices que debo sí es más parecido a tengo que -- y debería es más suave como 'sería mejor que...' ?



> No podría estar más de acuerdo, eso sí el uso de _tener que_ en castellano es más amplio y a veces no es tan fuerte como el _must_.


Si recuerdo bien, como me ha explicado Tacherie, sencillamente los Argentinos no emplean el 'deber'. ¿verdad?



> No entendí muy bien este comentario pero sí es posible usar _ahora_ con un verbo en futuro, al menos en castellano (me parece que en inglés también).
> _Todo este tiempo no le he dicho nada para no mortificarla, pero ahora se lo contaré todo._
> _No has aprendido nada a pesar de todos mis esfuerzos así que ahora vamos a tener que empezar desde el principio._


Esos ejemplos son muy diferente que tus otros. En estos -- usas 'ahora' no como una marca de tiempo -- y aparece frente al verbo creando una declaración general. En los del otro mensaje usabas 'ahora' como adverbio de tiempo después del verbo lo cual marca un momento en el presente. Y mi argumento fue que me hacía falta ejemplos del verbo español en el 'futuro'. Así que el verbo debería haber sido en el futuro en tal ejemplo para servir mis propósitos y los de mis estudiantes.
_Ahora vamos a tener que empezar..._. no se refiere al futuro - sino que es una declaración general de una realidad en el presente.
_Vamos a tener que empezar mañana.._ se refiere a algo que 'va a suceder' mañana -- pero aún no es del futuro.
_Tendré que empezar mañana._, se refiere al futuro. 
_Ahora tendré que empezar mañana..._ 'ahora' = por eso-  y se refiere al futuro. 
_ Tendré que empezar ahora.. _(chocante y agramatical - ¿no?)Espero de explicarme mejor aquí, Bocha -- gracias..
Supongo que mi pregunta fue: ¿Son mis ejemplos en español oraciones gramaticales y normal? Sé sus traducciones al inglés -- pero quiero asegurarme que los ejemplos en español estén bien.

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> En cuanto a tus explicaciones generales sobre "deber/must" y todo eso, te cuento de manera superficial mi idea:
> 
> *must = deber
> should = debería
> have to = tener que*


Eso está simplificado excesivamente -- pero sirve bien como una regla general.. 



> En muchos casos los matices son subjetivos en ambos idiomas


Tal vez sea así -- pero mis entrevistas me han dado mucha información similar entre nativos sobre este tema.. Pero bueno..



> Excepciones:
> 
> tener que haber hecho algo --> en inglés no se puede decir con "have to", y se dice con "should have....."
> 
> Tenía que haber terminado ya.
> I should have already finished.


Conozco este uso -- pero ¿no es igual que  --> 'debería haber terminado ya'?



> en español en lenguaje coloquial es normal que digamos "tener que" para dar indicaciones sobre cómo hacer algo, y en inglés no se dice "have to" para esto:


Anda.. ¿estás diciendo, entonces, que 'sugerencias, de tu punto de vista a otra' son más normal con 'tener que'? 



> Tienes que ir hasta la esquina y allí verás un letrero que dice....
> Tienes que apretar el tornillo y después.....


Pero es lo mismo en inglés.. Usamos 'have to' para ésas también -- 'no' should


> Newdestiny, tu descripción del uso de esos modales en inglés no se corresponde con la de los libros. Creo que ahí está el problema, en tu descripción del uso en inglés.


Claro -- los libros de la gramática inglés, escrito por autores 'panhispánicos' no están 'perfectos' en este tema. Por eso -- he estado estudiando durante mucho tiempo sobre este tema y haciendo mis propias entrevistas y leyendo sobre 'deber' de vuestros gramáticos.



> Piensa en frases en inglés y veamos cómo las diríamos en español, ya verás como en general es lo mismo.


El problema con esa propuesta es que temo que lo que habéis leído de los modales en inglés no sea completamente fiel. Por eso -- os he estado pidiendo diferentes palabras para explicar esto de 'deber'.

La lista que hice hace dos o tres mensaje es una recopilación de muchos hilos aquí y mis entrevistas.. Confío en mis conclusiones -- porque algunos son ejemplos de vosostros..  y otros, los míos... Pero mi pregunta es: ¿hay ejemplos algunos de español incorrecto en mi lista? Y cuáles traducciones al inglés no cuadran con vuestra experiencia con el inglés?

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## Bocha

NewdestinyX said:


> Pero mi pregunta es: ¿son algunos de los ejemplos de mi lista español incorrecto? ¿Y cuáles traducciones al inglés no cuadran con vuestra experiencia con el inglés?


 
Mi parecer:

*Present-*
You must/should/ought to (practice more).____ Tú debes (practicar más)_.

Yo nunca identificaría _must _y _should_ con la misma traducción: debes (pero según afirmas has llegado a otra conclusión en tus entrevistas)


*Conditional-*
He should/really ought’a (fly).____†Debería/Debiera (volar)_.


*Future-*
I should/will need to (prepare _tonight_).___ Deberé (preparar esta noche)._

Hummm... no.


*Past (period of time)-*
..but I {felt like I} needed to (work more).____..pero debía (trabajar más)_.

Sí.


*Past (moment in time)-*
He should have (worked harder that day)...

_Debió (trabajar más duro aquel día)_
No

_Debió haber (trabajado más duro aquel día)_
Hummm... no me gusta. Pero, podría ser.

*Past Perfect-*
I should have (looked for another)... 
_Debería haber/_
_Debía haber (buscado otro)_ Hummm. realmente no me gusta.

*Pres.Subj.-*
(I don’t see any reason why) I should (tell you anything)._____ (No veo razón para que yo) deba (__decir__te nada)._


*Imp.Subj.-*
(If they {felt like they}) had to (do it I would understand why)… ___ _(Si lo) debieran hacer (yo entendería por qué)_...

No me gusta, suena raro. Pero de ahí a que sea incorrecto...


----------



## Ynez

> Conozco este uso -- pero ¿no es igual que  --> 'debería haber terminado ya'?



Tenía que haber terminado ya = Ya debería haber terminado

Son iguales, sí. Lo que quería decir es que aunque en español podemos decir "tenía que haber..." en inglés no se puede usar "have to" con las formas de perfecto.




> Anda.. ¿estás diciendo, entonces, que 'sugerencias, de tu punto de vista a otra' son más normal con 'tener que'?
> 
> Pero es lo mismo en inglés.. Usamos 'have to' para ésas también -- 'no' should



Anda, pues creía que eso no era normal en inglés. 



> Claro -- los libros de la gramática inglés, escrito por autores 'panhispánicos' no están 'perfectos' en este tema.



We never study grammar books written by hispanos or panhispanos, in fact, the books we study in Spain are written by British authors.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Tenía que haber terminado ya = Ya debería haber terminado
> 
> Son iguales, sí. Lo que quería decir es que aunque en español podemos decir "tenía que haber..." en inglés no se puede usar "have to" con las formas de perfecto.


Pues sí... pero 'have/has had to' = presente perfecto de 'have to' -- y es inglés perfecto pero tienes la razón al decir que no puede traducir 'deber + infinitivo' pero -- creo que concordarías conmigo en esto:

Ha debido creer = He "has had to" believe. (felt like he had to/felt obliged to)



> We never study grammar books written by hispanos or panhispanos Spanish speakers/Hispanics, in fact, the books we study in Spain are written by British authors.


Anda.. eso es el problema.  "Should" se usa 'muy' diferentemente en Inglaterra que en el resto del mundo que habla inglés. Ahora entiendo más de las dudas sobre 'deber' a inglés. Tal como España no representa todo el estándar de usanza entre hispanohablantes - La usanza de Inglaterra no representa todo el estándar para inglés. Desgraciadamente, para las propósitos de estas discusiones -- 'should' es diferente en Inglaterra. Opino que los estudiantes del inglés deberían estudiar fuentes que representan más del mundo que habla inglés. Pero bueno.. Eso no es nuestro tema.

Como siempre, muchísimas gracias por tu (y vuestra) ayuda,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Ha debido creer = He "has had to" believe. (felt like he had to/felt obliged to)
> 
> Grant



Ha debido creer = Debe haber creído = He must have believed

Ha tenido que creer = He had to believe (if it's possible to force someone to do such a subjective thing as "to believe").

En los libros de gramática se especifica cuándo hay una diferencia entre el uso en UK y en USA, newdestiny. Personalmente creo que quieres complicar este tema más de lo que es. Tú sigue poniendo ejemplos y veamos cómo son en español.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Ha debido creer = Debe haber creído = He must have believed


Entonces es una suposición. ¿Verdad?



> En los libros de gramática se especifica cuándo hay una diferencia entre el uso en UK y en USA, newdestiny


No todas las veces, Ynez. Los gramáticos de Inglaterra son muy orgullosos de 'su' inglés . A ellos no les importa para nada cómo se habla el inglés de America. Confía en mí.  Tengo unos cuantos de esos libros también. El de Oxford es 'el más fiel' en explicar las diferencias.





> Personalmente creo que quieres complicar este tema más de lo que es.


 Lo siento pero discrepo fuertemente. Hace muchos años que estudio este tema. Y errores tratando de 'deber' al inglés son entre los más comunes que cometen los hispanpohablantes aun después de muchos años hablando el inglés. De ahí que yo persiga más entendimiento. 





> Tú sigue poniendo ejemplos y veamos cómo son en español.


 Lo haré de seguro.. Y gracias por tu ayuda. He aquí uno:
Porfa dame un ejemplo natural de 'deberé' -- y lo que piensas es su traducción al inglés.

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Entonces es una suposición. ¿Verdad?



Sí.




> Porfa dame un ejemplo natural de 'deberé' -- y lo que piensas es su traducción al inglés.



Nunca decimos "deberé" a menos que sea el verbo "deber" cuando significa "owe": 

_Si sigo así, para el año que viene te deberé 1000 euros.
_
Para "I will have to" decimos "Tendré que".

_Tendré que darme prisa si quiero llegar a tiempo = I'll have to hurry if I want to be on time._


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Nunca decimos "deberé" a menos que sea el verbo "deber" cuando significa "owe":
> 
> _Si sigo así, para el año que viene te deberé 1000 euros.
> _
> Para "I will have to" decimos "Tendré que".
> 
> _Tendré que darme prisa si quiero llegar a tiempo = I'll have to hurry if I want to be on time._



I started a new thread addressing the future of 'deber'. Please respond there if you can.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=5968319#post5968319


----------



## Istriano

Unfortunately, the new RAE grammar has nothing on: _Debería/Podría haber_ + pp vs _Debía/Podía haber + pp_, but I  have found examples by Manuel Seco:




> 5. En la lengua literaria se usa a veces,
> por galicismo, _*en *_por _*como *_o _*a lo*_:_  Vive en
> príncipe_ es _Vive como un príncipe_, _Vive a lo
> príncipe_: [...] En los ejemplos *podía
> haberse dicho* _como_: _como _padre de familia,
> _como _paladín, _como _amo.





> *tisular*. _Adjetivo_, usado en biología y medicina:
> 'de los tejidos'. Es voz tomada del francés
> _tissulaire _(de t_issu, 'tejido_'). El adjetivo
> correspondiente a tejido _*debía haber sido*_ _textil_,
> como en otros ámbitos en que se usa ese
> nombre;


Some people say it's illogical that  _Debería/Podría haber_ + pp vs _Debía/Podía haber + pp _mean the same, but the exact thing happens in Portuguese, so this interchangeability must be something natural (and very old).


----------

