# Deber - you should have = debe/debería?



## Aymara

Hello, I have a question about the use of the verb ´deber´. I´m always confused as to when to use ´debe´ or ´deberia´, for example, how would you translate the following: 

´You should have told her´ 
My attempt: ´Deberias haberle dicho´.

Is this correct? Or should it be: ´Debes haberle dicho´

What is exactly the difference between ´deberias´ and ´debes´? To me it seems that they mean exactly the same thing.


----------



## Mikebissle

I am not a native, but:

debes = 2nd person present indicative
deberías = 2nd person conditional

«Debes haberle dicho.» would be "You *must* have told him."
«Deberías haberle dicho.» would be "You *should *have told him."


----------



## Aymara

Hello, thank you for reply!   
Doesn´t the verb ´deber´ always refer to some kind of ´moral obligation´? Than how does ´You *must* have told him´ fit into that? Wouldn´t *must* in this case refer to a logical consequence, as in, ´If he knows, than you (or someone else) must have told him?´


----------



## Aymara

So would you translate the following sentence with the subjuntivo?

If he knows, somebody must have told him.
My attempt: Si el lo sabe, alguien selo hubiera dicho.


----------



## obz

Aymara said:


> So would you translate the following sentence with the subjuntivo?
> 
> If he knows, somebody must have told him.
> My attempt: Si el lo sabe, alguien selo hubiera dicho.



Alguien debía habérselo dicho.

Your sentence is_ 'If she knows, somebody would/might have told her'_, it's also not correct, sorry.
There is nothing subjunctive in that sentence, it's pure imperative.

Also you cannot put 'selo' (or any 2 direct or indirect pronouns) together unless it follows and infinitive or gerund.



> _habiéndoselo dicho / habérselo dicho/ se lo ha dicho_


----------



## Aymara

But why is it not subjunctive? Aren´t we talking about an incertainty? Aren´t we assuming that somebody told her, because we don´t know how she knows?

And why use the verb *deber* in the first place? Doesn´t *deber* refer to some kind of ´moral obligation´?

And if you would use *deber, *than how do you decide between debia or deberia?

And could you tell me if the following translation is correct?
You should have told her - Deberias haberle dicho.

sorry for all the questions...


----------



## obz

Because it's indicative.... "You must have told her" is just as indicative as "You went to the store"... be it the truth or not, the speaker is convinced and using purely indicative grammar.

We need some native advice on should have / must have.


----------



## Iv93

Aymara said:
			
		

> And why use the verb *deber* in the first place? Doesn´t *deber* refer to some kind of ´moral obligation´?


 _Deber_ can be used to express an obligation...
_Debo regar las plantas/I must water the plants._
...to imply something...
_Debió haber salido/He must have went out._
...or when you owe something to someone.
_Le debo dinero/I owe him money._
In this case you're implying something.

According to me:

Debes haberle dicho: You must have told him/her. As in "You must have told him, don't you?"/"Debes haberle dicho, ¿no?".
Debiste haberle dicho: You should have told him/her.

_Deberías haberle dicho_ sounds wrong to me. I'd say...
Deberías decirle: You should tell him/her.


----------



## Peterdg

"Deberias haberle dicho" : I guess it's syntactically correct but I wouldn't say it this way (but who am I) Indeed we need some native advice for that. (For what it's worth: I would say: "Habrías tenido que decírselo")

"Deber" does not always imply moral obligation. e.g. con el tiempo que hace, debe (de) ser primavera. With this weather, it must be spring.

"Si el lo sabe, alguien selo hubiera dicho": I would say: "Si el lo sabe, alguien se lo habrá dicho". = "If he knows, someone must have told him". The "must" notion is expressed in Spanish by using the future tense (habrá).

The only way I can see a conditional in these kind of sentences is in a contruct like this: Oí que ella lo habría/hubiera dicho a su marido (.... pero no estoy seguro que esta información sea correcta): I heard that she would have told her husband (.... but I'm not sure if that information is correct) 

In that case, you can use either "habría" or "hubiera" because "hubiera", although it's a "subjuntivo imperfecto" by form, can be used instead of "habría" representing a conditional. (not the other way around!!!!)

Beware: this is my personal opinion. I'm neither Spanish nor English native speaker.


----------



## Salazaar

Iv93 said:


> _Deberías haberle dicho_ sounds wrong to me. I'd say...
> Deberías decirle: You should tell him/her.



If you say it this way, doesn't it mean _You should tell him?_

By the way, according to RAE:

*deber*. *1. *Es regular; no son correctas las formas sincopadas del futuro y del condicional simple o pospretérito, _debrá, __debría, _etc., normales en el español clásico, pero sentidas hoy como vulgares.

Doesn't that mean that _Deberías haberle dicho_ is incorrect?


----------



## Peterdg

@Salazaar 
No. It means that "debría" is incorrect (it should be debería).


----------



## Pinairun

Aymara said:


> So would you translate the following sentence with the subjuntivo?
> 
> If he knows, somebody must have told him.
> My attempt: Si el lo sabe, alguien selo hubiera dicho.



If he knows, somebody must have told him = Si lo sabe, alguien debe habérselo dicho.

It means : "Si lo sabe _es porque alguien se lo ha dicho_", because really somebody has told him.


----------



## Salazaar

And what would be the difference between the following sentences:

_Paula habrá sabido nada de él 
Paula habría sabido nada de él
Paula debe haber sabido nada de él_

Because for me they all mean the same: _Paula must have known nothing about him_

Am I wrong?

Regards


----------



## obz

Salazaar said:


> And what would be the difference between the following sentences:
> 
> _Paula habrá sabido nada de él
> *Paula will have known nothing about him*
> 
> Paula habría sabido nada de él
> *Paula would have known nothing about him*
> 
> Paula debe haber sabido nada de él_
> *Paula must have known nothing about him (sounds off)
> Paula must not have know anything about him (sounds better)
> *


----------



## Salazaar

Check out: http://spanish.about.com/od/verbtenses/a/future_perfect.htm - it says: _Paula *habrá sabido* nada de él._ Paula *must have known* nothing about him.

I'm a bit confused right now...

Also as for the second example, check out: http://www.elearnspanishlanguage.com/grammar/verbs/conditionalperfect.html
It says: _Habrían sido las dos cuando llegamos.     It must have been 2 o'clock when we arrived._

What do you think? Any input from a native?


----------



## obz

Salazaar said:


> it says: _Paula *habrá sabido* nada de él._ Paula *must have known* nothing about him.



It also says



> *Because the future tense in Spanish can sometimes be used to indicate likelihood or supposition,* the same is true when _haber_ is used in the future tense.


No one can take for granted without context that there is likelihood or supposition. The future tense is used like that in Spanish, but from a sentence out of context, it's hard to be deduced at all.

_Paula *habrá sabido* nada de él.

_Can be indicative, or as you have pointed out, a tense of supposition.However translation in the tense of supposition may be

_Paula may/might have known nothing about him_.

Must petty well excludes supposition, at least in English, so it doesn't work well in translating a tense that exhibits uncertainty or supposition.

You and I, we arrive at some friend's house... they are supposed to be there waiting for us, but to our surprise, they are not. I say to you with a clear tone of uncertainty

_¿Se habrán ido? Maybe they've left?_


----------



## Salazaar

And the same goes for_ Paula habría sabido nada de él? _That without context you wouldn't know what do I mean?

_ Paula debe haber sabido nada de él_ - and this clearly says that _Paubla must have known nothing about him?_


----------



## Pinairun

Salazaar said:


> And what would be the difference between the following sentences:
> 
> _Paula habrá sabido nada de él
> Paula habría sabido nada de él
> Paula debe haber sabido nada de él_
> 
> Because for me they all mean the same: _Paula must have known nothing about him_
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> Regards



In Spanish we have to say "no" (adverb)  before the verb and "nada" (DO) if we wish to obtain a correct negative sentence:

_Paula *no *habrá sabido *nada* de él 
__Paula *no *habría sabido *nada *de él
__Paula *no *debe haber sabido *nada* de él_


----------



## Salazaar

I forgot about it
Anyway, for you, what is the difference between these three? (assuming we know the context)


----------



## Pinairun

Well, I don't know how to explain it in English, because my knowledge is not good.

But I'll try to give some examples with my sentences after yours, so that you can understand their sense.

_Paula *no *habrá sabido *nada* de él, porque, de lo contrario, nos lo habría dicho. (We all are sure that "Paula hasn't heard from him",  otherwise she would have told us)

__Paula *no *habría sabido nada de él, si hubiera perdido su número de teléfono. (If she had lost his telephone number, "Paula would not have heard from him")


__Paula *no *debe haber sabido *nada* de él_, more or less, the same than the first one.

Excuse my broken English, please.


----------



## plsdeluno

Para significar la probabilidad ustedes necesitan usar no sólo debe haber etc sino también debe de haber etc ejemplo María debe de haber sabido, maria must have known.  DEBER DE HABER NOT DEBER SIN DE, 
SALUDOS


----------



## Salazaar

Now the second sencence is just a simple conditional III type. But generally, what construction is most frequently used for such situations as:

_A: Where is Pablo?
B: I don't know, he must have left.

A: ¿Dónde está Pablo?
B: No lo sé, ............_

or

_A: She is upset, you shouldn't have told her about it.

A: Está disgustada, ...............
_
Regards

PS> Can a native confirm what plsdeluno said? I have seen many constructions of this type without DE


----------



## Peterdg

I'm not a native speaker but I can defintely confirm that in contemporary Spanish it is very common to use deber *without* "de" in the meaning plsdeluno refers to (at least in Spain). As an illustration a song of Joaquín Sabina (Calle melancolía)  in which he sings "Ya el campo estará verde, debe ser primavera" definitely without "de".


----------



## Salazaar

This page: http://studyspanish.com/lessons/conditional.htm
also says that it is possible to use simple conditional for it.... Well, it's too much for me. So a question to you natives, in the conversations above what would you put?


----------



## Bandama

Salazaar said:


> Now the second sencence is just a simple conditional III type. But generally, what construction is most frequently used for such situations as:
> 
> _A: Where is Pablo?
> B: I don't know, he must have left.
> 
> A: ¿Dónde está Pablo?
> B: No lo sé, debe (de) haber salido/ habrá salido_
> 
> or
> 
> _A: She is upset, you shouldn't have told her about it.
> 
> A: Está disgustada, no tendrías que/deberías/debías habérselo dicho
> (The imperfect can often replace the conditional in Spanish)
> _
> Regards
> 
> PS> Can a native confirm what plsdeluno said? I have seen many constructions of this type without DE
> 
> Modal verbs, just like in Englisn and other languages, can be used, besides their original meaning (obligation, advice, ability, etc.), to express probability. In Spanish, "deber" expresses moral obligation _and_ _conclusion_ as well. In these latter cases, a careful speaker would include the preposition "de" after it ("deber de"), but it is allowed to drop it.


----------



## Pinairun

Salazaar said:


> Now the second sencence is just a simple conditional III type. But generally, what construction is most frequently used for such situations as:
> 
> _A: Where is Pablo?
> B: I don't know, he must have left.
> 
> A: ¿Dónde está Pablo?
> B: No lo sé, ............_




Read this, please.

¿Cuál es el empleo correcto de _deber_ y de _deber de _?                                                                         
*Respuesta :* _Deber_ + infinitivo expresa obligación: «Debo acabar el artículo esta misma tarde». 

Cuando indica suposición pueden usarse *indistintamente *_deber_ + infinitivo y _deber de_ + infinitivo: 
«Debe hacer ya más de veinte años» 
o 
«Debe de hacer ya más de veinte años».


----------



## lalunamia

_Paula *no *habrá sabido *nada* de él _
Future tense indicates probability in the present. Literally this means 'Paula will not have known anything of/from him'.
This translates as: Paula probably hasn't heard from him, or Paula probably doesn't know anything about him.

_Paula *no *habría sabido *nada *de él_
Conditional tense indicates probability in the past. 
Literal: Paula would have known nothing of/from him.
Actual: Paula probably never heard from him. Paula probably didn't know anything about him.

_Paula *no *debe saber *nada* de él_ - Paula should not know anything about him. (debe: present, habría sabido: past - verbs must agree)

_Paula *no *debía haber sabido *nada* de él_ - Paula should not have known anything about him.

_Paula *no *debe *de *haber sabido *nada* de él - _Paula must not have known anything about him.

*'debe de haber' must have 'debe haber' should have*


----------



## neal41

Iv93 said:


> _Deber_ can be used to express an obligation...
> _Debo regar las plantas/I must water the plants._
> ...to imply something...
> _Debió haber salido/He must have went gone out._
> 
> 
> According to me:
> 
> Debes haberle dicho: You must have told him/her. As in "You must have told him, don't you isn't that so?"/"Debes haberle dicho, ¿no?".
> Debiste haberle dicho: You should have told him/her.
> 
> _Deberías haberle dicho_ sounds wrong to me. I'd say...
> Deberías decirle: You should tell him/her.


 
Butt and Benjamin (_A New Rererence Grammar of Modern Spanish_) confirms what you say. 'Deber de' expresses probability or supposition for which English commonly uses 'must', and in modern Spanish the 'de' is often omitted. So

Debes (de) haberle dicho que . . . = You must have told him that . . .

'Deber' by itself expresses obligation.

Debes decirle que . . . = You should tell him that . . .

Debió decirle que . . . = You should have told him that . . .

In order to have a past meaning English requires a perfect tense whereas in Spanish the simple preterit suffices. According to Butt and Benjamin both the imperfect and the conditional have a present meaning. Is this true for you?

Debías decirle que . . . = You should tell him that . . .
Deberías decirle que . . . = You should tell him that . . .


----------



## Salazaar

Thanks for all the replies, you were really helpful!! And one more question, what is the most frequently used construction for expressing possibility in present? Which one is used more often?

_Paula no habrá sabido nada de él 
Probablemente Paula no sepa nada de él

_Thanks in advance


----------



## Spug

Pinairun said:


> Excuse my broken English, please.



No Pinairun, todo lo contrario... tus ejemplos están perfectos.


----------



## Salazaar

Anyone? What is the most frequently used construction for expressing possibility in present? Which one is used more often?

_Paula no habrá sabido nada de él 
Probablemente Paula no sepa nada de él

_And is there any difference between the following?:

Debías decirle que . . . 
Deberías decirle que . . . 
Debiste decirle que . . .

Thanks in advance


----------



## neal41

Salazaar said:


> And is there any difference between the following?:
> 
> Debías decirle que . . .
> Deberías decirle que . . .
> Debiste decirle que . . .


 
According to what I wrote in message #28 the first two along with "Debes decirle que . . ." have present meaning, and the third one has past meaning. I would like to have the opinion of a native speaker on this issue.


----------



## Bandama

Salazaar said:


> Anyone? What is the most frequently used construction for expressing possibility in present? Which one is used more often?
> 
> _Paula no habrá sabido nada de él  (this one is in the past)
> Probablemente Paula no sepa nada de él  But probably the following constructions are even more usual:
> 
> 1) Quizás/tal vez/ puede que/ es posible que Paula no sepa nada de él
> 2) A lo mejor Paula no sabe nada de él
> 
> _And is there any difference between the following?: Yes
> 
> Debías decirle que . . . You had to tell him/her // You should tell him/her*
> Deberías decirle que . . . You should tell him/her
> Debiste decirle que . . . You should have told him/her
> 
> Thanks in advance



*This construction is a very tricky one. In fact, people use it to say "you have to" and "You should" indistinctively. 

a)

_ Me entregué porque sentí que debía hacerlo = I gave myself in because I felt I had to _

_En mis tiempos, si querías casarte, debías hacerlo por la iglesia = In my times, if you wanted to marry, yo had to do it in church_ 

(An obligation, mainly moral, in the past)

_b)

Debías pedirle a tus amigos que te ayudaran = You should ask your friends to help you.

Debías tener más cuidado, es peligroso = You should be more carefull, it's dangerous._

(Here, the imperfect form replaces the conditional "deberías" in colloquial speech)


----------



## neal41

_Probablemente Paula no sepa nada de él  But probably the following constructions are even more usual:_

_1) Quizás/tal vez/ puede que/ es posible que Paula no sepa nada de él_
_2) A lo mejor Paula no sabe nada de él_



The first sentence suggests that 'quizás', 'tal vez', 'puede que', and 'es posible que' have the same or nearly the same meaning, that is, that they indicate the same degree of probability. Do you agree that they indicate the same degree of probability?

Does 'posiblemente' mean the same as 'es posible que'?

Does 'a lo mejor' indicate a higher degree of probability than 'quizás', 'tal vez' and the others, or does it indicate the same degree of probability?

Does 'probablemente' indicate a higher degree of probability than 'posiblemente'?


----------



## kamnil

deberias is a suggestion
 look at my example:

Martha is not good at French lessons, *she should*(deberia) study hard.

Martha doesnt worry about her French lessons, *she have to/must*(obligation) study hard.

 hope it is useful for you.

salam


----------



## Salazaar

I'm sorry, it should be this way:

Debías haberle dicho que . . . 
Deberías haberle dicho . . . 
Debiste haberle dicho . . .

Any differences? And "debiste" also can mean "You had to", right?

@Bandama, you say that "no habrá sabido" is in the past? Here we have other opinion on this subject:


> _Paula *no *habrá sabido *nada* de él _
> Future tense indicates probability in the *present*. Literally this means 'Paula will not have known anything of/from him'.
> This translates as: Paula probably hasn't heard from him, or Paula probably doesn't know anything about him.


----------



## lalunamia

Salazaar said:


> Anyone? What is the most frequently used construction for expressing possibility in present? Which one is used more often?
> 
> _Paula no habrá sabido nada de él _
> _Probablemente Paula no sepa nada de él_
> 
> And is there any difference between the following?:
> 
> Debías decirle que . . .
> Deberías decirle que . . .
> Debiste decirle que . . .
> 
> Thanks in advance


 
Las dos son correctas. Tambien puede decir:
Es probable que Paula no sepa nada de él.

Si, hay diferencias entre los tres:

Debías decirle que . . .  You should have told him that...(but you didn't -past)
Deberías decirle que . . . You could tell him that...(now or sometime in the future)
Debiste decirle que . . .This one is incomplete. Because it is preterite it would need a specific time frame to make it sound right.

Debiste decirle cuando llegó que ella no queria venir a la fiesta.
You should have told him when he arrived that she didn't want to come to the party.

Espero que te ayude.


----------



## Salazaar

1) So the construction "*Habrá *sabido" is about *present* or *past*?

2) *Deberías *decirle que . . . You *could* tell him that.. - I thought that it means: "You *should *tell him". And why don't we use the verb "*poder*" here?

3) And "*Deberías* *haberle* dicho" = you *should* *have* told him?

4) Which construction is the most popular one for saying "you *should* have told him"? and "you *could* have told him"?

I'd be glad if you answered all the 4 questions at the same time Thanks a lot


----------



## Peterdg

Salazaar said:


> 1) So the construction "*Habrá *sabido" is about *present* or *past*? _literally=_ _*He will have known *freely=_ _*He must have known* so, in the past_
> 
> 2) *Deberías *decirle que . . . You *could* tell him that.. - I thought that it means: "You *should *tell him". And why don't we use the verb "*poder*" here? _*You should tell him*_
> 
> 3) And "*Deberías* *haberle* dicho" = you *should* *have* told him? _*Yes*_
> 
> 4) Which construction is the most popular one for saying "you *should* have told him"? _*Habrías tenido que decírselo*_ and "you *could* have told him" _*Habrías podido decírselo*_ ? _Only my opinion (and I'm not native, so native speakers, please give input also)_
> 
> I'd be glad if you answered all the 4 questions at the same time Thanks a lot


----------



## Bandama

Salazaar said:


> I'm sorry, it should be this way:
> 
> 
> Any differences? And "debiste" also can mean "You had to", right?
> 
> @Bandama, you say that "no habrá sabido" is in the past? Here we have other opinion on this subject:



Yes, the past: "No habrá sabido" relates to "No ha sabido" as much as "no sabrá" relates to "no sabe".

"No habrá sabido" is used to express uncertainty/possibility in a time defined by the pretérito perfecto compuesto. 

- María no ha llegado. ¿Crees que le habrá podido suceder algo? (something could have happened to her?)

-No te preocupes, se habrá equivocado con la dirección, como de costumbre (she must have got the wrong address, as usual)*

*Notice the future can express different degrees of probability depending on the context.


----------



## duncandhu

Hi all,

from my understanding (if you're all still thinking of ways to translate "You shouldn't have told him") How about:

"No tenías que habérselo dicho"

I remember at work one day someone said "Teníamos que haber hecho [can't remember what the person actually said here]" and thinking "Aah, that's how they actually say "We should have done...", although I have heard quite frequently "deberías" etc, I sometimes think it sounds a bit "forced" (for want of a better word).

Saludos
Duncan


----------



## Salazaar

Thanks. And is the future (perfect) the most usual way in spain for expressing probability (in the past), like "he must/could have?" 

And can we also use it for "should"? Like:

- Crees que él habrá debido decirselo a ella? (Do you think that he should have told her that?)

PS. My goal is not to find as many ways of translating "You should have told him" as possible, but to find the most NATURAL way, to sound as natural as possible


----------



## Bandama

Hi,



Salazaar said:


> Thanks. And is the future (perfect) the most usual way in spain for expressing probability (in the past), like "he must/could have?"
> 
> Difficult to say, but I don't think so. There are many other formulae: "posiblemente/probablemente/quizás/ tal vez, etc . + pretérito perfecto simple/imperfecto de subjuntivo", "deber de", "a lo mejor + pretérito"...
> 
> And can we also use it for "should"? Like:
> 
> - Crees que él habrá debido decirselo a ella? (Do you think that he should have told her that?)
> 
> PS. My goal is not to find as many ways of translating "You should have told him" as possible, but to find the most NATURAL way, to sound as natural as possible
> 
> The Spanish equivalences of "should have + participle" (unfulfilled past) are:
> 
> a) "Tenía que + haber + participio" (more circumstancial: a simple regret)
> "Tenía que haber pedido paella: el cordero está malísimo"
> 
> b) "Debería/debía + haber + participio" (a bit more focused on the moral aspect)
> "Deberías haberle dicho la verdad. Ahora nunca confiará en ti".
> 
> But often choosing between them is just a question of personal preference.


----------



## lalunamia

Bandama said:


> Yes, the past: "No habrá sabido" relates to "No ha sabido" as much as "no sabrá" relates to "no sabe".
> 
> "No habrá sabido" is used to express uncertainty/possibility in a time defined by the pretérito perfecto compuesto. no lo es, es futuro perfecto
> 
> - María no ha llegado. ¿Crees que le habrá podido suceder algo? (something could have happened to her?)
> 
> -No te preocupes, se habrá equivocado con la dirección, como de costumbre (she must have got the wrong address, as usual)*
> (present) she probably has the wrong address. (and right now she is probably in the wrong place)
> 
> If this were a past event:
> No, te preopcupes, se habría equivocado con la dirección, como de costumbre.
> she probably got the wrong address (sometime in the past, an hour ago, a week ago, or whatever time frame and that is why she isn't here now)
> 
> *Notice the future can express different degrees of probability depending on the context.


 
Lo siento... el futuro nunca refiere al pasado, solamente el futuro o la probabilidad del presente.

Indicativo
ha sabido - perfecto - present perfect (has known - now)
había sabido - pluscuamperfecto - past perfect (had known - before now)
habrá sabido - futuro perfecto - future perfect (will have to know - later or probably knows now)
habría sabido - condicional compuesto - conditional (would/could have known or probably knew - before now)

Subjuntivo
haya sabido - perfecto de subjuntivo - present perfect subjunctive (has known - now)
hubiera sabido - puscuamperfecto de subjuntivo - past perfect subjunctive (had know - before now)


----------



## Bandama

lalunamia said:


> Lo siento... el futuro nunca refiere al pasado, solamente el futuro o la probabilidad del presente.
> 
> Indicativo
> ha sabido - perfecto - present perfect (has known - now)
> había sabido - pluscuamperfecto - past perfect (had known - before now)
> habrá sabido - futuro perfecto - future perfect (will have to know - later or probably knows now)
> habría sabido - condicional compuesto - conditional (would/could have known or probably knew - before now)
> 
> Subjuntivo
> haya sabido - perfecto de subjuntivo - present perfect subjunctive (has known - now)
> hubiera sabido - puscuamperfecto de subjuntivo - past perfect subjunctive (had know - before now)



Creo que está confundiendo el uso inglés con el español. El futuro, en su forma simple y compuesta, puede utilizarse en español para expresar probabilidad. Esto no quita para que, como es natural, se use también con sus sentidos originales, equivalentes a "will + infinitivo" y "will have + participio".

Con el sentido de probabilidad, *el futuro expresa una probabilidad en el presente*, nunca en el futuro, pues su sentido se confundiría con una simple predicción: 

1. -¿Quién llama a la puerta?
         -Será Juan. Me dijo que vendría esta tarde.

2. - ¡Qué raro! María no ha venido hoy a trabajar.
         - Estará enferma.

El futuro expresa un grado de probabilidad más habitualmente cercano a la conclusión, como el caso 1, que se traduciría por "must", pero también puede expresar mayor incertidumbre, como en 2, que está a medio camino entre "may" y "must" (aunque más cerca, a mi entender, del último).

A su vez, *el futuro anterior expresa una probabilidad en el pasado*. Como dije en el otro _post_, normalmente se utiliza en un espacio de tiempo definido por el pretérito perfecto compuesto, es decir, suele utilizarse para acciones pasadas recientes, pues es el equivalente de "Probablemente ha/haya" :

  -¿Cómo ha podido llegar tan rápido?
  - Habrá salido de su casa corriendo y habrá tomado el tren de las ocho.

Como bien hace notar, *el condicional también puede expresar probabilidad en el pasado*. A mi juicio, tiene más relación en su ámbito de aplicación con el pretérito perfecto simple.

 - ¿Cómo pudo aprobar el examen si el día antes no tenía ni idea?
 - Se pasaría la noche estudiando.


----------



## lantern

Sólo quería agregar que, aunque no es tan común como en español, en inglés también se puede usar el futuro para expresar probabilidad. Ejemplo:

Who's at the door?
*It'll be* John. He told me he'd come over this afternoon.

También funciona con las traducciones de las otras frases de Bandama ("he'll have left...", "he'd have spent...") aunque con el condicional quizás sonaría raro para algunos.


----------



## macame

El modal *should*, se traduce en español por el *condicional* del verbo *deber* (debería, deberías, debería, deberíamos, deberíais, deberían).
I should study harder (Debería estudiar más)
You shouldn't do that (No deberías hacer eso)
She studied hard so she should pass the exam (Estudió mucho así que debería aprobar el examen)
We should have studied harder (Deberíamos haber estudiado más)


----------



## Salazaar

Thanks all, that's very useful! And one more question that I forgot to ask, how to form _might have?_
For example:

_- Do you remember the guy wearing a black shirt in the shop? His face looked familiar to me...
- Well, I don't know (I'm not sure), it *might have been* my brother, he visits this place quite often
(_Note different levels of probability of *might have* and *must have*)


----------



## neal41

Salazaar said:


> _- Well, I don't know (I'm not sure), it *might have been* my brother, he visits this place quite often_
> _(_Note different levels of probability of *might have* and *must have*)


 
 he might have been my brother = perhaps he was my brother = tal vez fuera mi hermano

he must have been my brother = debe de haber sido mi hermano


----------



## lalunamia

Bandama said:


> Creo que está confundiendo el uso inglés con el español. Creo que no.
> 
> A su vez, *el futuro anterior expresa una probabilidad en el pasado*.  *el futuro anterior expresa una probabilidad **en el presente* Como dije en el otro _post_, normalmente se utiliza en un espacio de tiempo definido por el pretérito perfecto compuesto, es decir, suele utilizarse para acciones pasadas recientes, pues es el equivalente de "Probablemente ha/haya" :
> 
> -¿Cómo ha podido llegar tan rápido? Ha podido - perfecto de indicativo = present perfect (have or has been able to)
> - Habrá salido de su casa corriendo y habrá tomado el tren de las ocho.
> 
> Estas oraciones son del presente. Si quiere hablar del pasado:
> ¿Cómo había podido... (había podido - pluscuamperfecto de indicativo = past perfect...  had been able to)
> - Habría salido de su casa...
> 
> Como bien hace notar, *el condicional también puede expresar probabilidad en el pasado*. A mi juicio, tiene más relación en su ámbito de aplicación con el pretérito perfecto simple.
> 
> - ¿Cómo pudo aprobar el examen si el día antes no tenía ni idea?
> - Se pasaría la noche estudiando.


----------



## Bandama

Salazaar said:


> Thanks all, that's very useful! And one more question that I forgot to ask, how to form _might have?_
> For example:
> 
> _- Do you remember the guy wearing a black shirt in the shop? His face looked familiar to me...
> - Well, I don't know (I'm not sure), it *might have been* my brother, he visits this place quite often
> (_Note different levels of probability of *might have* and *must have*)



*"Puede que/tal vez/ quizás* *fuera* mi hermano".


----------



## Bandama

> Originally posted by *lalunamia*
> *el futuro anterior expresa una probabilidad **en el presente*
> 
> -¿Cómo ha podido llegar tan rápido? Ha podido - perfecto de indicativo = present perfect (have or has been able to)
> - Habrá salido de su casa corriendo y habrá tomado el tren de las ocho.
> 
> Estas oraciones son del presente. Si quiere hablar del pasado:
> ¿Cómo había podido... (había podido - pluscuamperfecto de indicativo = past perfect...  had been able to)
> - Habría salido de su casa...


Para que el estudiante de español no se confunda, reitero que* el futuro anterior expresa una duda o hipótesis en el pasado, en contraste con la forma simple del futuro, que lo hace en el presente*.

Para hablar del pasado (sin contraste con otro tiempo posterior tambén en el pasado) no es apropiado utilizar el pretérito pluscuamperfecto, sino el pretérito perfecto simple (o indefinido) o el perfecto compuesto: "¿Cómo pudo?"/ "¿Cómo ha podido?", no "¿Cómo había podido?"

La hipótesis en el pasado se expresa más habitualmente con el condicional simple que con el compuesto. 

El diccionario de la Real Academia lo dice bien claro:



> RAE:
> *futuro**, ra**.* (Del lat. _futūrus_).
> * ~** compuesto.*
> * 1.     * m._ Gram._ El que denota acción, proceso o estado *futuros* respecto al momento en que se habla, pero pasados con relación a una acción, un proceso o un estado posteriores a dicho momento. _Habrá amado, habrá temido, habrá vivido._  Denota asimismo la probabilidad de una acción o un estado de *cosas anteriores al momento en que se habla*. _Pareces cansado, habrás estado de juerga_
> 
> 
> *futuro simple.*
> * 1.     * m._ Gram._ El que manifiesta de un modo absoluto que algo existirá o tendrá lugar en un momento posterior al momento en que se habla. _Amará, temerá, vivirá._  Denota también una acción o un estado que, según conjetura o probabilidad, se produce o existe *en el momento presente*. _¿Dónde está Juan? Estará en la biblioteca._ Puede también tener valor de imperativo. _Amarás al prójimo como a ti mismo_


----------



## Salazaar

Thank you all!


----------



## lalunamia

Bandama, Creo que es una cuestión de perspectiva. Me parece que tu estás diciendo lo mismo que yo excepto desde la perspectiva del evento en vez de la perspectiva del tiempo de la conversación. Basta que sea díficil aprender las estructuras pero no la toca la dificuldad de explicarlas. Gracias por su esfuerzo.


----------

