# moeten Hebben vs hebben moeten



## Alisson Pereira

Oi,

I saw the following sentence in a video title.
*
> Welke films moet je gezien hebben voor de laatste Avengers?*

But If change like this: *Welke films had je voor de laatste Avengers moeten zien?*
Are there differences in meanings between them?

Thanks in advance


----------



## eno2

No.

I'm not too sure what's precisely meant though by both. . Especially not because of the use of 'voor' instead of 'van'
Voor is perhaps even wrong.


----------



## Peterdg

I agree with eno. I don't know what is meant by the sentence.

Perhaps if you give some context, it may enlighten us?????


----------



## eno2

*A ) Welke afleveringen  moet je gezien hebben van  de laatste Avengers?*
Voor mij maakt dat al wat zin.
*B) Welke afleveringen  had je van de laatste Avengers moeten zien?*
is krak hetzelfde als A


----------



## Peterdg

I googled the sentence. What they mean is "Which movies must you have seen before you watch  _Avengers the end game _and in what sequence?" (in order to understand that movie).

In that case, both Allison's sentences are equivalent.


----------



## eno2

De Avengers; Zijn dat allemaal afzonderlijke  films? Of TV afleveringen? 
Ik weet er niets van.  ik kijk film noch tV.


----------



## Peterdg

eno2 said:


> De Avengers; Zijn dat allemaal afzonderlijke  films? Of TV afleveringen?
> Ik weet er niets van.  ik kijk film noch tV.


Geen idee.


----------



## Alisson Pereira

When I saw that title i thought this way: "which movies you have to have seen before the last movie of Avangers". Otherwise, it's beter you watch the old ones before you watch the last one.

I just wanted to know if I change the sentence the meaning was going to be the same. 

So, the two sentences don't make sense to you?


----------



## eno2

Alisson Pereira said:


> When I saw that title i thought this way: "which movies you have to have seen before the last movie of Avangers". Otherwise, it's beter you watch the old ones before you watch the last one.



That's what I imagined too it was trying to mean.



> I just wanted to know if I change the sentence the meaning was going to be the same.


 Yes, it's equally unintelligible.



> So, the two sentences don't make sense to you?


 Not to me and not to Peterdg.
Anyhow, as I said here in



eno2 said:


> *A ) Welke afleveringen  moet je gezien hebben van  de laatste Avengers?*
> Voor mij maakt dat al wat zin.
> *B) Welke afleveringen  had je van de laatste Avengers moeten zien?*
> is krak hetzelfde als A



your tweaking the sentence from 'moeten gezien hebben' to 'had je moeten zien' is perfectly alright.

Your OP examples don't make any sense though.

And the reason for that  is the double  ellipse.
One ellipse is the Omitting of 'movie of '  in 'before the last *movie of* Avengers'

The second ellips caused me to have to have a guess at the meaning of 'voor'

What I would have understood straight away would have been:
*Welke films moet je gezien hebben voor het (goed) begrijpen van de laatste film van de Avengers?*

Compare that to your OP's
*Welke films moet je gezien hebben voor de laatste Avengers?*
This is unintelligible. Except when you already know what's it all about. Then it's alright. For the savvy.

But of course that's what you have with titles without context. They keep it short with ellipses which make it unintelligible at first read.


----------



## Alisson Pereira

Actually, my only example is: *Welke films had je voor de laatste Avengers moeten zien?* The other one is a title that I saw.


----------



## eno2

So? I've said already trice that 'had moeten zien' is  the same as 'moet je gezien hebben.' You must have read that a few times already. ..What do you want more?
What *we *want more, is context when you make a consultation.

Forum rules:


> Context
> 
> Always provide an example sentence and give context.



You seem to not  accept though that the title that you saw  was unintelligible to us?
I had to ask you how you interpreted the meaning of that title. And then to add the necessary information to make it intelligible.


----------



## Alisson Pereira

My last one didn't need an answer.



eno2 said:


> You don't want to accept it's unintelligle to us?


I really got that!


----------



## eno2

Alisson Pereira said:


> My last one didn't need an answer.



What's that supposed to mean?  I'm free to answer or react. Tone...


----------



## Alisson Pereira

eno2 said:


> This is unintelligible. Except when you already know what's it all about. Then it's alright. For the savvy


After that, you explained to me everything which I needed to know, I didn't see that, you changed your answer, didn't you?


----------



## eno2

I don't understand what you mean exactly with that.. In fact: not at all. Is it important? 
Your O.P. question has been fully answered.


----------



## Alisson Pereira

Ok, dank je!


----------

