# FR: she must have loved her



## thechap

How would I say this in French??

Is it: "elle dut l'a aimer"??


----------



## Outsider

Elle a dû l'aimer.


----------



## david314

_Elle a dû l'aimer._

-Let's wait for confirmation.


----------



## Lila888

oui c'est ça, c'est " elle a dû l'aimer "


----------



## Punky Zoé

And the matter is that in French, you can't know (except from the context) if you are talking about a woman or a man ...


----------



## Maître Capello

I would rather say _Elle devait l'aimer_…


----------



## Julz

Agreed, as "must have loved" sounds conditional to me, it's not a known fact, more an implied opinion.


----------



## Areyou Crazy

Or do you use 'devait' because you are linking two actions albeit implicitly?
I mean 'she must have loved her' suggests another action.
Whereas 'a du' would be more suitable for a precise event? I have trouble understanding why 'a du' wouldnt be suitable here! Because, if I am correct 'a du aimer' is also possible for a deduction.


----------



## Maître Capello

Areyou Crazy said:


> I have trouble understanding why 'a dû' wouldnt be suitable here! Because, if I am correct 'a dû aimer' is also possible for a deduction.


I think it is because it makes much more sense to say she loved her for some time rather than to say it occured at a specific point in time, especially since that love had some *effect* given the context…

_Elle devait l'aimer pour lui avoir offert autant de cadeaux.
She must have loved her for giving to give her so many gifts._


----------



## Areyou Crazy

ah une petite faute! 

I think the translation is 
She must have loved her to give her so many gifts
(if you mean *loved her in order to give her so many gifts*)
What you said was correct but it changes the sense.
I love someone for giving me gifts = I love them because they give me gifts
But I must love someone to give them a gift means (deduction) The fact that I give them gifts demonstrates that I love them

But I think it suggests that the French just have different situations for using imparfait and the past simple etc, just as in English we regard certain actions as being punctual and others as being progressive...
but anyway I understand more clearly now merci


----------



## Punky Zoé

Areyou Crazy said:


> I have trouble understanding why 'a du' wouldnt be suitable here! Because, if I am correct 'a du aimer' is also possible for a deduction.


 I totally agree with you.


----------



## Maître Capello

Areyou Crazy said:


> ah une petite faute!
> 
> I think the translation is
> She must have loved her to give her so many gifts
> (if you mean *loved her in order to give her so many gifts*)
> What you said was correct but it changes the sense.
> I love someone for giving me gifts = I love them because they give me gifts
> But I must love someone to give them a gift means (deduction) The fact that I give them gifts demonstrates that I love them


Funny! I had indeed wondered whether both meanings could be possible (in both French and English by the way). Obviously I was wrong… Thanks!

Anyway the _passé composé_ vs. _imparfait_ dilemma can be solved if the context is clear. I think both are correct but you would use one or the other depending on the tense and meaning of the neighboring sentences.


----------



## c1wang

1) Elle doit l'avoir aimé.

2) Elle a dû l'aimer.

I would translate the first sentence as: She must have loved him/her. (in the speaker's opinion, or from observations)

Whileas the second one, I would saÿ: In the past, she must love him. (an obligation of hers, maybe)

I am not sure if I am all that correct. Thank you for helping me to build up feelings in French.


----------



## geostan

c1wang said:


> 1) Elle doit l'avoir aimé.
> 
> 2) Elle a dû l'aimer.
> 
> I would translate the first sentence as: She must have loved him/her. (in the speaker's opinion, or from observations)
> 
> Whileas the second one, I would saÿ: In the past, she must love him. (an obligation of hers, maybe)
> 
> I am not sure if I am all that correct. Thank you for helping me to build up feelings in French.



You cannot translate the second sentence as "must love." _Must_ is a defective verb, and unless you add "have" there is no way to tell what time you are referring to. You might translate it as _She had to love him_, but this meaning is quite different from the inferential one.


----------



## c1wang

geostan said:


> You cannot translate the second sentence as "must love." _Must_ is a defective verb, and unless you add "have" there is no way to tell what time you are referring to. You might translate it as _She had to love him_, but this meaning is quite different from the inferential one.


 
I agree: "_She had to love him"_  for (2) is better, indeed. Thank you!


----------



## Icetrance

Good question! There is a a difference in meaning between the passé composé and the imparfait, but it is subtle. And native speakers usually know which is better depending on the context (usually LOL)

Here goes my explanation:

*1)* _Il devait l'aimer_ = He must have loved her (more literally, "He had to have been loving her")

The imperfect tense just describes a "state" of having been loving someone without any beginning or ending to the action that is considered to have been being the case implied

Example: _Il achetait des fleurs pour sa femme tout le temps, lui disant toujours qu'il l'aimait de tout son cœur. Je dirais donc qu'il devait l'aimer._
*
2)* _Il a dû l'aimer _= He must have loved her

The passé composé would be used to show that that act of having had loved someone is over (beginning - end). Death, divorce, etc can be the reason why, but not necessarily. You could equally use the imperfect tense in these cases; but, if the focus is on "no longer" or "a period of time well-defined in time" that is now over, it is best to use the passé composé.

Example:
_*Sa femme vient de mourir. À l'écouter parler d'elle, je dirais qu'il a dû l'aimer profondément_ 
(*she is gone, and even though he still loves her, his time of loving her while she was on earth is over).
_
*Speaker A: Mon ami est devenu riche. 
 Speaker B: Quoi? T'es sérieux? Il a dû l'être pendant ces derniers cinq ans quand il habitait dans un grand manoir à la campagne._
(*period of time having had to have been rich has been well-defined in time; not that he is no longer rich, though) 

I hope that makes things a lot clearer for you.

Take care


----------



## david314

Icetrance said:


> *1)* _Il devait l'aimer_ = He must have loved her (more literally, "He had to have been loving her")
> 
> I believe that I would translate the above as: _ He *should have *loved her.
> _
> […]
> *
> 2)* _Il a dû l'aimer _= He *must have/had to have *loved her


  If I am not mistaken, the distinction is between _moral obligation _& _necessity of fact_.


----------



## Keith Bradford

geostan said:


> You cannot translate the second sentence as "must love." _Must_ is a defective verb, and unless you add "have" there is no way to tell what time you are referring to.



(This is perfectly true today, but 100 years ago *must *was both the present and the past tense.  Even today we might well say "I had (_past_) a letter saying I must (_past_) pay £10...".)


----------



## Icetrance

david314 said:


> If I am not mistaken, the distinction is between _moral obligation _& _necessity of fact_.



Thank you for reminding me of the "other" meaning.

Yes, it is true that "devait" could be about a moral obligation. Let me explain:

_Le père n'a jamais aimé ses enfants comme il devait les aimer_ = The father never loved his children like he was supposed to love them.

That said, "devait l'aimer" could also be about necessity (why context is so important). When it is, it literally is saying "must/had to have been loving her/him"

_Cet homme donnait à ses enfants tout ce qu'ils voulaient, et même plus que cela. Il fait dire qu'il devait les aimer _ = This man gave his children anything they wanted, even more than that. There's no way around saying that he had to have loved them 

"Must/had to have been loving them" is very possible in natural English, but we are less likely to say most of the time. we are more apt to opt for the simple past here in English, and not make the distinction as they do in French.

Also, the focus is on the "state" here (as talked about in my last post), and not over a defined period of time.


----------



## Icetrance

As for what is literally saying, I meant to say : 

Il devait l'aimer =  He was having to have loved her/him (although not common, this can be said in natural English)

Il a dû l'aimer = He had to have love her/him


Yes, "devait" could also mean "supposed", depending on the context.

(Not thinking clearly, I mistakenly wrote that the difference was "_He had to have been loving him/her"_ vs. "_He had to have loved her/him_")


----------



## Maître Capello

Icetrance said:


> Example: _*Sa femme vient de mourir. À l'écouter parler d'elle, je dirais qu'il a dû l'aimer profondément_
> (*she is gone, and even though he still loves her, his time of loving her while she was on earth is over).


I would also use the imparfait in that example: _i__l devait l'aimer profondément._ The passé composé is also possible, but it is definitely not my first choice.

Anyway, there are very few contexts where that phrase using the passé composé (_il a dû l'aimer_) would be better than the one with the imparfait.


----------



## Icetrance

Oui, Capello, c'est effectivement l'imparfait qui vient plus spontanément à l'esprit dans l'exemple que tu cites; mais ce qui importe, c'est ce que j'avais mis en parenthèses: une justification de l'emploi du passé composé dans cette phrase, qui, autrement, se dirait plus volontiers à l'imparfait. Et lorsque le passé composé est employé ici, c'est pour impliquer quelque chose comme "pendant toutes ces années", donnant donc là sa justification (seul le contexte le dira).

Et oui, oui, oui: c'est bien "il devait l'aimer" qui se dit, se voit, s'entend le plus souvent, et ce de loin. On entendra "il a dû l'aimer", mais c'est pour marquer un moment, grand ou petit, bien défini dans le temps (et ce dont je parle, c'est bel et bien fini).


----------



## LV4-26

I think the passé composé would be used whenever you want to emphasize the fact that the action is over...provided no "circumstancial" element is added.

1. Elle a dû l'aimer mais c'est terminé.
2. Elle devait l'aimer mais c'est terminé.
3. Oui mais, *à cette époque*, elle devait l'aimer.

I find 1 and 3 perfectly OK but wouldn't spontaneously say 2.

Anyway the nuance between those tenses cannot be rendered in English for various reasons, one of them being that the English present perfect, semantically speaking, is *not* the equivalent of our passé composé.

Also, the fact that _must_ doesn't have a past form has been mentionned. But that isn't the only reason. If you take _may_ (which does have a past form), for instance, you have a similar problem.

Maybe he lost his wallet there ===> He may have lost his wallet there
Maybe he's lost his wallet ===> He may have lost his wallet

2 distinct tenses on the left side, the same one on the right side.


----------



## Icetrance

LV4-26 said:


> I think the passé composé would be used whenever you want *to emphasize the fact that the action is over*...provided no "circumstancial" element is added.
> 
> 1. Elle a dû l'aimer mais c'est terminé.
> 2. Elle devait l'aimer mais c'est terminé.
> 3. Oui mais, *à cette époque*, elle devait l'aimer.
> 
> I find 1 and 3 perfectly OK but wouldn't spontaneously say 2.




Yes, I very much agree with you.

 You tend to hear the imperfect much more than the passé composé when you're talking about "love" in the past (i.e., _Il devait l'aimer_, _j'aimais ma mère_, etc; that said, you still will hear the passé composé at times: _il a dû l'aimer, j'ai aimé ma mère, _but only to emphasize the fact that a period of time is over_, _or to indicate a sudden change in feeling [i.e., started loving your mother]).


----------

