# It was important for you to arrive on time



## alc112

hola!!!
Esa frase me confunde un poco.
La estamos discutiendo en el foro de Alemán, Daniel (Whodunit) No sabe como traducirla correctamente y como hoy tengo que ir a mi clase de Alemán,le voy a preguntar a mi profesora.
Esta es la frase

*It was important for you to arrive on time*

Era impirtante para tí que llegases temprano (versión de El roy)
Era importante para ti que llegues temprano (mi versión)

¿cuál sería la correcta?

Muchas gracias!!!


----------



## Eugin

Hola Alc!
creo que también la podrías traducir utilizando el tiempo en infinitivo, o sea: "Era importante para tí llegar a horario".
Fijate si también te sirve.
Saludillos


----------



## alc112

Eugin said:
			
		

> Hola Alc!
> creo que también la podrías traducir utilizando el tiempo en infinitivo, o sea: "Era importante para tí llegar a horario".
> Fijate si también te sirve.
> Saludillos


 
Toda traducción se agradece. Es que está medio confuso para mñi cómo traducir esa oración. Tení su dificultad... en alemán tambien

Gracias


----------



## belén

Yo diría

Era importante para ti llegar a tiempo.


----------



## Chaucer

alc112 said:
			
		

> hola!!!
> Esa frase me confunde un poco.
> La estamos discutiendo en el foro de Alemán, Daniel (Whodunit) No sabe como traducirla correctamente y como hoy tengo que ir a mi clase de Alemán,le voy a preguntar a mi profesora.
> Esta es la frase
> 
> *It was important for you to arrive on time*
> 
> Era impirtante para tí que llegases temprano (versión de El roy)
> Era importante para ti que llegues temprano (mi versión)
> 
> ¿cuál sería la correcta?
> 
> Muchas gracias!!!



No se puede saber sin el contexto si es el caso, pero el "for you" también tiene el sentido de "that you" cuando se trata de un tono reprensor. El punto de vista en esta construcción sería la del hablante, no la del oyente interpretándola:

"Yo opino/desde mi punto de vista que era importante/preciso que tu llegaras temprano".

Era importante/preciso *que tú* llegaras temprano. Y no llegaste.


----------



## Like an Angel

Chaucer, what tense is for you that "to arrive"? then we would get the right translation


----------



## Chaucer

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> Chaucer, what tense is for you that "to arrive"? then we would get the right translation



It's the infinitive, as in:

*"Era importante llegar temprano".* El tiempo reside en el "was"/era.

La traducción tuya dice:
"It was important that you arrive on time"* [subjuntivo] la cual tiene el mismo *sentido que, dado el apropriado contexto, *"It was important for you to arrive on time."*

¡Pero ahora pénsandolo bien, *"It was important for you to arrive on time"* [*Era importante/preciso [p. ej., un tren que saliera temprano] para que tú llegaras/pudieras llegar temprano"*], sin contexto puede decir que algo (el *"it"*), una circunstancia anterior, tal vez, era importante/precisa antes de que pudiera el "tú" llegar a tiempo. Por ejemplo, el tren que saliera temprano:
*
"It [an early train] was important for you to arrive on time", la cual está escrita en el pretérito.*

El subjuntivo en el inglés, si deveras quieres ser exacto, es lo que se usaría si lo enunciado fue una reprensión o un lamento. Recuerdo enfrentarme con esta distinción varias veces cuando escribía: verbo auxilario+infinitivo vs. el subjuntivo, y que siempre se resolvía siguiendo el proceso que acabo de exponer.

Recuerda que el oyente "nunca llegó a tiempo", así que en inglés también sería el subjuntivo; indica que no sucedió "el llegar a tiempo", fue sólo una posibilidad en el pasado y de y en ese modo tiene que describirse.

Bueno, en suma, hay dos posibles traducciones:

*Era importante que tú llegaras temprano.*
y
*Era *[una circumstancia anterior: p. ej. un tren rápido] *importante/preciso para que tú llegaras temprano.*


----------



## Like an Angel

Chaucer said:
			
		

> It's the infinitive, as in:
> 
> "Era importante llegar temprano". El tiempo reside en el "was"/era.


 
Couldn't it be as Alc said? Era importante que *llegues* temprano. I agree with you Chaucer, we need more context Alc112.-


----------



## sergio11

Chaucer said:
			
		

> Era importante/preciso *que tú* llegases temprano. Y no llegaste.


Concuerdo con la traducción "Era importante que llegaras a tiempo" (en general no hace falta "tú", a menos que lo quieras enfatizar; se sobreentiende).  Pero ¿implica necesariamente "y no llegaste"?


----------



## Like an Angel

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Concuerdo con la traducción "Era importante que llegaras a tiempo" (en general no hace falta "tú", a menos que lo quieras enfatizar; se sobreentiende).


 
¡Hola Sergio! 

Si estoy hablando con vos en el mismo momento en que llegaste y entonces remarco que era importante que llegaras a tiempo y gracias a Dios así fue, ¿Estaría mal si te digo? Era importante que llegues a tiempo. No sé, me parece que podría ser también, por eso repito que hace falta contexto.


----------



## Lazarillo

Hi!

This is how I see it:

1) It *was* important for you *to arrive* on time = *Era* importante que *llegues* a tiempo (pero ya no es importante, así que si quieres puedes llegar tarde)

2) It was important you *arrived* on time = Era importante que llegases a tiempo (y no lo hiciste)

Sentence 1 has the infinitive "arrive", which I feel should not be translated as the simple past in the subjunctive, although it actually can be translated as "llegaras/llegases" because the past can't be undone, so it also fits here. Sentence 2 has the past in English, so it has the past in Spanish.

Cheers!

L


----------



## alc112

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> Couldn't it be as Alc said? Era importante que *llegues* temprano. I agree with you Chaucer, we need more context Alc112.-


El contexto debés pedírseloa Daniel (whodunit)
El problema es que el quiere traducir esa oración asu idioma (alemán), pero se le complicó también.
Yo lo que quería es saber la traducción en español,m ya que dentro de 15 minutos me estoy yendo a mis clases de alemán y le preguntaría mi profesora por la traducción.

saludos


----------



## VenusEnvy

I agree with Chaucer and Sergio.
Another way of saying the original phrase would be to say, "It was important that you arrive on time." Personally, I prefer to say it this way. Therefore, I, too would translate it as, "Era (_past imperfect_) importante que llegaras (_past subjunctive_) a tiempo."

Eugin and Belen gave translations as:
Era importante para ti llegar a tiempo. (Or, something like that)

I don't understand this. Does this sentence make sense in Spanish? I would have expected this response from beginners. I'm really confused by Eugin and Belen giving this construction credit.


----------



## sergio11

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> ¡Hola Sergio!
> 
> Si estoy hablando con vos en el mismo momento en que llegaste y entonces remarco que era importante que llegaras a tiempo y gracias a Dios así fue, ¿Estaría mal si te digo? *Era importante que llegues a tiempo*. No sé, me parece que podría ser también, por eso repito que hace falta contexto.


Creo que ambos verbos tienen que estar en el pasado: *llegaras,* y la oración completa, *Era importante que llegaras** a tiempo.  *No sé si esto de por sí implica que no llegaste a tiempo.  Creo que si no hubieras llegado a tiempo, preferiríamos haber dicho *Era importante que hubieras llegado a tiempo.*  Fijate en una gramática a ver qué dice.  En algún momento yo también me voy a fijar, pero hoy ya no tengo tiempo.  Me pasé demasiado tiempo con WordReference.


----------



## Whodunit

Ok, here I am. You need context? Ok, let me try to figure it out.

It = nothing speacial, only "ello/a", no train, no car, nothing ...
was = subjunctive, "condicional" in Spanish: estaría
important = importante
for you = para tí
to arrive = llegar
on time = a tiempo

So I'd translate it as ...

*Estaría importante para tí llegar a tiempo.*

BUT I don't want to know that version. I'm looking for a real subordinate clause with "that" (que):

"It was important that you would have been arrived." (I need "have" in the past here, i.e. pre-past conditional with "would", which doesn't work)

"*Estaría importante que tú habría llegado.*"

Does it make sense?


----------



## Whisky con ron

No, it doesn't. It's all wrong.

(Sorry, let me say why it's wrong)...

Should be the verb "SER", not "ESTAR".

"para tí" shouldn't be translated word-by-word.

el verbo haber no encaja.

So, from a native spanish speaker:

"Era importante que llegaras a tiempo", o "era importante que tú llegaras a tiempo" (un poco redundante, pero válido).

Por cierto, ese "contexto" que diste es uno de los más pedantes que he visto por aquí....


----------



## belén

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Ok, here I am. You need context? Ok, let me try to figure it out.
> 
> It = nothing speacial, only "ello/a", no train, no car, nothing ...
> was = subjunctive, "condicional" in Spanish: estaría
> important = importante
> for you = para tí
> to arrive = llegar
> on time = a tiempo
> 
> So I'd translate it as ...
> 
> *Estaría importante para tí llegar a tiempo.*
> 
> BUT I don't want to know that version. I'm looking for a real subordinate clause with "that" (que):
> 
> "It was important that you would have been arrived." (I need "have" in the past here, i.e. pre-past conditional with "would", which doesn't work)
> 
> "*Estaría importante que tú habría llegado.*"
> 
> Does it make sense?




Spanish doesn't work like English, you cannot take a sentence word by word and try to translate it from one language to the other because it just doesn't make any sense.

First of all, if you check all the suggestions that have been given for your sentence up to now, the sentence must be built with "sería", not with "estaría"

Second, we need context; that means we need to know when you want to use the sentence and for what reason. This will really help give you an appropriate translation.

Cheers,
Belén


----------



## VenusEnvy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> "It was important that you would have been arrived." (I need "have" in the past here, i.e. pre-past conditional with "would", which doesn't work)
> Another thing: Your sentence above is wrong. It doesn't make sense.
> What is the "pre-past conditional"??
> 
> 
> 
> Whodunit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Estaría importante que tú habría llegado.*"
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you conjugating "estar" en the conditional??? Firstly, it is "ser", and secondly, it should be conjugated in the past imperfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whodunit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hun, I am sorry! But, no, this doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Whodunit

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't.  It's all wrong.



Haha, good to know how bad my Spanish is. But could you imagine forming a sentence with "que" in Spanish?


----------



## Whisky con ron

Whodunit said:
			
		

> could you imagine forming a sentence with "que" in Spanish?


 
That's what I've done.  "Era importante *que *llegaras a tiempo".  

Es importante que leas las respuestas, eh?


----------



## Whodunit

Yes, sorry, sorry. Belén and Venus. I'm not sure why I conjugated "estar", but I really meant "sería". Why doesn't it fit? To me, it makes a totally different sense with "era" here. Because the person NEVER arrived on time, but it would have been important IF she ever did it. 

So, does "Sería importante que llegases a tiempo" work?

Got it?


----------



## VenusEnvy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why I conjugated "estar", but I really meant "sería". Why doesn't it fit?


Why doesn't _what _ fit? Using "estar"? Because "ser importante" is a fixed expression.


			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> To me, it makes a totally different sense with "era" here.


Yes, that's right. Because "era" and "sería" are two different tenses.


			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Because the person NEVER arrived on time, but it would have been important IF she ever did it.


I don't understand this.


			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> So, does "Sería importante que llegases a tiempo" work?


No, you could say:
"Sería (_conditional_) importante que llegues (_present subjunctive_) a tiempo."
Or:
"Era (_past imperfect_) importante que llegaras (_past subjunctive_) a tiempo."

(Someone corrrect me if I am wrong here.)


----------



## snoomip

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, sorry, sorry. Belén and Venus. I'm not sure why I conjugated "estar", but I really meant "sería". Why doesn't it fit? To me, it makes a totally different sense with "era" here. Because the person NEVER arrived on time, but it would have been important IF she ever did it.
> 
> So, does "Sería importante que llegases a tiempo" work?
> 
> Got it?



I think the key here is the word "important". In English, carrying out an action can be "important" if it carries great weight or could influence something else. I think that whether it happens or not, it is still important. So you can't really say that whether something is important or not depends on whether it happens or not. Therefore, in this case, I don't think the conditional "sería" applies. Furthermore, "It would have been important ..." doesn't really make sense.

Now, the only verb tense that makes sense to me, both from a grammatical standpoint and also from experience listening to native Spanish speakers, is the past imperfect. Why? Because we are describing something that existed in the past. In this case, a concept, "getting there on time". 

I believe that in this context you can use "importante" in Spanish to express the same meaning as in English.

Also, the "for you" is not "para ti" in this case, but rather a way of separating the two clauses.

"Era importante que llegases a tiempo" says it all, especially if it really didn't happen. 

Anybody in Spain remember those commercials where the girl shows up at her family's house for the New Year's Eve celebration and forgot the grapes? Later we hear: "Era muy importante que comprases las uvas."

Cheers and good luck.


----------



## Whodunit

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Why doesn't _what _ fit? Using "estar"? Because "ser importante" is a fixed expression.



Why why doesn't "sería" fit?



> Yes, that's right. Because "era" and "sería" are two different tenses.



I know, but "sería" is what I meant: "It would have been important that you arrived on time." (Sorry, if I didn't express myself clearly enough; I really meant "would have been")



> I don't understand this.



The person NEVER arrived, but it WOULD HAVE BEEN so important to arrive:

"Oh gee! Why didn't arrive on time? It would have been so important. Now we missed the train!"



> No, you could say:
> "Sería (_conditional_) importante que llegues (_present subjunctive_) a tiempo."
> Or:
> "Era (_past imperfect_) importante que llegaras (_past subjunctive_) a tiempo."



Then I'm for the first version!



> (Someone corrrect me if I am wrong here.)



I can't correct you, but I hope some natives will back one of us!


----------



## Whodunit

snoomip said:
			
		

> I think the key here is the word "important". In English, carrying out an action can be "important" if it carries great weight or could influence something else. I think that whether it happens or not, it is still important. So you can't really say that whether something is important or not depends on whether it happens or not. Therefore, in this case, I don't think the conditional "sería" applies. Furthermore, "It would have been important ..." doesn't really make sense.



Why doesn't "would have been" make sense here?


----------



## Aidan

Has the person arrived yet or is it too late to arrive on time? Then:

*"Era importante que llegaras a tiempo"*



Has the person not arrived yet and is not too late to arrive on time? Then:

*"Sería importante que llegaras a tiempo"*


----------



## Whodunit

Aidan said:
			
		

> Has the person arrived yet or is it too late to arrive on time? Then:
> 
> *"Era importante que llegaras a tiempo"*
> 
> 
> 
> Has the person not arrived yet and is not too late to arrive on time? Then:
> 
> *"Sería importante que llegaras a tiempo"*



Okay, then number 1 yet! Finally, we got it ...


----------



## snoomip

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why doesn't "would have been" make sense here?



Maybe I am misunderstanding the intended meaning of importance. Do you intend to mean that it is "necessary"? Or that it is a "big deal"? 

The second meaning in English doesn't really make sense to me. 

If we're talking about necessity, it's necessary that the person gets there on time, whether they manage or not. I don't think the necessity of something happening can depend on whether it happens or not, which is why I don't think the conditional makes sense.

I also think that if the person hasn't arrived yet and still has time, it would be:

"Es importante que llegues a tiempo". 

But I'll leave that for the Spanish speakers.

Good luck to everyone.


----------



## alc112

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why why doesn't "sería" fit?


 
Because sería is in the present of subjuntive. I guess


----------



## Whodunit

snoomip said:
			
		

> Maybe I am misunderstanding the intended meaning of importance. Do you intend to mean that it is "necessary"? Or that it is a "big deal"?
> 
> The second meaning in English doesn't really make sense to me.
> 
> If we're talking about necessity, it's necessary that the person gets there on time, whether they manage or not. I don't think the necessity of something happening can depend on whether it happens or not, which is why I don't think the conditional makes sense.
> 
> I also think that if the person hasn't arrived yet and still has time, it would be:
> 
> "Es importante que llegues a tiempo".
> 
> But I'll leave that for the Spanish speakers.
> 
> Good luck to everyone.



Hm ok, I'm talking about the "necessity". But why did you use "es" here when it's happened in the past? Maybe "era" could be correct, but I am not sure.


----------



## snoomip

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm ok, I'm talking about the "necessity". But why did you use "es" here when it's happened in the past? Maybe "era" could be correct, but I am not sure.



Sorry again that I didn't make things clear. I guess what I was saying wasn't really relevant. 

You are correct, for the past tense, "era" would be correct. For present tense, I would use "es". That's all.

Good luck!


----------

