# Limitations on the use of "mustn't" in prohibicions



## louhevly

Hello language lovers:

The other day a student wanted to translate the following sentence:

(Said by a politician from the PP) "El Govern no ha de negociar amb ETA."

"The government shouldn't negotiate with ETA" (El govern no hauria de negociar amb ETA) sounds weaker and less emphatic.  On the other hand, "The government mustn't negotiate with ETA" sounds wrong to me: the person speaking is obviously not in a position to prohibit the government from doing anything. It is also a bit incongruent, because it is very likely that the government is indeed negotiating with ETA. 

My conclusion was that I don't think we can say in English "X musn't do Y" when we all know that X is in fact doing Y and the person speaking has no authority to prevent it. Do others on this forum agree?

The solution we finally came up with was "We strongly believe that the government mustn't negotiate with ETA". It isn't a literal translation, but to my mind it best expresses the desired emphasis while acknowledging the limited authority of the speaker.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Lou


----------



## ampurdan

What about "the Government is not to negotiate with ETA"? Would it be the same as "must'nt"?


----------



## louhevly

ampurdan said:


> What about "the Government is not to negotiate with ETA"? Would it be the same that "must'nt"?



They're pretty close, though the sentence "The Government is not to negotiate with ETA" would seem to me to imply  that there is some authority higher than the government that prohibits it from negotiating with ETA. With "mustn't" my feeling is that the authority most likely rests with the speaker (or that the speaker is the representative of the prohibiting authority). But both imply that there is some authority with the power to enforce the prohibition, and it's this lack of authority that makes me want to prepend "We strongly feel..." or something similar.

Lou


----------



## ampurdan

And: "The Government is not supposed to negotiate with ETA"?


----------



## SweetMommaSue

Hola! Here is my 2 cents as a language lover (though not expert):

Louhevly: Molt ben dit! Estic d'acord amb el teu raonament i amb les paraules que has escollit. És una pena que els polítics no et tinguin perquè els escriguis els discursos. Sembla que ho has entés a la perfecció.

Ampurdan: Si dius que el Govern "is not to" és el mateix que dir "it mustn't"; té el mateix significat. 

Que tingueu un bon vespre! 
i Salut!

Sweet Momma Sue


----------



## ernest_

Hi all,
Can't you use "have to" then?
For instance:
The government have to not talk to the ETA.
The government have not to talk to the ETA.
Anyroad, I think that "no ha de negociar" can be a bit misleading, as it could be understood as "not necessary" instead of as a prohibtion, technically speaking.


----------



## jmx

louhevly said:


> "The government shouldn't negotiate with ETA" (El govern no hauria de negociar amb ETA) sounds weaker and less emphatic.


What about this ?

"The government should by no means negotiate with ETA".

I think "shouldn't" is the proper translation, and if it sounds weak, you can reinforce it with some expression like "by no means" or other.


----------



## louhevly

jmartins said:


> What about this ?
> 
> "The government should by no means negotiate with ETA".
> 
> I think "shouldn't" is the proper translation, and if it sounds weak, you can reinforce it with some expression like "by no means" or other.



I agree, this is a very good translation. I like it better than "We strongly believe the govt. mustn't..."

Thanks, jmartins!

Lou


----------



## louhevly

ampurdan said:


> And: "The Government is not supposed to negotiate with ETA"?



The "be supposed to" form is, for me, the weakest and, at the same time, most polite form of prohibition. It's similar to the impersonal Catalan prohibition: "No es fa" = "You're not supposed to do it" (not because I say so, but because "It isn't done").

For example, I'd never say to someone I didn't know "You mustn't park here" or, much ruder still, "You're not to park here". But "You're not supposed to park here" is acceptable; or, even better, "I think you're not supposed to park here".

Lou


----------



## louhevly

ernest_ said:


> Hi all,
> Can't you use "have to" then?


No, the negative of "have to" is only used to mean lack of obligation ("no cal"), and then it needs the "do, does, did" auxiliary.  For instance:

You don't have to help me, Jon's going to.
No has d'ajudar-me (No cal que m'ajudis), en Jon ho farà.



ernest_ said:


> For instance:
> The government have to not talk to the ETA.
> The government have not to talk to the ETA.


This would have to be:
The government doesn't have to talk to ETA.
(No cal que el govern parli amb ETA.)



ernest_ said:


> Anyroad, I think that "no ha de negociar" can be a bit misleading, as it could be understood as "not necessary" instead of as a prohibtion, technically speaking.



This is true, but in English the "not have to" form always implies lack of obligation, never prohibition.

Lou


----------



## ampurdan

Thank you, louhelvy. 

It was just a wild guess. I always keep in mind the picture of a mother telling off her child for anything saying "you were not supposed to...". I understand that that's not the tone the policitians of the opposition would use with the Government, unless they were joking.


----------



## News

...and what about "we totally disagree with the negotiation of the government with ETA"?

does it sounds weird?

I know it isn't a literal translation, but maybe it's the hardest one....


----------



## ajohan

Hi
I often feel that people get a bit carried away with one-to-one translations - for example should = "hauria de" in Catalan and "debería" in Spanish.
What the PP is actually saying (and tend to say very often) is that it's morally wrong to negotiate with ETA. Apart from the typical thing most teachers say to their students ("should is used for advice"), should is a very common way of expressing what is morally right or wrong.
So my shot at it is "The Government shouldn't be negotiating with ETA". I have cheated here because I have used background knowledge (an acceptable strategy in translation) and I use the continuous form because the PP are presupposing that negotiations are already taking place.

Salutacions a tothom i espero que el "post" no hagi estat massa polític.


----------

