# che non si sarebbe mai sposata



## Pixo

Ciao a tutti, mi trovo in seria difficoltà a rendere in inglese questo passaggio: "Beatrice ha informato i genitori che non si sarebbe mai sposata, che non li avrebbe mai lasciati soli e che sarebbe rimasta sempre con loro", 
perchè non sono mai sicura di azzeccare congiuntivi/condizionali e periodo ipotetico...

*M*y attempt is: "Beatrice informed her parents that she would never get married, she would never leave them alone and would always remain (?) with them."...ma non sono per niente sicura, se qualcuno può aiutarmi, gliene sarei molto grata. 

Grazie in anticipo, Silvia


----------



## venice

Anch'io ho gli stessi dubbi, però penso che ci dev'essere una differenza fra

Non si sposerebbe=she would never get married
Non si sarebbe mai sposata=she would never have got married

Rimarebbe sempre con loro = she would always stay with them
Sarebbe rimasta sempre con loro= she would always have stayed with them
O no?
Ciao


----------



## neuromatico

That's an excellent translation, Silvia!

You could use "stay" instead of "remain".
I would also add "that" before the second "she would".


----------



## venice

neuromatico said:


> That's an excellent translation!
> 
> You could use "stay" instead of "remain".
> I would also add "that" before the second "she would".


 
Hi, what about my post? Am I wrong?
Thank you.


----------



## neuromatico

venice said:


> Anch'io ho gli stessi dubbi, però penso che ci dev'essere una differenza fra
> 
> Non si sposerebbe=she would never get married
> Non si sarebbe mai sposata=she would never have got married
> 
> Rimarebbe sempre con loro = she would always stay with them
> Sarebbe rimasta sempre con loro= she would always have stayed with them
> O no?
> Ciao



You could also say, "that she would never marry".


----------



## venice

Ma allora non c'è nessuna differenza fra il condizionale presente e il condizionale passato?
I'm very confused.


----------



## TrentinaNE

venice said:


> Non si sposerebbe=she would never get married
> Non si sarebbe mai sposata=she would never have gotten married
> 
> Rimarebbe sempre con loro = she would always stay with them
> Sarebbe rimasta sempre con loro= she would always have stayed with them


Sono d'accordo, con una piccola correzione.  

The meanings are not the same.  _She would never get married_ means that in the future, she will not marry.  _She would never have gotten married _refers to a hypothetical past and usually is accompanied by another condition, e.g., She told them she would never have gotten married without their permission.  In this case, she may indeed have gotten married, but if she did, it was with their permission.

Elisabetta


----------



## venice

Ciao Elisabetta,
e sono contento che pensi uguale a me.
Per quanto riguarda il passato di *to get* in BE mi pare si dica prorio *got.*
Ciao


----------



## TrentinaNE

venice said:


> Per quanto riguarda il passato di *to get* in BE mi pare si dica prorio *got.*
> Ciao


Forse hai ragione.  Non posso mai ricordare.  

Elisabetta


----------



## neuromatico

Venice,

My  refered to the syntax, not the grammar.
As you inicated, and Elisabetta confirmed, the original conveys the hypothetical. The translation should be, 

Beatrice informed her parents that she would have never married, that she would have never left them alone, and that she would have remained with them always.


----------



## venice

neuromatico said:


> Venice,
> 
> My  refered to the syntax, not the grammar.
> As you inicated, and Elisabetta confirmed, the original conveys the hypothetical. The translation should be,
> 
> Beatrice informed her parents that she would have never married, that she would have never left them alone, and that she would have remained with them always.


It would have been better if you had corrected the sentences instead of using that  . Now everything is clear . Thank you. Ciao


----------



## fitter.happier

venice said:


> Ma allora non c'è nessuna differenza fra il condizionale presente e il condizionale passato?
> I'm very confused.



Semplicemente, il futuro nel passato va tradotto con _would + verb_. 

Beatrice ha informato (tempo passato) i genitori che non si sarebbe mai sposata (in futuro).


----------



## venice

fitter.happier said:


> Semplicemente, il futuro nel passato va tradotto con _would + verb_.
> 
> Beatrice ha informato (tempo passato) i genitori che non si sarebbe mai sposata (in futuro).


Ciao,
ma questo non è futuro nel passato, è condizionale. O mi sbaglio perchè ho troppo sonno?


----------



## fitter.happier

venice said:


> Ciao,
> ma questo non è futuro nel passato, è condizionale. O mi sbaglio perchè ho troppo sonno?



È senza dubbio un condizionale, ma esprime un'azione futura in un momento passato (da qui il nome "futuro nel passato").

Per esempio:

John mi *disse *che *sarebbe andato *al parco.

"Che sarebbe andato al parco" esprime un'azione futura rispetto al momento in cui John parla. Per esprimere questo concetto, in italiano usiamo il condizionale passato, mentre in inglese basta il condizionale presente 

John *told* me he *would go* to the park.

Più chiaro ora?


----------



## venice

fitter.happier said:


> È senza dubbio un condizionale, ma esprime un'azione futura in un momento passato (da qui il nome "futuro nel passato").
> 
> Per esempio:
> 
> John mi *disse *che *sarebbe andato *al parco.
> 
> "Che sarebbe andato al parco" esprime un'azione futura rispetto al momento in cui John parla. Per esprimere questo concetto, in italiano usiamo il condizionale passato, mentre in inglese basta il condizionale presente
> 
> John *told* me he *would go* to the park.
> 
> Più chiaro ora?


Oh finalmente è chiaro!. E' una regola che ogni tanto viene a galla e che mi dimentico sempre. Grazie per la spiegazione. (ma è così strana che me ne dimenticherò ancora). Ciao


----------



## brian

L'ha già spiegato benissimo fitter.happier , ma (tanto per essere esauriente) vorrei aggiungerci qualcosa in più: quando il condizionale tratta di un costrutto decisamente "condizionale" (cioè _se..., allora..._), la forma verbale inglese è uguale a quella italiana:

_Se avesse saputo ciò che sa ora, non *si sarebbe mai sposata*!
If she had known what she knows now, she *would have never gotten married*!_

Quindi tu avevi ragione nel tuo post lassù.  Cioè senza contesto vanno benissimo le tue traduzioni, così come sono. Ma quando si tratta del "future in the past," o del discorso indiretto, allora esiste la differenza che ha spiegato fitter.happier:

_Disse che non *si sarebbe mai sposata.*
She said that she *would never get married*._


----------



## TrentinaNE

brian8733 said:


> _Disse che non *si sarebbe mai spostata.*
> She said that she *would never get married*._


Brian, in this case, does the past tense, _disse_, require that the past conditional be used in the second clause?  In English, I'm not sure whether this construction is past conditional or future in the past... (is _would_ the past tense of _will_ here?  She says she will never get married; she said she would never get married.)  

The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that you mean _sposata _(married) rather than _spostata_ (moved).  

Elisabetta


----------



## brian

Whoops!  You are correct on all points. It's called "future-in-the-past" because it is a future statement stuck inside a past sentence/question. It is a specific construction of the more general "indirect speech/discourse" concept. In English we put the (previously) future verb into the present conditional; in Italian they put it into the past conditional.

In the example above "disse" signals both the past tense and the beginning of indirect discourse, so it requires the past conditional "sarebbe sposata."


----------



## neuromatico

This has been an enlightening thread. Ultimately, I infer that everyone agrees that: 

che non si sarebbe mai sposata = that she would have never married

...and that it _doesn_'_t_ mean, that she would never marry. 
To covey this, without changing the syntax, you would have to use sposarsi in the infinite.

Correct?


----------



## giovannino

neuromatico said:


> Ultimately, I infer that everyone agrees that:
> 
> che non si sarebbe mai sposata = that she would have never married
> 
> ...and that it _doesn_'_t_ mean, that she would never marry.
> To covey this, without changing the syntax, you would have to use sposarsi in the infinite.
> 
> Correct?


 
I'm not sure, neuromatico. I think that the woman was talking about the future and was indeed saying that she would never get married, would never leave her parents on their own and would always stay by their side.

The trouble is that in indirect speech we always use the past conditional in sentences like these, whereas in English you use the equivalent of the present conditional (would + plain infinitive) if it's a future in the past or the equivalent of the past conditional (would have + past participle) if it's a hypothesis in the past:

She said she would never get married 
Disse che non si sarebbe mai sposata

But in the case of an unhappily married woman:

She said she wouldn't have married him if she had known what he was really like
Disse che non l'avrebbe sposato se avesse saputo che tipo era veramente

As you can see, we don't use different tenses but use the past conditional in both cases.


----------



## Einstein

There's a very simple way to understand the difference: ask yourself what the direct form was. If she said, "I will never get married", then simply "will" becomes "would".
Only if she said "I would never have got married" the indirect form is "would never have...".


----------



## TrentinaNE

And how does one do that, Einstein, from the original Italian sentence posed in this thread?


> Beatrice ha informato i genitori che non si sarebbe mai sposata, che non li avrebbe mai lasciati soli e che sarebbe rimasta sempre con loro


Elisabetta


----------



## neuromatico

Hi giovannino,

I've been teetering back and forth between ambiguity and outright confusion and your response was very helpful. 

In essence, you're saying that pixo's original translation, (which I confirmed), was correct with respect to verb usage, as was my revision (post#10), and that the intended meaning would have to discerned from context.

I also infer that, _"che non si sarebbe mai sposare",_ is ungrammatical. Is there a way to express, "she would never marry", without equally implying, "she would have never married". Is one obliged to use the _condizionale passato_ or would venice's, _"non si sposerebbe"_, work?


----------



## Einstein

TrentinaNE said:


> And how does one do that, Einstein, from the original Italian sentence posed in this thread?
> 
> Elisabetta


Just consider the direct speech in Italian; you understand from the context that she was talking about the future:

non mi sposerò mai, non vi lascerò mai soli e rimarrò sempre con voi.
I will never marry, I'll never leave you alone and I'll always stay with you.

In all three verbs "I will" becomes "she would".


To neuromatic:
In Italian all three conditional sequences, when reported in the past, become the third form. This is the source of the confusion because in English the first and second sequences become second, while only the third becomes third.

Examples:
1st: "If I find it I'll tell you"
He said that if he found it he'd tell me
Ha detto che se l'avesse trovato me l'avrebbe detto

2nd: "If I found it I'd tell you".
He said that if he found it he'd tell me
Ha detto che se l'avesse trovato me l'avrebbe detto

3rd: "If I'd found it I'd have told you"
He said that if he'd found it he'd have told me
Ha detto che se l'avesse trovato me l'avrebbe detto.

Only the context can help us to understand the difference.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

neuromatico said:


> I also infer that, _"che non si sarebbe mai sposare",_ is ungrammatical. Is there a way to express, "she would never marry", without equally implying, "she would have never married". Is one obliged to use the _condizionale passato_ or would venice's, _"non si sposerebbe"_, work?



_"che non si sarebbe mai sposa*ta*"_ is perfectly correct in Italian and it can mean either_ "she'd never get married" or "she'd have never got married",_ depending on the context.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Einstein said:


> 2nd: "If I found it I'd tell you". (found ... would tell)
> He said that if he found it he'd tell me
> Ha detto che se l'avesse trovato me l'avrebbe detto
> 
> 3rd: "If I'd found it I'd have told you" (had found ... would have told)
> He said that if he'd found it he'd have told me
> Ha detto che se l'avesse trovato me l'avrebbe detto.


Just to clarify because *'d *can be a contraction of either _had_ or _would_. 

Grazie delle spiegazione, Einstein.

Elisabetta


----------



## Einstein

Just to clarify because *'d *can be a contraction of either _had_ or _would_. 

You're right, Elisabetta, and this creates a lot of confusion for native English speakers too!


----------



## neuromatico

Paulfromitaly said:


> _"che non si sarebbe mai sposa*ta*"_ is perfectly correct in Italian and it can mean either_ "she'd never get married" or "she'd have never got married",_ depending on the context.



Perfectly clear.

But, if you want to be unequivocal in stating, "she will never marry/she'd never get married", you can use the _futuro semplice _(Einstein) or the _condizionale presente _(venice). Correct?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

neuromatico said:


> Perfectly clear.
> 
> But, if you want to be unequivocal in stating, "she will never marry/she'd never get married", you can use the _futuro semplice _(Einstein) or the _condizionale presente _(venice). Correct?


Yes

Non sposerà mai / non sposerebbe mai.


----------



## housecameron

neuromatico said:


> Perfectly clear.
> 
> But, if you want to be unequivocal in stating, "she will never marry/she'd never get married", you can use the _futuro semplice _(Einstein) or the _condizionale presente _(venice). Correct?


 
Do you mean in direct speech?

"(Io) non mi sposerò mai" (futuro semplice) 
"(Io) non mi sposerei mai" (condizionale presente)  is unfinished
but
"(Io) non mi sposerei mai con un ragazzo più giovane" 
"Se fosse per me, non mi sposerei mai" 

As to the indirect speech, see giovannino's post # 20.

Spero fosse questa la domanda


----------



## neuromatico

Credo fosse questa la domanda esatta!

In indirect speech, one must use the _condizionale passato _and rely on  context. 
In direct speech, the _condizionale presente _must be accompanied by a (subjunctive) clause. Otherwise, one can use the _futuro semplice.
_
Se soltanto fossi italiano. 
Thanks so much, housecameron!


----------



## housecameron

neuromatico said:


> Credo fosse questa la domanda esatta!


 
Menomale  dopo tanti post cominciava a girarmi la testa.....


----------



## Panpan

venice said:


> Non si sposerebbe=she would never get married
> Non si sarebbe mai sposata=she would never have got married


I think (perhaps) I can see where your confusion comes from.
In 'she would never have got married' the 'got' is not needed.  You can say with the same meaning;
'she would never have married' 
If I were translating this sentance into Italian I would translate '...would ... have...' as the conditional of 'avere' not 'essere';
'Non avrebbe mai si sposata'.

I hope this helps and I haven't created yet more confusion
Panpan


----------



## TrentinaNE

Panpan said:


> I think (perhaps) I can see where your confusion comes from.
> In 'she would never have got married' the 'got' is not needed. You can say with the same meaning; 'she would never have married'


But there's still the difference between "She would never have married" and "She would never marry." 

Elisabetta


----------



## Montesacro

Panpan said:


> I think (perhaps) I can see where your confusion comes from.
> In 'she would never have got married' the 'got' is not needed. You can say with the same meaning;
> 'she would never have married'
> If I were translating this sentance into Italian I would translate '...would ... have...' as the conditional of 'avere' not 'essere';
> 'Non avrebbe mai si sposata'.
> 
> I hope this helps and I haven't created yet more confusion
> Panpan


 
I'm sorry but your translation is incorrect.
Sposare can be either a reflexive verb
_(Lei) non si sarebbe mai sposata_
or a transitive verb (a direct object is needed)
_(Lei) non lo avrebbe mai sposato (lo is the direct object)_


----------



## Panpan

If I understand correctly, you are saying 'she would never have married' does not translate using 'avere', you can only translate 'she would never have married *him*' using 'avere'.
I see, I think, and thank you for clearing that up for me.


----------



## Montesacro

Panpan said:


> If I understand correctly, you are saying 'she would never have married' does not translate using 'avere', you can only translate 'she would never have married *him*' using 'avere'.
> I see, I think, and thank you for clearing that up for me.


 
A pleasure.


----------

