# Should have been



## Roo Boy

Come si traduce "She should have been there".

E giusto "Lei dovrebbe stato li" or "Lei dovrebb'essere stato li" ?


----------



## Hockey13

Roo Boy said:


> Come si traduce "She should have been there".
> 
> E' giusto "Lei dovrebbe stato li" or "Lei dovrebb'essere stato li" ?


 
Penso che sia:

Lei dovrebbe essere stata lì/là.


----------



## Roo Boy

Si - "stata" invece di "stato".

Credevo che sei giusto ma volevo essere sicuro.


----------



## daniele712

Roo Boy said:


> Si - "stata" invece di "stato".
> 
> Credevo che seifosse giusto ma volevo essere sicuro(meglio 'esserne sicuro' o anche 'essere certo di questo').



Il participio va sempre concordato con il soggetto in presenza del verbo essere(forma attiva o passiva).


----------



## Roo Boy

daniele712 said:


> Il participio va sempre concordato con il soggetto in presenza del verbo essere(forma attiva o passiva).



Appunto. Grazie.

Ho imparato anche che si deve usare il congiuntivo imperfetto in questo contesto - "Credevo che _fosse _giusto". E' comune usare la forma "lei" quando si scrive agli stranieri - per esempio in questo foro?


----------



## daniele712

Roo Boy said:


> Appunto. Grazie.
> 
> Ho imparato anche che si deve usare il congiuntivo imperfetto in questo contesto - "Credevo che _fosse _giusto". E' comune usare la forma "lei" quando si scrive agli stranieri - per esempio in questo foro?


Se intendi(e non intende) il ' dare del lei' ,di solito non è usato in questo forum o in situazioni equivalenti.

Daniele


----------



## giovannino

I'm not sure but I think that in most cases "should have + past participle" means "sarebbe/avrebbe dovuto" rather than "dovrebbe essere/avere".

You should have told me = avresti dovuto dirmelo

You should have come here earlier = saresti dovuto venire qui prima

Usually "dovrebbe + essere/avere" indicates probability.

A quest'ora dovrebbe essere già arrivato a casa

Can "should" also indicate probability in English? "He should be home by now".


----------



## Roo Boy

What you are saying makes sense if you construct it like this:

deve (+infinitive) = he has to (+verb)
ha dovuto (+infinitive) = he had to (+verb)
avrebbe dovuto (+infinitive) = he would have had to (+verb)

"he would have had to [+verb]" is abbreviated in English to "he should have [+passive voice]"

Therefore if you use "mangiare" as the infinitive:

deve mangiare = he has to eat
ha dovuto mangiare = he had to eat
avrebbe dovuto mangiare = he would have had to eat = he should have eaten

However, are you sure that a verb that uses "essere" as its auxilliary verb such as "andare" would use "essere" as its auxillary verb in this context because dovere uses "avere" as its auxillary verb. I am thinking that the auxillary verb has to agree with "dovere" and not the subsequent verb which means that the auxillary verb would always be "avere".
Therefore, "he should have gone" = "avrebbe dovuto andare" and not "sarebbe dovuto andare".

Dovrebbe on its own means "he would have to" which equals "he should".
Therefore, "Dovrebbe mangiare" = "he should eat"


----------



## giovannino

Roo Boy said:


> However, are you sure that a verb that uses "essere" as its auxilliary verb such as "andare" would use "essere" as its auxillary verb in this context because dovere uses "avere" as its auxillary verb. I am thinking that the auxillary verb has to agree with "dovere" and not the subsequent verb which means that the auxillary verb would always be "avere".
> Therefore, "he should have gone" = "avrebbe dovuto andare" and not "sarebbe dovuto andare".


 
Both forms are correct but I myself prefer to use "essere" in these cases: sarei dovuto andare. The same applies to "potere": "sarei/avrei potuto andare" are both correct but I tend to say "sarei potuto andare"


----------



## daniele712

Roo Boy said:


> However, are you sure that a verb that uses "essere" as its auxilliary verb such as "andare" would use "essere" as its auxillary verb in this context because dovere uses "avere" as its auxillary verb. I am thinking that the auxillary verb has to agree with "dovere" and not the subsequent verb which means that the auxillary verb would always be "avere".
> Therefore, "he should have gone" = "avrebbe dovuto andare" and not "sarebbe dovuto andare".


La costruzione coi verbi servili (come dovere) ammette in alcuni casi entrambi gli ausiliari, ma per evitare errori ti consiglio di usare queste due regole:
1)usa l'ausiliare del verbo che si accompagna al servile (in questo andare = ausiliare _essere_);
2) quando il verbo principale è all'infinito passivo, o se l'infinito è essere,usa (devi farlo) l'ausiliare avere(es: ha dovuto essere picchiato, ha dovuto essere fermato);

[Dover andare ha doppia costruzione per il suo essere intransitivo, ma è pieno di irregolarità( ho sono dovuto andare, vi sono ho dovuto andare , ho/sono dovuto andarvi, ho/son dovuto andar via. Come vedi 'essere' è _sempre_ corretto(perchè è l'ausiliare di andare) -e le regole complicate- ). ]

Daniele


----------



## MünchnerFax

Roo Boy said:


> However, are you sure that a verb that uses "essere" as its auxilliary verb such as "andare" would use "essere" as its auxillary verb in this context because dovere uses "avere" as its auxillary verb. I am thinking that the auxillary verb has to agree with "dovere" and not the subsequent verb which means that the auxillary verb would always be "avere".
> Therefore, "he should have gone" = "avrebbe dovuto andare" and not "sarebbe dovuto andare".


 
The rule is actually that, with _potere, dovere, volere_, the auxiliary verb is the one of the main verb. So, the following are the only (fully) right choices:
_sarei dovuto andare_
_sarei voluto andare_
_sarei potuto andare_

I've written 'fully right' because nowadays both auxiliary verbs are used (although the wrong choice does sound a bit odd).

A verb which doesn't follow this rule is _essere _itself:
_Nella vita non sono riuscito a diventare ciò che avrei voluto essere._


----------



## daniele712

MünchnerFax said:


> The rule is actually that, with _potere, dovere, volere_, the auxiliary verb is the one of the main verb. So, the following are the only (fully) right choices:
> _sarei dovuto andare_
> _sarei voluto andare_
> _sarei potuto andare_
> 
> I've written 'fully right' because nowadays both auxiliary verbs are used.
> 
> A verb which doesn't follow this rule is _essere _itself:
> _Nella vita non sono riuscito a diventare ciò che avrei voluto essere._


Non è esatto.Puoi anche dire ho voluto andarci.
Poi una cosa son le regole, un'altra l'uso (per questo il mio thread precedente).


----------



## MünchnerFax

daniele712 said:


> Non è esatto.Puoi anche dire ho voluto andarci,avrei dovuto andare ect.
> Poi una cosa son le regole, un'altra l'uso (per questo il mio thread precedente).


 
_Poi una cosa son le regole, un'altra l'uso_... Per l'appunto, queste varianti al mio orecchio suonano scorrette e non le userei.
Io direi esclusivamente:

_Ci sono voluto andare._
_Sarei dovuto andare._

Sarebbe interessante sentire altri forumisti che ne pensano, soprattutto riguardo la prima (con il _ci_) dove le mie certezze vacillano...


----------



## daniele712

Si hai ragionel'orecchio non mente.
La seconda infatti l'avevo già cancellata.La prima è corretta è anche abbastanza usata.
Ma per chi non può basarsi sulle proprie sensazioni meglio :
ausiliare del verbo principale -es. sono rimasto = sono dovuto rimanere - e il rispetto delle eccezioni elencate due post sopra.E non si sbaglia.

Daniele


----------



## Roo Boy

How would you say this?

Here are a couple of tries:

Dovrebbero essere stato presi ieri.
Avrebbero dovuto stato presi ieri.
Si dovrebbero prendere ieri.
Si avrebbero dovuto prendere ieri.


----------



## awanzi

Roo Boy said:


> How would you say this?
> 
> Here are a couple of tries:
> 
> Dovrebbero essere stat*i* presi ieri.
> Avrebbero dovuto *essere* stat*i* presi ieri (this one is literal).
> Si *sarebbero* dov*uti* prendere ieri.
> Si avrebbero dovuto prendere ieri.  (see above)


----------



## MünchnerFax

Context is essential in this case. Is it an assumption (They were supposed to be taken yesterday, but I'm not sure) or a statement (you should have taken them yesterday, why didn't you?)?
Could you give us a bit more of text?


----------



## Roo Boy

I didn't have a context in mind - just the construction of the perfect, conditional & passive voice.

Is there a difference with the translation with your examples?

awanzi - which would be most commonly used in speech?


----------



## MünchnerFax

I'm positive there must be an older thread about it. Anyway:

*In English*, you say _should + _past infinitive (_have done_) with two different meanings:

*1)* an assumption, a guess - some past action that you think, but aren't sure, has taken place. Example:
_John is travelling to Rome. He left some hours ago, he should have arrived by this time._
Here, you guess he is arrived as enough time has elapsed since he left, but you do not know for sure.

* 2)* expressing a necessary, a compulsory or a convenient occurrence in the past which you actually know has not... occurred. Example:
_John missed the train to Rome. He should have left home earlier. _
You can change it into a hypotetical sentence: _if John had left home earlier, he would not have missed the train to Rome._ This works with sentences under case #2, but not with those under case #1_._

*In Italian*, we have different constructions between these two cases.

*Case no. 1:*
_dovere_ conjugated in present conditional (_dovrei_) + past infinitive (_avere fatto, essere andato, _etc.)
Example:
_John è in viaggio per Roma. È partito qualche ora fa, dovrebbe essere arrivato ormai.

_*Case no. 2:*
_dovere_ conjugated in past conditional (_avrei/sarei dovuto_) + present infinitive (_fare, andare_, etc.)
Example:
_John ha perso il treno per Roma. Sarebbe dovuto partire da casa prima.

_This applies to all modal verbs in conditional. If you search the forum, you'll probably find a lot of previous threads about it.


----------



## Roo Boy

Thanks. Breaking the constructions down to their grammatical elements really helps to understand them.

You're probably suffering from déjà vu because I asked a similar question some time ago here:

[Roo's two threads on this subject have now been merged]

This thread is an extension of that question in that I want to understand how the passive and active voices are constructed in this context.

The tablets should have been taken yesterday (passive).
This would be a "Case 1" so using the present conditional of dovere + past infinitive would translate as:
Le pastiglie si avrebbero dovuto prendere ieri.
or would this be better?:
Le pastiglie dovrebbero essere stati presi ieri.
(awanzi prefers the latter)

You should have taken the tablets yesterday (active).
Again "Case 1" so I assume that the best translation is:
Avresti dovuto prendere le pastigle ieri.
Is it incorrect to say?:
Dovresti avere preso le pastigle ieri.

With your example, would it be _incorrect _to use them the other way around (see below) or is it just _better _to use them the way that you have suggested:

Case 1: John è in viaggio per Roma. È partito qualche ora fa, sarebbe dovuto arrivato ormai.

Case 2: John ha perso il treno per Roma. Dovrebbe essere partito da casa prima.


----------



## MünchnerFax

Let's start from the end. 



Roo Boy said:


> With your example, would it be _incorrect _to use them the other way around (see below) or is it just _better _to use them the way that you have suggested:
> 
> Case 1:  John è in viaggio per Roma. È partito qualche ora fa, sarebbe dovuto arrivare ormai.
> 
> Case 2: John ha perso il treno per Roma. Dovrebbe essere partito da casa prima.



It's not just better; it is incorrect to use them the other way. Each construction has its respective meaning, which I explained in my previous post. Therefore, the above sentences are saying:

1) "John left some hours ago, it would have been better if he had arrived by this time, but strangely he didn't arrive". This might make sense, for instance, if you came to know the train is delayed and are complaining about it: "If the train were on time, he should already have arrived by this time. *But* it wasn't on time." However, this is not what the original English sentence meant.

2) "John missed the train, he probably left home earlier". This doesn't make much sense , and again, it doesn't convey the meaning you wanted to.



Roo Boy said:


> The tablets should have been taken yesterday (passive).
> This would be a "Case 1" so using the present conditional of dovere + past infinitive would translate as:
> 
> Le pastiglie si sarebbero dovute prendere ieri.


You actually translated it as a "*case 2*" (past conditional, _si sarebbero dovute_, + present infinitive _prendere_). Actually, that sentence may be a "case 2" as well - if I know the pills were not taken and I'm complaining about it. Instead, if you're just guessing the pills were supposed to be taken yesterday (but you don't know if they were taken), then it's a "case 1". As creator of this sentence, you decide.. 



> or would this be better?:
> Le pastiglie dovrebbero essere state prese ieri.


Case 1, correct (apart from the endings, as _pastiglie_ is feminine).



> You should have taken the tablets yesterday (active).
> Again "Case 1"


Again, we can't say without context if it's a "case 1" («you probably took your pills yesterday, didn't you?») or a "case 2" («you were supposed to take your pills yesterday, but they are still on the table, how come you didn't do it?»). Therefore, I assume you are imagining a context under "case 1".


> Avresti dovuto prendere le pastiglie ieri. _That's correct, but "case 2"! (past conditional _avresti dovuto_, + present infinitive_ prendere_)_
> Is it incorrect to say?:
> Dovresti avere preso le pastiglie ieri. _Correct, case 1._


----------



## lsp

Here's another example (I think it's case 2):

You should have added this question to that other thread to help keep the forum organized for future questions on the same topic.

Avresti dovuto aggiungere questa domanda a quel altro thread per auitare a mantenere il forum organizzato per le eventuali ulteriori domande sullo stesso argomento.


----------



## MünchnerFax

lsp said:


> Here's another example (I think it's case 2):
> 
> You should have added this question to that other thread to help keep the forum organized for future questions on the same topic.
> 
> Avresti dovuto aggiungere questa domanda a quell'altro thread per aiutare a mantenere il forum organizzato per le eventuali ulteriori (_better _future) domande sullo stesso argomento.


Definitely case 2.


----------



## awanzi

Roo Boy said:


> Thanks. Breaking the constructions down to their grammatical elements really helps to understand them.
> 
> You're probably suffering from déjà vu because I asked a similar question some time ago here:
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=316711
> 
> This thread is an extension of that question in that I want to understand how the passive and active voices are constructed in this context.
> 
> The tablets should have been taken yesterday (passive).
> This would be a "Case 1" so using the present conditional of dovere + past infinitive would translate as:
> Le pastiglie si avrebbero sarebbero dovute prendere ieri.
> or would this be better?:
> Le pastiglie dovrebbero essere state prese ieri.
> (awanzi prefers the latter)  Not allways... The firs one is correct and even better when you want to underline the fact that the tablets aren't taken yet. With the second you guess.
> 
> You should have taken the tablets yesterday (active).
> Again "Case 1" so I assume that the best translation is:
> Avresti dovuto prendere le pastigle ieri. (I Agree!)
> Is it incorrect to say?:
> Dovresti avere preso le pastigle ieri. No, it is ok. But here you mean that, for ex, is strange that you are sick as you normally should have taken the tablets yesterday (but you don't know if he/she did).
> 
> The first one implies that you know that he/she did not take the tablets yesterday.
> 
> With your example, would it be _incorrect _to use them the other way around (see below) or is it just _better _to use them the way that you have suggested:
> 
> Case 1: John è in viaggio per Roma. È partito qualche ora fa, sarebbe dovuto arrivato ormai.
> 
> Case 2: John ha perso il treno per Roma. Dovrebbe essere partito da casa prima.


 

I hope this helps a little bit more...


----------



## Roo Boy

I follow. However, I am still confused as to which auxillary verb to use in a case 2 construction.

Le pastiglie si sarebbero dovute prendere ieri.

Dovere and prendere both use avere as their auxillary yet essere is used above. Is this because it is a reflexive type construction and essere is always used in this instance?

Compare - Avresti dovuto prendere le pastigle ieri.

Also:

Instead of "Le pastiglie si sarebbero dovute prendere ieri", could you also say "Le pastiglie sarebbero dovute prendersi ieri"?




> Here's another example (I think it's case 2):
> 
> You should have added this question to that other thread to help keep the forum organized for future questions on the same topic.
> 
> Avresti dovuto aggiungere questa domanda a quel altro thread per auitare a mantenere il forum organizzato per le eventuali ulteriori domande sullo stesso argomento.


True


----------



## awanzi

Roo Boy said:


> I follow. However, I am still confused as to which auxillary verb to use in a case 2 construction.
> 
> Le pastiglie si sarebbero dovute prendere ieri.
> 
> Dovere and prendere both use avere as their auxillary yet essere is used above. Is this because it is a reflexive type construction and essere is always used in this instance? *Exactly!!! *
> 
> Compare - Avresti dovuto prendere le pastigle ieri.
> 
> Also:
> 
> Instead of "Le pastiglie si sarebbero dovute prendere ieri", could you also say "Le pastiglie sarebbero dovute prendersi ieri"? I think you could, although *I*'m not fond of it...


----------



## horseman

Right..good question....

You should have taken the tablets yesterday (active).
Again "Case 1" so I assume that the best translation is:
Avresti dovuto prendere le pastigle ieri.
Is it incorrect to say?:
Dovresti avere preso le pastigle ieri.

It would seem that the past participle "preso" (taken) would be correct...not the infinitive prendere (to take).    We are saying "You should have taken the ...."
not  "you should have to take" .   
Can someone clarify this?

Thanks

The confusion gets worse!  How would we say ..The pizza should have been ready at 8:30..
La pizza  avrebbe dovuto essere pronta alle 8:30?  Is that correct?

Thanks!

The confusion gets worse! How would we say ..The pizza should have been ready at 8:30..La pizza avrebbe dovuto essere pronta alle 8:30? Is that correct?Thanks!


----------



## giovannino

horseman said:


> The pizza should have been ready at 8:30..La pizza avrebbe dovuto essere pronta alle 8:30? Is that correct?Thanks!



Yes, it's correct, horseman


----------



## horseman

Thank you Giovannino



giovannino said:


> Yes, it's correct, horseman



This brings to mind another thought...could it also be avrebbe dovuto STATA pronta..." since stata  would express the past..."been" ..rather than essere (l' infinitivo) " to be"...This confuses me.  We wouldn't say ..The pizza should have to be ready....

Thanks


----------



## giovannino

horseman said:


> This brings to mind another thought...could it also be avrebbe dovuto STATA pronta..." since stata  would express the past..."been" ..rather than essere (l' infinitivo) " to be"...This confuses me.  We wouldn't say ..The pizza should have to be ready....
> 
> Thanks



No, you can't use "stata" in that sentence, horseman, only "essere". Having read your post #27, I now see what is confusing you:



			
				horseman said:
			
		

> Avresti dovuto prendere le pastiglie ieri.
> Is it incorrect to say?:
> Dovresti avere preso le pastiglie ieri.
> 
> It would seem that the past participle "preso" (taken) would be correct...not the infinitive prendere (to take).



You are tempted to use "preso" because you are translating the sentence literally and it has a past participle ("taken") in English.

The trouble is that when the English structure "_should have _+ past participle" means that someone ought to have done something (but they didn't) or something should have happened (but it didn't) in Italian you need to use "_avere _in the conditional + _dovuto _+ infinitive":

_You should have told me 
Avresti dovuto dirmelo

_If you translate the English structure literally you get a different meaning, i.e. that you suppose/expect something to have happened but you are not 100 % sure:

_Dovrebbe essere già partito = I guess/assume that he's already left
Dovrebbe aver finito ormai = He's probably finished by now

_These two examples should make the difference clear:

_Avrebbe dovuto leggere la tua lettera _= _he should have read your letter (but he didn't -- I'm criticizing him for not reading it)

Dovrebbe aver letto la tua letttera = I think he's probably read your letter_


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Very well said, Giovannino.

Best.

GS

PS. If I may add a few words, horseman, I'd like to draw your attention to a territory of English grammar -- here exemplified by the

sentence "You might/could have told me" --  where things tend to be similarly fuzzy.


----------



## Gladius928

Can andare be used as an auxiliary for this "Should have been" construction?  I am looking at my dictionary and it says that andare used in the imperfetto can be used to mean "should have been / ought to have been."  Therefore, for the example above with the tablets can we say?:

Le pastiglie andavano preso ieri.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Gladius928 said:


> Le pastiglie andavano pres*e* ieri.


----------



## Gladius928

Thank you!😊  Would it be closer in meaning to number 1, 2 or 3:

1. Le pastiglie avrebbero dovuto essere state prese ieri.
2. Le pastiglie dovrebbero essere state prese ieri.
3. Le pastiglie si sarebbero dovute prendere ieri.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

All those 3 sentences mean the same thing, but #2 is ungrammatical.


----------



## TheCrociato91

To me 1 and 2 are different.


Gladius928 said:


> 1. Le pastiglie avrebbero dovuto essere state prese ieri.
> 2. Le pastiglie dovrebbero essere state prese ieri.


1. The pills should have been taken yesterday.
2. The pills must have been taken yesterday.

Number 2 sounds more like a supposition about a past event (I assume that the pills...), whereas number 1 refers to something that was supposed to happen but did not.

I wouldn't call number 3 incorrect; it's definitely a bit awkward. I think it's what grammarians call "si passivante" (passive _si_). I'm not an expert though, so I may be mistaken.


----------



## Gladius928

Thank you.  Does "Le pastiglie andavano prese ieri" sound more like a supposition or does it fall in the other category?


----------



## TheCrociato91

Gladius928 said:


> Thank you. Does "Le pastiglie andavano prese ieri" sound more like a supposition or does it fall in the other category?


Definitely not a supposition in my book.


----------



## Starless74

Gladius928 said:


> Thank you.  Does "Le pastiglie andavano prese ieri" sound more like a supposition or does it fall in the other category?


Definitely in the other category (the pills should have been taken/ought to have been taken yesterday).


----------

