# tutti gli immigrati illegali avrebbero dovuto lasciare il paese in due settimane



## rino delbello

Salve, devo tradurre questa frase per un mio studente e mi chiedo se anzichè di '' had to '' posso usare       '' should ''. Ecco la frase intera e la frase tradotta con il verbo in grassetto.


L' annuncio l'aveva dato lunedi' 17 il ministro degli interni nigeriano : tutti gli immigrati illegali *avrebbero* *dovuto* lasciare il paese in due settimane.


On Monday 17th the Nigerian Home Secretary announced that all illegal immigrants *had to* leave the country within a fortnight.


Poichè qui abbiamo il '' future in the past '' che è '' announced '' (come he said ) e il passato di to have è '' had '', si potrebbe anche sostituire '' had to '' con '' should ''? Should in questo caso significa '' avrebbero dovuto '' ?


----------



## joanvillafane

Hi rino - no, in this case "should" is not correct.
If you want to keep the idea of "future in the past" you could also say:
.....all illegal immigrants would have to leave the country within a fortnight.


----------



## rino delbello

Hi Joanvillafane

Thanks, I said '' should '' because '' announced '' is a reporting verb like '' said, knew, insisted, etc. ''


----------



## Einstein

I agree with Joan in this case.
"Should" is not always wrong, but here it's not strong enough.
Direct: have to leave/must leave
Reported: had to leave
Direct: will have to leave
Reported: would have to leave
Direct: should leave
Reported: should leave

Note in the third example that "should" doesn't change; it would mean that the minister originally said "should", which is not strong enough for this occasion.


----------



## rino delbello

Ok, thanks for explaining Einstein. What about ' were due to '' or ' were supposed to '' instead of ' had to ''?


----------



## rrose17

_Were due to_ simply expresses a fact, there is no sense of the obligation involved. _Were supposed to_ is very similar here to_ should_, so not strong enough.


----------



## rino delbello

OK, thanks rrose17. I think I have understood how it works.

For example, if you look at this sentence : I thought I *should *write to Paul.

This is how I would translate it according to what Einstein said : pensavo che *dovevo* scrivere a Paul. (I would translate ' dovevo ' with ' had to ' )

If the sentence is : I thought I *had to* write to Paul.

This is how I would translate it according to what Einstein explained: pensai che *avrei dovuto* scrivere a Paul.

Is it right?


----------



## Lazzini

I may be wrong - I often am - but to me this means "...all the illegal immigrants should have left the country in two weeks", or, perhaps, "...are expected to have left the country...".


----------



## chipulukusu

Lazzini said:


> I may be wrong - I often am - but to me this means "...all the illegal immigrants should have left the country in two weeks", or, perhaps, "...are expected to have left the country...".



Hi Lazzini, I find rather unusual this construction for my Italian ears. I would use this construction in a sentence like this:

_Il ministro annunciò il 17 gennaio che gli illegali avrebbero dovuto aver lasciato il paese entro il 31 dicembre dell'anno precedente. Chi fosse stato trovato dal 1° gennaio in poi era passibile di incriminazione per soggiorno illegale.
_
ma

_Il ministro annunciò il 17 gennaio che gli illegali avrebbero dovuto lasciare il paese entro due settimane (dall'annuncio).
_
I don't know if English differs on this.


----------



## rino delbello

Thanks Lazzini, do you mean that you would translate ' avrebbero dovuto ' as ' should have left ' ? rrose 17 what do you think about what I said in my last reply?


----------



## alicip

joanvillafane said:


> Hi rino - no, in this case "should" is not correct.
> If you want to keep the idea of "future in the past" you could also say:
> .....all illegal immigrants would have to leave the country within a fortnight.


Sorry Joan, but this translates: "...dovrebbero lasciare il paese..."


----------



## Paulfromitaly

alicip said:


> Sorry Joan, but this translates: "...dovrebbero lasciare il paese..."


I don't think so. This is what it means


chipulukusu said:


> _Il ministro annunciò il 17 gennaio che gli illegali *avrebbero dovuto lasciare* il paese entro due settimane (dall'annuncio).
> _
> .


----------



## rino delbello

Hi alicip, good to see you . So,  if I have understood, I can only  use ' had to ', can't I?   Would ' should have left ' be wrong?


----------



## sorry66

"On Monday 17th the Nigerian Home Secretary announced that all illegal immigrants *had to* leave the country within a fortnight."
If you use 'should' in your example sentence it would be like ' are advised to'' so no real obligation.

_had to leave = dovrebbero lasciare?_

"On Monday 17th the Nigerian Home Secretary announced that all illegal immigrants *would have to* leave the country within a fortnight."

_would have to leave = avrebbero dovuto lasciare_ ?

_would have to_ and _had to_ don't make much difference here


pensai che *avrei dovuto* scrivere a Paul = ?
I thought, 'I should have written to Paul' so in indirect speech 'I thought I should have written to Paul'

pensavo che *dovevo* scrivere a Paul =???
'I thought I had to write to Paul' is not the same as  'I thought I should write to Paul'


----------



## alicip

Paulfromitaly said:


> I don't think so. This is what it means


And how would you translate "...dovrebbero lasciare il paese..." if this translates "...avrebbero dovuto lasciare il paese..."?


----------



## rino delbello

OK, are  ' had to ' and ' would have to ' the only correct ones to render ' avrebbero dovuto ' in this sentence ?

I must never use ' should ' to translate ' avrebbero dovuto ' in this sentence, right?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

alicip said:


> And how would you translate "...dovrebbero lasciare il paese..." if this translates "...avrebbero dovuto lasciare il paese..."?


It's Italian, not English. Future in the past is always condizionale trapassato.
And it's never easy to translate correctly chunks of sentences.

We have already discussed this at length

avrebbero dovuto suscitare


----------



## alicip

Paulfromitaly said:


> It's Italian, not English. Future in the past is always condizionale trapassato.
> And it's never easy to translate correctly chunks of sentences.
> 
> We have already discussed this at length
> 
> avrebbero dovuto suscitare



Right. Sorry, I don't know why I got confused. So we should have:
Il futuro nel passato si esprime sempre con il condizionale, sia che l’azione si sia realizzata o meno:
Mi hanno detto che sarebbe partito.  = They told me that he would leave/would have left.
Ha detto che sarebbe arrivata martedì. = She said that she would come/would have come on Tuesday.
Sapevo che sarebbe partito. = I knew that he would leave/would have left.


----------



## sorry66

alicip said:


> Right. Sorry, I don't know why I got confused. So we should have:
> Il futuro nel passato si esprime sempre con il condizionale, sia che l’azione si sia realizzata o meno:
> Mi hanno detto che sarebbe partito.  = They told me that he would leave/would have left.
> Ha detto che sarebbe arrivata martedì. = She said that she would come/would have come on Tuesday.
> Sapevo che sarebbe partito. = I knew that he would leave/would have left.



Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. The second part is different in meaning to the first part in the English translation.

I tried to answer rino's post #7 in post #14 but I'm looking for answers myself.


----------



## alicip

sorry66 said:


> Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. The second part is different in meaning to the first part in the English translation.
> 
> I tried to answer rino's post #7 in post #14 but I'm looking for answers myself.


Yeah, I know the difference between "would leave" and "would have left" in English, but it appears in Italian we have to translate it with the same form. 
http://blogs.transparent.com/italian/back-to-the-future/
http://www.englishgratis.com/1/risorse/grammatica/gram-v-28-futureinthepast.htm
http://www.cyberitalian.com/en/html/gra_v2.html


----------



## sorry66

But it seems to me that _dovrebbero lasciare _and _avrebbero dovuto lasciare _mean the same thing in this context; it's what I was trying to point out in #14 ( if I've translated them correctly).

There's also the post by chipu  (#9)  but I'm not sure what he's getting at.


----------



## rino delbello

All I need is the reply to my post  #16 because I am getting confused more and more, please.


----------



## chipulukusu

sorry66 said:


> But it seems to me that _dovrebbero lasciare _and _avrebbero dovuto lasciare _mean the same thing in this context; it's what I was trying to point out in #14 ( if I've translated them correctly).
> 
> There's also the post by chipu  (#9)  but I'm not sure what he's getting at.



Hi Sorry, I try to explain myself better, for what I can.

_A) The Ministry said that all illegal immigrants had to leave the Country in two weeks time._
This gives a sense of obligation. In Italian we can have:
1) Il ministro disse che tutti gli illegali dovevano lasciare il Paese _or _2) Il ministro disse che tutti gli illegali avrebbero dovuto lasciare il Paese. These are both ok in Italian and this is _future in the past. _1) is stronger than 2) but they both work.

3) _Il ministro disse che tutti gli illegali dovrebbero lasciare il paese_ This is wrong because tenses are discordant.

_B) The Ministry said that all illegal immigrants should leave the Country in two weeks time._
This looks more like a strong exhortation than like an obligation. The difference between the two is context dependant. In this case, being a Ministry's speech, the difference looks pretty tiny.
In Italian we say:
2) Il ministro disse che tutti gli illegali avrebbero dovuto lasciare il Paese.

Now, if we have in English:
C) _The Ministry said that all illegal immigrants should have left the Country... _
I understand this in Italian as
4) Il Ministro disse che tutti gli illegali avrebbero dovuto aver lasciato il Paese..., and this doesn't look like _future in the past _but like _conditional in the past.
_
It seems to me that this construction may only have sense in a context like:

C) _The Ministry said that all illegal immigrants should have left the Country within two weeks from his previous order. If they did so after this deadline they faced a 5 year ban from entering the Country. If they still haven't left the Country at the time, they faced expulsion and a 10 year ban from entering the Country.
_
3) Il Ministro disse che tutti gli illegali avrebbero dovuto aver lasciato il Paese entro due settimane dal suo precedente ordine. Chi avesse lasciato il Paese dopo questa scadenza avrebbe subito un divieto di 5 anni di rientrare nel Paese. Chi non lo avesse ancora fatto avrebbe subito l'espulsione ed un divieto di 10 anni di rietrare nel Paese.

This is how I understand _They should have left the Country. _I may be completely wrong of course, so I was asking confirmation about the use of _should have + past participle_ in English.


----------



## Lazzini

chipulukusu said:


> This is how I understand _They should have left the Country. _I may be completely wrong of course, so I was asking confirmation about the use of _should have + past participle_ in English.



This sort of construction can be seen two ways, and context will generally make clear which is intended:

-_ They should have left two weeks ago_ _- _that was the time by which they were due to leave_.
- They should have left by the end of this month _- that is the time by which they are due to leave.

In my earlier post I was thinking of the second interpretation - although I am still not sure if my suggestion reflected the Italian sentence.


----------



## chipulukusu

Lazzini said:


> This sort of construction can be seen two ways, and context will generally make clear which is intended:
> 
> -_ They should have left two weeks ago_ _- _that was the time by which they were due to leave_.
> - They should have left by the end of this month _- that is the time by which they are due to leave.
> 
> In my earlier post I was thinking of the second interpretation - although I am still not sure if my suggestion reflected the Italian sentence.



Thank you Lazzini, I understand better now, though I think that part of my difficulties in understanding is due to the fact that I probably don't fully understand the very nature of the auxiliary verb _should_.

In Italian I think this is pretty much context dependent. We can say:

_1)  a) Ho visto i Rossi che imballavano le loro cose.
     b) Si, dovrebbero lasciare la casa entro la fine di questo mese.
_
but

_2)  a) I Rossi non hanno ancora trovato una nuova casa.
     b) Ma come, avrebbero dovuto lasciare la casa entro la fine del mese.
_
In 2), b) gives for granted that the Rossis will not manage to leave the house by the end of the month.

I suspect that the difference arise from the fact that _should_ has no past in English, so while we can say _dovrebbero lasciare_ or _avrebbero dovuto lasciare_ according to the context, in English you are forced to put the main verb on the past so it is _they should leave_ or _they should have left_ according to the context, and this could have been the reason for my difficulties in understanding.

This is just wild guessing on my side, though, and it goes far beyond my grasp of grammar technicalities in both languages.


----------



## sorry66

To Lazzini - I don't think 'should have' is the way to translate this. I think the illegal immigrants are being ordered to leave so 'had to' or 'would have to'  works which is what chipu is saying in point A  # 23.

To chipu -re: # 25
1b) I saw the Smiths packing up their things
Yes, they should be leaving the house before the end of the month

2b) The Smiths still haven't found a new house.
But they'll have to leave the house before the end of the month

because you can't say the following 'they'll have to have left the house by the end of the month'  and you can't use 'should' here nor 'should have'.

"In 2), b) gives for granted that the Rossis will not manage to leave the house by the end of the month."

_I don't understand what you mean by the above but it's late so that might be the reason!_


----------



## london calling

joanvillafane said:


> Hi rino - no, in this case "should" is not correct.
> If you want to keep the idea of "future in the past" you could also say:
> .....all illegal immigrants would have to leave the country within a fortnight.


Joan was right from the word go.

Rino, my opinion in a nutshell: your original suggestion's fine, Joan's I think is better and 'should' definitely isn't strong enough.


----------



## Lazzini

sorry66 said:


> To Lazzini - I don't think 'should have' is the way to translate this. I think the illegal immigrants are being ordered to leave so 'had to' or 'would have to'  works which is what chipu is saying in point A  # 23.
> 
> _ "They should have left by the end of this month _- that is the time by which they are due to leave." ???
> Who ever says this??



I also, now, think that "should have" is probably wrong.

As to "Who ever says this?", a Google search on ""They should have left by" answers this.


----------



## sorry66

Sorry, Lazzini, in context you can say 'they should have left by' but it doesn't work in the example. (I'll edit that out )

To LondonC- Nearly all the  people in this thread (not just Joan) have been saying 'would have to' or 'had to' (alternative) would do the trick!


----------



## alicip

C'è ancora qualcosa che non mi convince.
Prendiamo gli esempi:
1. Il ministro disse: "Tutti gli immigrati illegali *devono lasciare *il paese in due settimane." (discorso diretto / verbo al presente)
   Il ministro disse che tutti gli immigrati illegali *dovevano lasciare *il paese in due settimane. (discorso indiretto / verbo all'imperfetto)

2. Il ministro disse: "Tutti gli immigrati illegali *dovranno lasciare *il paese in due settimane." (discorso diretto / verbo al futuro)
   Il ministro disse che tutti gli immigrati illegali *avrebbero dovuto lasciare *il paese in due settimane. (discorso indiretto / verbo al condizionale composto (passato))

3. Il ministro disse: "Tutti gli immigrati illegali *dovrebbero lasciare *il paese in due settimane." (discorso diretto / verbo al condizionale)
    Il ministro disse che tutti gli immigrati illegali *avrebbero dovuto lasciare *il paese in due settimane. (discorso indiretto / verbo al condizionale composto (passato))

Da come è formulata la frase in OP:
"L' annuncio l'aveva dato lunedi' 17 il ministro degli interni nigeriano : tutti gli immigrati illegali *avrebbero dovuto* *lasciare *il paese in due settimane."
si capisce che potrebbe trattarsi o della situazione 2. o della situazione 3. come da me esemplificato sopra. Quindi abbiamo:

1. The Minister said: "All illegal immigrants *have to leave* the country in two weeks." (direct speech)
   The Minister said that all illegal immigrants *had to leave* the country in two weeks. (indirect speech)

2. The Minister said: "All illegal immigrants *will have to leave* the country in two weeks." (direct speech)
   The Minister said that all illegal immigrants *would have* *to leave* the country in two weeks. (indirect speech)

3. The Minister said: "All illegal immigrants *ought to/should leave* the country in two weeks." (direct speech)
   The Minister said that all illegal immigrants *ought to/should leave* the country in two weeks. (indirect speech)

Correggetemi se sbaglio.


----------



## sorry66

To Alcip:
No. 1 works for me because, in effect, it means the same thing even though it's not the future.
No. 2 yes
No. 3 doesn't work (as I said in post #14 ) because it's more like a recommendation.

(but I can't comment on the Italian! mine's not good enough)


----------



## chipulukusu

Hi Sorry



sorry66 said:


> To chipu -re: # 25
> 1b) I saw the Smiths packing up their things
> Yes, they should be leaving the house before the end of the month



Thank you, I always forget the use of the progessive form in this case 



sorry66 said:


> "In 2), b) gives for granted that the Rossis will not manage to leave the house by the end of the month."
> _I don't understand what you mean by the above but it's late so that might be the reason!_



I was referring to the use of past conditional in Italian when we think that something that was scheduled in the future will not actually happen. 
a) I Rossi non hanno ancora trovato una nuova casa
b) Ma come, _avrebbero dovuto_ lasciare la casa alla fine di questo mese!

a) Nel mese di settembre ti occuperai tu della filiale di Roma.
b) Ma scusa, non _avrei dovuto_ essere alla sede centrale per la formazione?

But I'm probably having a logical mishap here and the past refers to the schedule which has already changed and not to the anticipation of something that was supposed to happen in the future. Or something that _should have happened in the future_, as I would have said before your clarifications....


----------



## sorry66

Hi chipu:

(_Maybe we should continue this with a 'conversation' as it's not really relevant to the thread?_)

I'm no expert on the matter but I'll illustrate what I think with examples:

(telephone conversation)
A: Hi B. Thanks for looking after my flat while I'm away on holiday. Is everything ok?
B: The neighbour has some very noisy guests at the moment.
A: Oh no!
B: Don't worry! From what I hear, _they should have (already) left/gone by the time you get back_.
(they won't be there when you get back if everything goes to plan - B's fairly sure it will)

Or '_they'll have left/gone_' (more definite - less doubt from B).
Or '_they're supposed to leave/go before you get back_'. (B's just stating the facts)

a) Nel mese di settembre ti occuperai tu della filiale di Roma.
In September, you'll take care of the Rome branch.
b) Ma scusa, non _avrei dovuto_ essere alla sede centrale per la formazione?
But sorry, don't I have/won't I have/am I not supposed to be at the central branch for the training?

Here again, as in the Rossi example (pasted below), I would just use the present, the future or _supposed to_.
I'm just as puzzled by the Italian construction here as you are by the English!

_2) a) I Rossi non hanno ancora trovato una nuova casa.
b) Ma come, avrebbero dovuto lasciare la casa entro la fine del mese._

2a) The Rosses still haven't found a new house.
b) But they'll have to/they have to/they're supposed to  leave the house before the end of the month


----------



## rino delbello

Thanks a lot to everyone ! Now I've got what I needed


----------

