# dovrebbe essere stato realizzato



## sivinka

Hi all!!!
I'd like to know how to translate this sentence: "Questo edificio dovrebbe essere stato realizzato nel 1800". My doubt is about the verbal form "should have been" that I think I can't use here, because if I say "This building shoul have been done in 1800" I mean "Questo edificio sarebbe dovuto essere costruito nel 1800" and it is not the sense of my sentence.
So could you help me with the correct translation?
Thank in advance.
Anna


----------



## Enigmista

_Should have been built/completed_   would be perfect in my view


----------



## Leo57

sivinka said:


> Hi all!!!
> I'd like to know how to translate this sentence: "Questo edificio dovrebbe essere stato realizzato nel 1800". My doubt is about the verbal form "should have been" that I think I can't use here, because if I say "This building shoul have been done in 1800" I mean "Questo edificio sarebbe dovuto essere costruito nel 1800" and it is not the sense of my sentence.
> So could you help me with the correct translation?
> Thank in advance.
> Anna



Hello there
I _think_ this is a type of hypothetical situation when we are 'assuming' the year of the building.   Therefore:  This building _must have been_ constructed in 1800.   (= this means we are not 100% certain, but from other buildings/records etc. this is our best 'educated' guess)
This building should have been built in 1800...... (the sentence is unfinished using this construction.) = This building should have been built in xx _but it wasn't_ because there were insufficient funds.  It was finally built in 1829 thanks to a huge donation by xx.  (sentences made up on the spot as an example.)
Another way is:  ...was probably built in xxx /in the xx OR:  ...was probably built around xxx
Hope this helps. (and I hope this is what you meant)
Ciao
Leo


----------



## Enigmista

I understand Leo  

Even though I know that _"must have been built"_ construction implies an higher degree of certainty compared to the _"should have been built" _construction....that's why,translating from Italian, I've opted for the latter
In general it depends on the context for sure....

This link might help 
http://www.englishpage.com/forums/s...have-been-quot-quot-must-have-been-quot/page3


----------



## Alec71

I do suspect that Leo refers to the fact that *should have been done* can mean 
both *dovrebbe essere stato fatto* and *sarebbe/avrebbe dovuto essere fatto.* If you don't/cannot provide further context, you should prefer a more definite construction (as per must.....)


----------



## aelfgar

"should have" and "must have" are quite different in this context, and "should have" won't work.

"Must have been" here is equivalent to "I'm pretty sure it was".

"Should have been" is like "ought to have been" - ie. 

"it should have been built in 1800, but the construction company failed, and the building wasn't completed until 1810."


----------



## stefano1488

I'd say "was probably built".
Like aelfgar just said, "should have been built" has a different meaning, it's like "avrebbe dovuto essere realizzato" in Italian.


----------



## Enigmista

aelfgar said:


> "should have" and "must have" are quite different in this context, and "should have" won't work.
> 
> "Must have been" here is equivalent to "I'm pretty sure it was".
> 
> "Should have been" is like "ought to have been" - ie.
> 
> "it should have been built in 1800, but the construction company failed, and the building wasn't completed until 1810."



You're right...ma in assenza di ulteriori precisazioni,visto che la frase si conclude di netto, io propenderei per l'uso di _*Should*_...dipende da cosa vuole comunicare l'originale frase in Italiano a mio avviso 

Con MUST non si da adito a dubbi invece


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Non proprio, Eni.
Non è vero che _must_ non da adito a dubbi. Se rileggi le parole di Leo:
"... ... This building must have been constructed in 1800. (= _this means we are not 100% certain, but from other buildings/records etc. this is our best 'educated' guess_)... ..." ti accorgi che l'assenza di dubbio (la certezza) non esiste quando è presente un modale. Nel caso di "must" ci avviciniamo molto ma non la raggiungiamo; la raggiungeremmo solo per mezzo dell'indicativo "...fu/è stata costruita nel...". 
"Should", da parte sua, se è vero che in molti casi può essere usato come forma attenuata di "must" (e qui hai ragione), nel caso della modalità logico-deduttiva non è indicato. Lo sarebbe invece come forma attenuata di "must" nel caso di modalià deontica:
- You must be more considerate of others
- You should be more considerate of others
Saluti.
GS


----------



## Enigmista

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Non proprio, Eni.
> Non è vero che _must_ non da adito a dubbi. Se rileggi le parole di Leo:
> "... ... This building must have been constructed in 1800. (= _this means we are not 100% certain, but from other buildings/records etc. this is our best 'educated' guess_)... ..." ti accorgi che l'assenza di dubbio (la certezza) non esiste quando è presente un modale. Nel caso di "must" ci avviciniamo molto ma non la raggiungiamo; la raggiungeremmo solo per mezzo dell'indicativo "...fu/è stata costruita nel...".
> "Should", da parte sua, se è vero che in molti casi può essere usato come forma attenuata di "must" (e qui hai ragione), nel caso della modalità logico-deduttiva non è indicato. Lo sarebbe invece come forma attenuata di "must" nel caso di modalià deontica:
> - You must be more considerate of others
> - You should be more considerate of others
> Saluti.
> GS




Seguo il tuo discorso..Il contesto è troppo poco per dirlo Giorgio !

Must comunque è un concetto molto più forte e sicuro di Should...

Se io dico che un qualcosa dovrebbe essere stata costruita,sto dicendo che non ho certezze e resto  sul vago...ripeto dipende se chi parla è un asino e non lo sa proprio e tira a indovinare o guarda verso il cielo ...oppure lo dice seguendo la logica che esponeva Leo prima 

Come al solito il contesto e il sapere cosa si vuole comunicare è importante in qualsiasi lingua nel rispetto di tali sfumature


----------



## rrose17

_You must come here tomorrow._ No probability.
_This building must have been built in the early 1800s_. This is an assumption. Otherwise you'd say _This building was built in the early 1800s._
_This building should have been built._ It would have been a good idea if it had been built.


----------



## Enigmista

Premesso che capisco e sono d'accordo con l'intervento di tutti in relazione alla struttura "_Should have"_ etc...vs la struttura con *Must
*Ma Rrrose io so che la struttura con "Should" può essere usata assolutamente anche per esprimere _*il dubbio *_in relazione a una certa cosa (cosi come infatti ho inteso io questo post)...ecco perchè ho ribadito che il contesto è cruciale 

Forse può essere utile a tutti 


http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/shouldhave/menu.php


----------



## ALEX1981X

Leggevo i vostri interventi e devo dire che anche il discorso di  Enigmista è fondato perchè il contesto è davvero poco e si presta a due  diverse interpretazioni...

Questo discorso interessa molto anche a me e vi chiedo, giusto per tagliare la testa al toro :

Esiste anche in Inglese una differenza sostanziale tra ad esempio :...la chiesa _*dovrebbe essere stata realizzata nel 1800  *_e_*  sarebbe dovuta essere realizzata*_ _*nel 1800*_.
In Italiano le frasi hanno un significato diverso 

Ma in Inglese come si rende correttamente questa differenza ??

Se volessi comunicare che ho appunto, come diceva Enigmista,_ il dubbio_  di qualcosa (come sapere la data di costruzione di una chiesa) non  potrei usare la struttura "Should have + Participio passato" ?
Il link di grammatica postato mi sembra che lo ammetta tra le possibilità.

Quindi per dire : _*La chiesa "dovrebbe" essere stata costruita intorno al 1800 *_(ma non ne sono sicuro e ho i miei dubbi)... come verrebbe fedelmente tradotta ???

Grazie a tutti


----------



## aelfgar

ALEX1981X said:


> Esiste anche in Inglese una differenza sostanziale tra ad esempio :...la chiesa _dovrebbe essere stata realizzata nel 1800 _e_ sarebbe dovuta essere realizzata_ _nel 1800_.
> In Italiano le frasi hanno un significato diverso
> 
> Ma in Inglese come si rende correttamente questa differenza ??
> 
> Se volessi comunicare che ho appunto, come diceva Enigmista,_ il dubbio_ di qualcosa (come sapere la data di costruzione di una chiesa) non potrei usare la struttura "Should have + Participio passato" ?
> Il link di grammatica postato mi sembra che lo ammetta tra le possibilità.
> 
> Quindi per dire : _La chiesa "dovrebbe" essere stata costruita intorno al 1800 _(ma non ne sono sicuro e ho i miei dubbi)... come verrebbe fedelmente tradotta ???
> 
> Grazie a tutti


 
  Nelle questioni speculative “should have” ha più forza di “must have”. Nelle tali questioni, “should have” significa “ought to have” --- cioè una costrizione.

  Per esempio – “Look at that rain! You must be soaked. You should have taken your umbrella.”

  Non credo che si direbbe spesso “devi inzupparti!”

  A proposito di _*La chiesa "dovrebbe" essere stata costruita intorno al 1800*_
  potrei dire
  “I’m pretty sure the church was built....”
  “The church looks as if it had been/was built....”
  “It looks like a church of about 1800”


----------



## Yulan

rrose17 said:


> _You must come here tomorrow._ No probability.
> _This building must have been built in the early 1800s_. This is an assumption. Otherwise you'd say _This building was built in the early 1800s._
> _This building should have been built._ It would have been a good idea if it had been built.


 
Yes, Rrose! 


Il modale *must* si usa  per esprimere comando, consiglio, necessità, obbligo, sentito dal parlante e,* in frase affermativa*, per *indicare una supposizione o una deduzione logica.* La costruzione è la seguente:

a)      Se la deduzione è riferita al presente:

Soggetto + *must* + infinito senza _to_​ 

            It *must* be one o’clock.  John is having lunch. Deve essere l’una. John sta pranzando.
            She has  a lot of beautiful dresses. She *must* be very rich. Ha vestiti bellissimi. Deve essere
            molto ricca.
​b)      *Se la deduzione è riferita al passato:*

Soggetto + *mus*t + *have* + participio passato​​It *must have been* midnight when I heard that noise in the kitchen. Doveva  essere mezzanotte quando sentii quel rumore in cucina.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Grazie a tutti...quindi in sostanza dai vostri interventi mi sembra di capire nello specifico che in Inglese la struttura "Should have + pp" viene usata esclusivamente come "expetection" di un qualcosa.....ma anche come "speculation"  come conferma anche Aelfgar...quindi perchè non posso usare "should" in questo contesto scusate ?

Quindi questa ambivalenza: Esiste anche in Inglese una differenza sostanziale tra ad esempio :...la chiesa _*dovrebbe essere stata realizzata nel 1800  *_e_*  sarebbe dovuta essere realizzata*_ _*nel 1800*_ ??

In sostanza non esiste in Inglese....giusto ?

_Should have beeen built _= _*sarebbe dovuta essere realizzata*_ _*nel 1800*_ (ma invece non accadde ciò)

Quando io esprimo o voglio esprimere un dubbio (più o meno leggero) su un qualcosa sarebbe opportuno usare Must have + pp oppure anche "might have + pp" per comunicare l'eventuale possibilità di un qualcosa...

Il link che ho postato è comunque utile ?? Perchè dice che è possibile usare tale struttura per fare delle speculation allora ??

Confusione totale ragazzi 

Attendo i vostri consigli


----------



## xeno....

It all depends on the level of certainty you wish to express in English. It was built....(100% certainty). It must have been built, it would have been built...(lower level of certainty). It might have been built, should have been built, ought to have been built...( still lesser level of certainty).
Quindi questa ambivalenza: Esiste anche in Inglese una differenza sostanziale tra ad esempio :...la chiesa _*dovrebbe essere stata realizzata nel 1800  *_e_*  sarebbe dovuta essere realizzata*_ _*nel 1800*_ ??
I don't  see a substantial difference, I think the difference is stylistic.
I might have won the lottery is different from I must have won the lottery or I should have won the lottery.
The first means that you (say) have not yet checked your numbers to see if in fact you have won. The second implies that you are certain you won the lottery because you have a message from the lottery company saying congratulations! The third expresses regret that you did not win, because you had the numbers but forgot to post the card.
Hope it helps.


----------



## Necsus

ALEX1981X said:


> _*sarebbe dovuta avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata*_ _*nel 1800*_
> Attendo i vostri consigli


Non è il consiglio che aspettavi, visto che l'inglese non è la mia lingua, ma voglio dartelo lo stesso.  Quando il servile è seguito da _essere_ o da un infinito passivo, l'ausiliare è inevitabilmente _avere_.


----------



## Yulan

Necsus said:


> Non è il consiglio che aspettavi, visto che l'inglese non è la mia lingua, ma voglio dartelo lo stesso.  Quando il servile è seguito da _essere_ o da un infinito passivo, l'ausiliare è inevitabilmente _avere_.


 
Esatto, Necsus!



Alex, 

Il modale should corrisponde al condizionale del verbo dovere e viene usato per esprimere obbligo del soggetto, consiglio, raccomandazione, rimprovero,_ supposizione_. È intercambiabile con il modale "ought to". La costruzione è la seguente:

a) con riferimento al presente:

soggetto + should + infinito senza to 


You shouldn’t be/ oughtn’t to be so stubborn. Non dovresti essere così testardo.
It’s six o’clock . He should be/ ought to be here soon. Sono le sei. Presto dovrebbe essere qui. 


b) *con riferimento al passato:*

soggetto + should+ have+ participio passato


He should have listened/ ought to have listened to his father. 
Avrebbe dovuto ascoltare suo padre.

She should have phoned/ ought to have phoned her sister.
Avrebbe dovuto telefonare a sua sorella.
"Should" è *anche usato per esprimere eventualità* o *ipotesi nel periodo ipotetico di secondo tipo*; *in tal caso corrisponde al congiuntivo imperfetto italiano.*

If he should come, give him back the book he lent me. 
Se dovesse venire, restituiscigli il libro che mi ha prestato.
If he should fail, I wouldn’t know what to do. 
Se dovesse fallire non saprei cosa fare.

Personalmente, come già detto, tradurrei: 

"Questa chiesa _dovrebbe essere stata realizzata_ nel 1800" _(dovrebbe risalire al 1800)_
"This church must have been built in 1800" 

"Questa chiesa _avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata_ nel 1800" _(ci si aspettava, era previsto che venisse costruita nel 1800)_
"This church should have been built in 1800"

Ciao


----------



## xeno....

I think "Questa chiesa _avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata_ nel 1800" _ should be "This church would have had to have been built", I think to use "should" is wrong. More context would clarify it. 
_


----------



## Yulan

Yes, Xeno 

Regarding the translation, I said I'd say ... I'm not asserting it's right!
On the contrary, grammar rules set apart, I believe a native's help is needed in this context ...

Ciao


----------



## NewYorktoLA

I'll try to add something here and hope it is useful.  
_se volessi comunicare che ho appunto, come diceva Enigmista, il dubbio   di qualcosa (come sapere la data di costruzione di una chiesa) non   potrei usare la struttura "Should have + Participio passato" ?  Il link di grammatica postato mi sembra che lo ammetta tra le possibilità.

_I looked at the examples on the link that was posted and tried to figure out why they work -
The examples given (in the grammar link) are all expectations on the part of the speaker
1. He should have arrived at his office by now.  (I expect that by now he is at his office)
or 2.  "She should have got(ten) the letter this morning (I expect that she received the letter this morning)

In these cases "should have" is not used to express a level of doubt about the assertion, but rather, a certain expectation. 
So as others have pointed out in their examples, we can't say "should have been built"  to indicate that we are guessing/have doubts about a fact..  We'd say something like "might have been built" 
"could have been built" "must have been built" but that depends on what phrase follows, and so we need more context. 

If I want to say why an expectation had not been met in the past,  I can use "should have+past P":
 The elementary school should have been built in 1922, because at that time there were enough children living in this town,
but the town council had not raised enough money yet, so it wasn't built until 1924. 
But in this case I'm giving my opinion, suggestion, advice, and not speculating on a fact. 

As previous posts have noted, the original statement "should have been  built" could work if there is some kind of refutation after it.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ragazzi vi ringrazio immensamente ....siete stati come al solito tutti gentilissimi e Necsus in primis che ha corretto "alla fonte" la frase 

Un ultima cosa da chiarire a questo punto ,almeno per quanto mi riguarda, (ma questa è colpa di Xeno) 
...che ha scritto :  "I think "Questa chiesa _avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata_ nel 1800" _should be "This church would have had to have been built", I think to use "should" is wrong. More context would clarify it "_

_Se voglio esprimere che appunto la chiesa "avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata (expectation) posso usare anche la forma con Would have had to have been built che propone Xeno ??_

Sono intercambiabili con la struttura "should have been built"  ??

To sum up in this context : *should have been built* = _*Would have had* *to have been built*  che propone Xeno ??_


----------



## sivinka

Thank you all for your answers!!! I've red all your posts!!!
The meaning of my sentence was the Leo's one. I mean:
Questo edificio dovrebbe essere stato realizzato nel 1800
(= this means we are not 100% certain that it was built in 1800, but from other buildings/records etc. this is our best 'educated' guess)
"Questo edificio avrebbe dovuto essere costruito nel 1800"_ but it wasn't_ because there were insufficient funds.
So, I could use: _must/might have been built_ for the first and _should have been buil_t for the second.
Sorry xeno, but your translation _This church would have had to have been built _is very difficult for me! 
Thanks again!!
Anna


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Cari tutti,
ho letto con grande interesse tutti i post e ho riflettuto a lungo. 

Tutti siamo consapevoli della differenza, nella nostra lingua, fra "... è dovuta essere costruita" e "...deve essere stata costruita": nel primo caso diciamo "...fu necessario costruirla"; nel secondo "...è verosimile che sia stata costruita. L'interesse delle due frasi sta anche nel fatto che, per mezzo dei _medesimi operatori grammaticali e lessicali _, il semplice riordinamento sintagmatico fa cambiare il significato così profondamente.

Ora ci poniamo la domanda se un'altra cultura (intesa assai modestamente come "modo di vedere la vita") -- nel nostro caso quella di lingua inglese -- 1. percepisca questa distinzione, e 2. abbia una lingua attrezzata per esprimerla. 

Sono domande che dobbiamo porci, altrimenti confondiamo due piani: quello delle necessità comunicative e quello dei mezzi -- sintattici, lessicali, morfologici, prosodici -- per "vestirle di parole".

Nel caso in questione, esiste, secondo me, il pericolo di ambiguità. Infatti nulla osta, _in teoria_, alla possibilità di dire "... should have been built in 1800"
tanto per significare che "sarebbe stata una buona cosa se fosse stato costruito allora" (valore "deontico" di _should_), quanto per intendere "... è verosimile che sia stato costruito allora" (valore epistemico o logico-deduttivo di _should_).
In fondo, questi due usi sono illustrati comunemente in:
1. They should behave differently (uso deontico di _should_)
2. They should be home by now (... visto che sono partiti già 3 ore fa) (uso epistemico di _should_)

Negli ultimi due casi, siamo indotti ad una interpretazione piuttosto che all'altra dagli elementi di contorno del modale, dal lessico ["behave"], dalla situazione comunicativa, dalla conoscenza del mondo ["quanto ci vuole per andare da qui a lì], e via elencando.

Nel caso in oggetto le cose si complicano perché non esistono "indizi" di questo tipo all'interno dei due enunciati, che in inglese sono identici.

Personalmente ritengo che, al fine di evitare ambiguità d'interpretazione, manterrei il modulo "should +have +EN" per l'espressione della modalià deontica, e mi indirizzerei diversamente per l'espressione dell'epistemica: per es. con l'uso di "must", o con un'espressione  di modalizzazione "esterna" ("most probably... was", ecc.).

D'altra parte, un (annoso) problema analogo si presenta con:

1. Avresti potuto dirmelo (modalità dinamica) (effetto comunicativo: ti rimprovero)
2. Potresti avermelo detto (modalità epistemica (effetto comunicativo: forse, ma non ricordo bene).

Un carissimo saluto a tutti.
GS


----------



## ALEX1981X

Giorgio hai capito il mio dubbio PERFETTAMENTE 

Ecco perchè parlavo di queste ambivalenza/ambiguità tra "Dovrebbe essere stata costruita" vs "avrebbe dovuto essere costruita" e quindi sapere come in Inglese potesse essere comunicata (senza fraintendimenti) la questione 

Attendo comunque dai natives un chiarimento sul mio penultimo post, nella speranza che serva a tutti 

Ad ogni modo mi sembra di capire che la struttura con Should per esprimere quello che in Italiano corrisponde al dubbio di : "Sarebbe dovuta essere costruita nel 1800, _*ma non ne sono certo*_" non è ammissibile nella grammatica Inglese in questo senso, e Must or Might or Could + pp ,devono essere utlizzati !


----------



## Yulan

Alex, Giorgio ciao 

Mi scuserete, ma onestamente continuo a pensare che "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" non sia un'espressione corretta 

1) avrebbe dovuto essere costruita (era stabilito che fosse costruita) 
2) sarebbe stata costruita (ipotesi, si dice che ...)

Scusatemi. Grazie


----------



## ALEX1981X

Yulan said:


> Alex, Giorgio ciao
> 
> Mi scuserete, ma onestamente continuo a pensare che "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" non sia un'espressione corretta
> 
> 1) avrebbe dovuto essere costruita (era stabilito che fosse costruita)
> 2) sarebbe stata costruita (ipotesi, si dice che ...)
> 
> Scusatemi. Grazie



Boh Yulan !  ... Necsus l'ha corretta per la questione del verbo che segue il servile 

Anche io come te, *a orecchio*, pensavo che "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" fosse corretto !

Aspettiamo invece spiegazioni dai natives e dagli esperti, per quanto riguarda la parte "Would have had to have been built" vs "Should have been built" che ho chiesto io sopra 

Mi sta cominciando a venire il mal di testa con tutti questi incroci raga


----------



## Yulan

Oh, Alex ... mi sa che il tuo mal di testa è destinato ad aumentare  ... scusami se te lo faccio notare, ma ho scritto che l'espressione  "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" per me *NON* è corretta: cioè, sono d'accordo con Necsus.

Scusami, aspettiamo madrelingua! 

Ciao


----------



## ALEX1981X

Yulan said:


> Oh, Alex ... mi sa che il tuo mal di testa è destinato ad aumentare  ... scusami se te lo faccio notare, ma ho scritto che l'espressione  "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" per me *NON* è corretta: cioè, sono d'accordo con Necsus.
> 
> Scusami, aspettiamo madrelingua!
> 
> Ciao




Vedi Yulan ?? ...Ho il cervello in pappa 

Almeno questa confusione è chiarita 

Aspettiamo i natives per il resto, altrimenti mi sa tanto che aprirò un nuovo thread bello ordinato per non mettere troppa carne al fuoco 

Grazie a tutti


----------



## Lorena1970

rrose17 said:


> _You must come here tomorrow._ No probability.
> _This building must have been built in the early 1800s_. This is an assumption. Otherwise you'd say _This building was built in the early 1800s._
> _This building should have been built._ It would have been a good idea if it had been built.



IMHO I agree
"This building should have been built"= Questo edificio doveva essere costruito/averbbe dovuto essere costruito (ma purtoppo non lo è stato! - l'edificio NON esiste)
"This building must have been built"= Questo edificio dovrebbe essere stato realizzato nel 1800 (credo/mi pare che questo edificio sia stato realizzato nel 1800 - l'edificio esiste)

I think that "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" is wrong.

"sarebbe stata costruita" is correct in contexts such as: 

"La piazza sarebbe stata costruita se le Belle Arti non avessero posto un veto che ha impedito l'apertura del cantiere"

"La scuola sarebbe stata costruita se il budget fosse stato sufficiente a coprire tutte le spese previste."

My 2 cents.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Lorena1970 said:


> IMHO I agree
> "This building should have been built"= Questo edificio doveva essere costruito/averbbe dovuto essere costruito (ma purtoppo non lo è stato! - l'edificio NON esiste)
> "This building must have been built"= Questo edificio dovrebbe essere stato realizzato nel 1800 (credo/mi pare che questo edificio sia stato realizzato nel 1800 - l'edificio esiste)
> 
> I think that "sarebbe dovuta essere costruita" is wrong.
> 
> "sarebbe stata costruita" is correct in contexts such as:
> 
> "La piazza sarebbe stata costruita se le Belle Arti non avessero posto un veto che ha impedito l'apertura del cantiere"
> 
> "La scuola sarebbe stata costruita se il budget fosse stato sufficiente a coprire tutte le spese previste."
> 
> My 2 cents.



Grande Lore per il tuo intervento 

Ma cosa ne pensi del mio dubbio al post 23 ???


----------



## xeno....

"The church would have had to have been built" is a complex construction. It means that the church was most likely built.....it is rarely used like that but it is one of the possible ways to express things in English. The church should have been built implies that it may not have been actually built. "The church would have had to have been built" speaks of a situation in which one is considering a known state (the church was built) but precisely when is uncertain...thus, by all evidence available the tomb of the pharoah would have had to have been built around the year 5000 before the birth of Christ.
@ yulan, it is very difficult actually to bev sure who is right or wrong here....it is akin to religious debate somehow... you are very wise and it may be that you are right...I really only say what sounds right in English, as ever I would greatly respect your knowledge of English and Italian. I am sure I have plenty to learn still.
@ ALEX no, they are not interchangeable. "Should have been built" implies it was not in fact built but maybe ought to have been built. "Would have had to have been built" involves an element of doubt around a greater certainty. It was built but not sure when. The church should have been built but the priest stole all the cash so we now pray outside in a field! The text would have had to have dated from this period since ....
@Anglo, while a mouthful, it most certainly is correct. "Would have had to have been built" is the same as "must have been built".


----------



## anglomania1

ALEX1981X said:


> "I think "Questa chiesa _avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata_ nel 1800" _should be "This church would have had to have been built",* I would never say this - too many verbs!!
> *I think to use "should" is wrong.*Don't agree with this,either - sorry Xeno!* _
> 
> _Se voglio esprimere che appunto la chiesa "avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata (expectation) posso usare anche la forma con Would have had to have been built che propone Xeno ??_
> 
> Sono intercambiabili con la struttura "should have been built"  ??
> 
> To sum up in this context : *should have been built* = _*Would have had* *to have been built*  che propone Xeno ??_


Hi Alex, I think I've understood your question.
My thoughts on the subject (not to be taken as gospel, of course!):



Would have had to have been built - is such a mouthful and I'd probably never say it (I'm not even sure it's correct)
should have been built -could be "avrebbe dovuto essere costruito ma poi non l'hanno costruito". But it could also be used for your case, if you are not sure about the date "it should have been built in 1880, if I'm not mistaken". I personally don't think this is so common, because it causes confusion with the first example. We English would automatically think something hadn't been done when we hear "should have + PP"
To be clear, I agree with previous posts that "it might have been built" or some such phrase would be the best.
But to really answer your question, I think that "should have +PP" could be translated in the 2 ways you suggestin Italian, and there isn't an exact translation in English to distinguish the two meanings (we would have to use "might have +pp" but it does change the translation slightly).

I hope this helps, 
I'd like to know Londoncalling's opinion, she's usually good on these things and it would be nice to know if other natives agree with me or not.
Anglo


----------



## Lorena1970

ALEX1981X said:


> Un ultima cosa da chiarire a questo punto ,almeno per quanto mi riguarda, (ma questa è colpa di Xeno)
> ...che ha scritto :  "I think "Questa chiesa _avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata_ nel 1800" _should be "This church would have had to have been built" _mi suona strano, direi *non* corretto, *ma non sono native!*
> 
> _Se voglio esprimere che appunto la chiesa "avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata (expectation) posso usare anche la forma con Would have had to have been built che propone Xeno ??_ non lo so, ma mi suona strano. Mi verrebbe meglio "This church *was supposed to* *be built *1800"(but it didn't, so it doesn't exist)= Questa chiesa *avrebbe dovuto essere realizzata* nel 1800".
> Un'altre cosa è: "This church would have been built if the Church had more money" = "Questa chiesa sarebbe stata costruita se la Chiesa avesse avuto maggior denaro"
> *SEMPRE CHE IO NON SIA IN ERRORE!*
> Sono intercambiabili con la struttura "should have been built"  ??secondo me *no*, ma *mi rimetto ai natives!*
> 
> To sum up in this context : *should have been built* = _*Would have had* *to have been built*  che propone Xeno ??_secondo me* no*, ma si entra in meandri grammaticali troppo complessi!



Ho fatto del mio meglio, errori permettendo: mica facile!
I nativi sono gli unici che possono dare il verdetto!

PS: I agree that London C or Einstein would be the best to make this issue much clear!


----------



## xeno....

I assure everyone it is correct or Gs would have pointed it out by now anyway...as a native I repeat it is correct however convolute it sounds...it is actually the best way to say it if you wish to sound educated.


----------



## sivinka

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Cari tutti,
> ho letto con grande interesse tutti i post e ho riflettuto a lungo.
> 
> Tutti siamo consapevoli della differenza, nella nostra lingua, fra "... è dovuta essere costruita" e "...deve essere stata costruita": nel primo caso diciamo "...fu necessario costruirla"; nel secondo "...è verosimile che sia stata costruita. L'interesse delle due frasi sta anche nel fatto che, per mezzo dei _medesimi operatori grammaticali e lessicali _, il semplice riordinamento sintagmatico fa cambiare il significato così profondamente.
> 
> Ora ci poniamo la domanda se un'altra cultura (intesa assai modestamente come "modo di vedere la vita") -- nel nostro caso quella di lingua inglese -- 1. percepisca questa distinzione, e 2. abbia una lingua attrezzata per esprimerla.
> 
> Sono domande che dobbiamo porci, altrimenti confondiamo due piani: quello delle necessità comunicative e quello dei mezzi -- sintattici, lessicali, morfologici, prosodici -- per "vestirle di parole".
> 
> Nel caso in questione, esiste, secondo me, il pericolo di ambiguità. Infatti nulla osta, _in teoria_, alla possibilità di dire "... should have been built in 1800"
> tanto per significare che "sarebbe stata una buona cosa se fosse stato costruito allora" (valore "deontico" di _should_), quanto per intendere "... è verosimile che sia stato costruito allora" (valore epistemico o logico-deduttivo di _should_).
> In fondo, questi due usi sono illustrati comunemente in:
> 1. They should behave differently (uso deontico di _should_)
> 2. They should be home by now (... visto che sono partiti già 3 ore fa) (uso epistemico di _should_)
> 
> Negli ultimi due casi, siamo indotti ad una interpretazione piuttosto che all'altra dagli elementi di contorno del modale, dal lessico ["behave"], dalla situazione comunicativa, dalla conoscenza del mondo ["quanto ci vuole per andare da qui a lì], e via elencando.
> 
> Nel caso in oggetto le cose si complicano perché non esistono "indizi" di questo tipo all'interno dei due enunciati, che in inglese sono identici.
> 
> Personalmente ritengo che, al fine di evitare ambiguità d'interpretazione, manterrei il modulo "should +have +EN" per l'espressione della modalià deontica, e mi indirizzerei diversamente per l'espressione dell'epistemica: per es. con l'uso di "must", o con un'espressione  di modalizzazione "esterna" ("most probably... was", ecc.).
> 
> D'altra parte, un (annoso) problema analogo si presenta con:
> 
> 1. Avresti potuto dirmelo (modalità dinamica) (effetto comunicativo: ti rimprovero)
> 2. Potresti avermelo detto (modalità epistemica (effetto comunicativo: forse, ma non ricordo bene).
> 
> Un carissimo saluto a tutti.
> GS




Caro Giorgio la mia domanda originariamente racchiudeva proprio quanto hai appena descritto tu: la mia non era una mera richiesta di aiuto per una traduzione (avrei potuto tranquillamente cambiare la frase in "forse è stata realizzata" molto facile da rendere in inglese), ma era essenzialmente il desiderio di soddisfare una curiosità linguistica. ;-)  Hai centrato esattamente la questione che vedo con mio grandissimo entusiasmo che sta suscitando tanto interesse da parte di tantissimi utenti del forum. 
Grazie ancora a tutti.


----------



## Lorena1970

Let's sort it out you natives!
We humbly await your verdict!


----------



## xeno....

My verdict....would have had to have been built or must have been built.


----------



## anglomania1

xeno.... said:


> I assure everyone it is correct or Gs (*who ??) *would have pointed it out by now anyway...as a native I repeat it is correct however convolute it sounds...it is actually the best way to say it if you wish to sound educated.


Hi Xeno, 
no, it's not incorrect and I can see where you are coming from.
However I'm not sure it fits the translation here. It's probably the closest we can get, but I'm not sure we have a direct translation for the sentence Alex asked for at all. 

For clarity I'd definitely say "the church might/could/may have been built in .. ",   or even "is supposed to have been built", "is said to have been built" or "is thought to have been built" might be nearer to the meaning.If we want to suggest we are not sure of the date then even "I think it was built"

I think "must have been built" is already different from my above suggestions, which is why I wouldn't use "would have had to have been built". It makes it sound like there is no other alternative, it can't have been built any other time. Whereas here I think the doubt about the date is much stronger.
I depends if here we are looking for a direct translation grammatically or whether we just want to translate the meaning. 

What do you think?
Anglo


----------



## xeno....

@anglo, what is not correct? The construction itself? Do you suppose I made it up? As a native speaker I can assure you it is a proper grammatical construction. But really you should know that as a fellow native???  I have given my opinion. It must be very confusing for an Italian to read of two madrelingue disagreeing over basic grammar. "Would have had to have been built" does imply that there is really only one likely scenario, but that there remains some doubt.
Your examples are actually saying the same as my construction. "would have had to have been built" can be shortened to "might" "could", it is just a more educated construction. It is a strong statement of "probability" not "certainty".
There are different solutions, mine is but one....
We might say that life on earth would have had to have been started by God. We are stating a strong position of belief here but even in this there is room for doubt however small.
You would have had to have been around two years old by the time your father went to fight in the war? Again probability based on some level of uncertainty. From another angle, you might have been about two years old when your father went to fight? You could have been only about two years old by the time your father went away to war?
I hope things are clearer?
By the way, Gs is Giorgio spizzi, a forero.


----------



## anglomania1

xeno.... said:


> @anglo, what is not correct? The construction itself? Do you suppose I made it up? As a native speaker I can assure you it is a proper grammatical construction. But really you should know that as a fellow native???  I*n my previous post I wrote:   Hi Xeno,
> no, it's not incorrect and I can see where you are coming from.
> However I'm not sure it fits the translation here. It's probably the  closest we can get, but I'm not sure we have a direct translation for  the sentence Alex asked for at all. *
> 
> I have given my opinion. It must be very confusing for an Italian to read of two madrelingue disagreeing over basic grammar. *Hardly basic!!
> *"Would have had to have been built" does imply that there is really only one likely scenario, but that there remains some doubt.
> Your examples are actually saying the same as my construction. "would have had to have been built" can be shortened to "might" "could", it is just a more educated construction. It is a strong statement of "probability" not "certainty".* I think there is a difference in the strength of the probability/possibility - but it could be just the way I'm reading the original Italian sentence. In fact I DID say that your sentence is the nearest we can get, but I'm just not sure we can't get that close to the Italian original (which was Alex's question).*
> There are different solutions, mine is but one.... *And mine is another - viva la varietà e la differenza d'opinione!!*
> We might say that life on earth would have had to have been started by God.*It's just that I would never say this - it's unnatural but I'm NOT saying it's wrong.* We are stating a strong position of belief here but even in this there is room for doubt however small.
> You would have had to have been around two years old by the time your father went to fight in the war?*This is a better example, I agree with this one.* Again probability based on some level of uncertainty. From another angle, you might have been about two years old when your father went to fight? You could have been only about two years old by the time your father went away to war?
> I hope things are clearer?
> By the way, Gs is Giorgio spizzi, a forero.*I see - I just wondered why you said "I assure everyone it is correct or Gs  would have pointed it out by now anyway**" -is he an authority or particularly strong in English grammar ? I've seen him on the forum but haven't got to know his style yet. I'll look out for him!!*


Hi Xeno, 
I hope this clears things up a bit - and thanks for your patience!!
Anglo


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

My goodness me, I didn't know I was a _forero_. 
GS


----------



## sivinka

Sorry but what's the meaning of forero?


----------



## xeno....

Well, it is a word someone used of forum members...I just followed suit in using it. Yes Gs is a bit of an authority, I hate to admit it but you should probably trust his advice over mine in most(but not all) cases. 
@ANGLO, yup, it is not basic grammar, I take your point. The fact you would not use this construction does not mean the construction is in error but that maybe it is not the sort of language you are used to. I am a bit old-fashioned maybe in that I use English constructions falling into disuse, although I have recently learned how to desist from the use of, among other things, the word, "prithee" and "yon". 
I think it is hard to judge the differences in strength of the relevant constructs, all I would aver is that it is how my mind configures when I read that Italian, seeking to find the most apposite elocution. I merely said that to use "should" seemed to me dubious. Your version seems more modern perhaps, but a bit clumsy with it as such circumlocute constructions do have their function and use and all that is new is not for the best in aiding understanding. But you are certainly not wrong in what you stated.


----------



## anglomania1

xeno.... said:


> Well, it is a word someone used of forum members...I just followed suit in using it. Yes Gs is a bit of an authority, I hate to admit it but you should probably trust his advice over mine in most(but not all) cases.
> @ANGLO, yup, it is not basic grammar, I take your point. The fact you would not use this construction does not mean the construction is in error but that maybe it is not the sort of language you are used to. I am a bit old-fashioned maybe in that I use English constructions falling into disuse, although I have recently learned how to desist from the use of, among other things, the word, "prithee" and "yon". * Nice ones!!*
> I think it is hard to judge the differences in strength of the relevant constructs, all I would aver is that it is how my mind configures when I read that Italian, seeking to find the most apposite elocution. I merely said that to use "should" seemed to me dubious. *You're right here!*Your version seems more modern perhaps, but a bit clumsy with it as such circumlocute constructions do have their function and use and all that is new is not for the best in aiding understanding. But you are certainly not wrong in what you stated.


Hi Xeno, 
Gosh this is a hard one! Interesting,though!
PS keep using the prithee and yon - it would be a shame for them to fall into misuse!!
Anglo


----------



## ALEX1981X

Ragazzi quante risposteeee ! 

Grazie a tutti..

Capisco il discorso di Xeno che propone l'uso della struttura con "would have had to have been built" che pur essendo complessa e incasinata è perfettamente corretta.
Ma penso anche che la stessa cosa poteva essere detta sotto forma di :

_Would have had to be built_

La cosa che mi sembra di aver capito in tutto questo incrocio di strutture e che:

Should have been built = avrebbe dovuto essere costruito (ma così non è stato alla fine della storia) *e non va bene* in questo contesto per tradurre tutto quanto richiesto al post n.1 
Would have had to have been built invece può essere usato nel third conditional,quindi in un ipotesi, *ma* può anche realmente significare "dovrebbe essere stata costruita" nel senso del dubbio in relazione a un fatto reale non ipotetico necessariamente
Cioè sappiamo che la chiesa esiste, ma siamo solo incerti sul *quando* è stata costruita  (ed era invece il mio dubbio)
In sostanza la struttura "would have had to" può essere espressa anche aldilà di un ipotesi...l'esistenza dell'ipotesi non è sempre essenziale

Esempio:

1)Can you tell me when exactly this church was built ??
2)Oh..I'm afraid I can't tell you that...as far as I know it would have had to be built/it would have had to have been built around 1800, but I'm not able to assure it....

La risposta esposta sopra poteva a mio avviso essere espressa anche con gli altri modali Must/might/Could oppure con gli altri "surrogati" che gli altri natives hanno proposto.

Cosa ne pensate natives ??


----------



## Lorena1970

Sincerly congrats for such a civilized and great discussion. Very interesting and very useful.


----------



## xeno....

I would agree very much with alex1981's last post. " It would have had to be built" is fine, one could also say "it would have been built". Some suspect that the Sphinx would have been built thousands of years earlier than supposed since the Pharoah's head was superimposed on that of a lion's and lions roamed at a much earlier date.


----------



## sivinka

Ragazzi grazie mille a tutti!!! Soprattutto ad Alex che ha ulteriormente esteso la discussione che avevo introdotto col mio post.
Anna


----------



## Enigmista

D'accordissimo che "should have been built" è fuori luogo in questo contesto.

Ma l'esempio di Alex,nonostnte io sia d'accordo con lui e tutti gli altri su tutto, non penso sia grammaticalmente corretto 

A quanto so non si possono fare delle *speculation* usando il modale *would.*

Si possono fare delle ipotesi usando tutti gli altri modali ma per esprimere dall'Italiano all'Inglese quanto esposto nell'ultimo esempio proposto da Alex avrei usato altre forme ma non "Would have had to + PP".

Voi natives pensate onestamente che l'esempio proposto da Alex nel suo ultimo post sia grammaticalmente accettabile *in quel senso* ???
Io penso sia sbagliato... 

Qualche natives o bilingue mi può gentilmente dare conferma ??

P.s: Xeno ma sei proprio sicuro che anche gli esempi che hai postato tu, siano possibili usando "would have had to"come hai esposto ??? 

Per esprimere un dubbio Alex,cosi come hai chiesto, io userei queste strutture :

http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/modal-verbs-of-probability.html

Infatti se non erro, mi sembra di notare che "WOULD" non sia nemmeno preso in considerazione tra le opzioni 


Grazie a tutti


----------



## Yulan

Ciao Enigmista 

In sunto, non è quello che è stato detto da Rrose nel post # 11? 

Personalmente, credo di sì (ho ripreso, io stessa, i medesimi concetti nei post # 14 e # 15).

Ciao


----------



## Enigmista

Yulan said:


> Ciao Enigmista
> 
> In sunto, non è quello che è stato detto da Rrose nel post # 11?
> 
> Personalmente, credo di sì (ho ripreso, io stessa, i medesimi concetti nei post # 14 e # 15).
> 
> Ciao



Si e no Yulan...nessuno aveva mai ipotizzato una traduzione con "would have had to" 

Tu cosa ne pensi ??

Sei d'accordo con quanto ho scritto, e su l'uso di Would non corretto in tale contesto ???


----------



## sivinka

Premesso che quello che sto per dire può essere del tutto sbagliato ma a me "would have had to" verrebbe da tradurlo con "Avrebbe voluto dover" e quindi non riesco proprio a pensare che possa avere a che fare con le frasi in questione.


----------



## Murphy

No sivinka, non c'entra il verbo "volere".

"Would have had to" è il _past conditional _del verbo "dovere" (to have to) e di solito è usato per esprimere un obbligo o una necessità ipotetica.

Eg If I hadn't taken the train, I would have had to drive to London.
_Se non avessi preso il treno, avrei dovuto/sarei stata costretta ad andare a Londro in macchina._

Nel tuo contesto, secondo me, "it would have had to be built/to have been built" non va bene perché, non solo è assai complicata come struttura grammaticale, ma anche perché non è subito chiaro se si parla di necessità o deduzione. Per questo mi unisco a chi ha proposto l'uso di "must/might have been built" o qualcosa come "was probably built" per la tua traduzione.


----------



## Yulan

Ri-ciao Enigmista 

L'unica soluzione che mi viene in mente per tradurre la frase in questione è "It_ must have been built_ in 1800" e, personalmente, non userei mai "would" qui!

Ma non sono madrelingua e, per questo motivo, richiamavo il post di Rrose che, oltre ad essere madrelingua, conferma la stessa costruzione.

Non è escluso che "_would_" possa essere utilizzato anche per esprimere probabilità, ma, in tal caso, non credo sia corretto se l'uso è riferito al passato: 

Esempio: "I* hear* a noise. That *would be* my dog in the garden." credo sia corretto.


Again, natives' final inputs will be highly appreciated! 


_EDIT:
@ Murphy:_ SorryMurphy ... our posts crossed each other. 



> Per questo mi unisco a chi ha proposto l'uso di "must/might have been built" o qualcosa come "was probably built" per la tua traduzione.


 
Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Lorena1970

Enigmista said:


> Ma l'esempio di Alex,nonostnte io sia d'accordo con lui e tutti gli altri su tutto, non penso sia grammaticalmente corretto
> 
> A quanto so non si possono fare delle *speculation* usando il modale *would.*
> 
> Si possono fare delle ipotesi usando tutti gli altri modali ma per esprimere dall'Italiano all'Inglese quanto esposto nell'ultimo esempio proposto da Alex avrei usato altre forme ma non "Would have had to + PP".
> 
> Voi natives pensate onestamente che l'esempio proposto da Alex nel suo ultimo post sia grammaticalmente accettabile *in quel senso* ???
> Io penso sia sbagliato...
> 
> Qualche natives o bilingue mi può gentilmente dare conferma ??
> 
> P.s: Xeno ma sei proprio sicuro che anche gli esempi che hai postato tu, siano possibili usando "would have had to"come hai esposto ???
> 
> Per esprimere un dubbio Alex,cosi come hai chiesto, io userei queste strutture :
> 
> http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/modal-verbs-of-probability.html
> 
> Infatti se non erro, mi sembra di notare che "WOULD" non sia nemmeno preso in considerazione tra le opzioni
> 
> 
> Grazie a tutti



Ciao Enigmista,

......Sorry, non sono madrelingua, ma forse la risposta è nel *post 49 di Xeno* (che è un madrelingua più che affidabile)...?


----------



## Enigmista

Lorena1970 said:


> Ciao Enigmista,
> 
> ......Sorry, non sono madrelingua, ma forse la risposta è nel *post 49 di Xeno* (che è un madrelingua più che affidabile)...?



Lore che sia affidabile non lo  discuto...cosi come non discuto la struttura che pur essendo complessa è corretta.

Il punto è se è lecito esprimere il dubbio che Alex ha posto nel suo esempio, e che mi sembra che Xeno abbia approvato, usando la costruzione con Would !

Xeno ha approvato mi sembra...Murphy,che è madrelingua uguale, sostiene nettamente il contrario 

Tu cosa ne pensi invece ???

La soluzione non è molto chiara in merito a Would


----------



## sivinka

Murphy said:


> No sivinka, non c'entra il verbo "volere".
> 
> "Would have had to" è il _past conditional _del verbo "dovere" (to have to) e di solito è usato per esprimere un obbligo o una necessità ipotetica.
> 
> Eg If I hadn't taken the train, I would have had to drive to London.
> _Se non avessi preso il treno, avrei dovuto/sarei stata costretta ad andare a Londro in macchina._
> 
> Nel tuo contesto, secondo me, "it would have had to be built/to have been built" non va bene perché, non solo è assai complicata come struttura grammaticale, ma anche perché non è subito chiaro se si parla di necessità o deduzione. Per questo mi unisco a chi ha proposto l'uso di "must/might have been built" o qualcosa come "was probably built" per la tua traduzione.



Ecco il tassello che mi mancava!!!   Ho capito benissimo!!! grazie mille  Murphy!!


----------



## Lorena1970

Enigmista said:


> Lore che sia affidabile non lo  discuto...cosi come non discuto la  struttura che pur essendo complessa è corretta.
> 
> Il punto è se è lecito esprimere il dubbio che Alex ha posto nel suo esempio, e che mi sembra che Xeno abbia approvato, usando la costruzione con Would !
> 
> Xeno ha approvato mi sembra...Murphy,che è madrelingua uguale, sostiene nettamente il contrario
> 
> Tu cosa ne pensi invece ???
> 
> La soluzione non è molto chiara in merito a Would



Onestamente mi sembra una questione linguistica MOLTO complessa che va oltre le mie competenze.
Concordo con Murphy sulla scelta di una struttura più semplice (come avevo già detto nei post precedenti, credo) ma non sono in grado di asserire che l'altra forma sia sbagliata, quindi mi astengo da un parere personale oltre quanto già fatto (come detto in precedenza: la palla ai nativi!)

Da quanto emerge nel thread, mi pare che Xeno ne  sostenga la correttezza, Anglo1 non la reputi scorretta e Murphy non la condanni in toto pur ritenendola contorta.
Quindi la mia conclusione, tratta dal thread, è che è una costruzione possibile, non scorretta, ma raramente usata. 
Però se tu non sei convinto è lecito che tu insista. Forse andrebbe aperto un thread nel English Only per approfondire ancora...? Potresti provare...la butto lì!


----------



## xeno....

I am afraid enigmista is a little off-base here in my view. It would have been great if I had had children of my own. You can speculate. Yes enigmista I am confident of every example...I am a native English speaker after all...


----------



## Enigmista

xeno.... said:


> I am afraid enigmista is a little off-base here in my view. It would have been great if I had had children of my own. You can speculate. Yes enigmista I am confident of every example...I am a native English speaker after all...


 
Ok Xeno ....When I talked about "speculation" I wasn't referring to Hypothesis or purely to the third conditional... ...so in that case I agree with you....
In alex's example there is no third conditional

Instead I wanna know if, in relation to Alex's example, you would have written the same thing to express that doubt !


----------



## xeno....

Perhaps you could state exactly what statements you mean? @ enig. Wow this is like a religious debate. So confusing for a non- native. I want to say the construction of the sort I proposed is really not arcane at all...I am shocked to find any native who doesn't immediately recognise it.
It does not imply necessity. It does imply some doubt. 
Someone tells a joke and the listener doesn't laugh. Defensively, the jokster says "oh you would have had to have been there!" (to get the joke). Thus if you had been there you probably would have found it funny. But it is not certain that you would have.
Did Sarah marry that guy after all? No, she dumped him. She would have had to have been insane to have married him with his philandering. If she had thus married him it is reasonable to think she would be off her rocker! (nuts).
The examples are endless, it is not unusual it is very very common. If someone doesn't know this sort of construction I hope I have alerted you to the fact that you will encounter such language particularly in more educated circles.


----------



## Enigmista

xeno.... said:


> Perhaps you could state exactly what statements you mean? @ enig. Wow this is like a religious debate. So confusing for a non- native. I want to say the construction of the sort I proposed is really not arcane at all...I am shocked to find any native who doesn't immediately recognise it.
> It does not imply necessity. It does imply some doubt.
> Someone tells a joke and the listener doesn't laugh. Defensively, the jokster says "oh you would have had to have been there!" (to get the joke). Thus if you had been there you probably would have found it funny. But it is not certain that you would have.
> Did Sarah marry that guy after all? No, she dumped him. She would have had to have been insane to have married him with his philandering. If she had thus married him it is reasonable to think she would be off her rocker! (nuts).
> The examples are endless, it is not unusual it is very very common. If someone doesn't know this sort of constructiobn I hope i have alerted you to the fact that you will encounter such language particularly in more educated circles.


 

My fault Xeno...you're right...and Alex was right after all 

I always thought that *Would* had to be "accompanied" to an If clause in order to express a sort of condition/hypothesis any time...and that It was related to an unreal Past 
But It doesn't always happen this way because I've already read your examples and I'm enlightened


----------



## xeno....

Great. Even as clever a chap as you can still learn. You taught me often enough, I hope I can help you once in a blue moon.  postscript....You paste so quickly I did not have time to correct my typos....


----------



## Enigmista

xeno.... said:


> Great. Even as clever a chap as you can still learn. You taught me often enough, I hope I can help you once in a blue moon.


 
You did It so many times ...thanks my friend.
Great thread


----------



## ALEX1981X

Si Eni scusa se rispondo solo ora !

Gli esempi di Xeno sono tutti ineccepibili a mio avviso...ma anche la grammatica prevede quell'uso di "would" per esprimere un dubbio/possibilità o solo un opinione spassionata 
Pero sono d'accordo con te che in diversi testi, cosi come qualche link che hai postato, non siano espliciti su questo uso di Would e i modali citati (consigliati) siano tutti gli altri. Ovviamente la lista è incompleta perchè anche would ha questo potenziale.
Anche a me però sono venuti i tuoi stessi dubbi e ti capisco 

In sostanza io direi, nel passaggio da Italiano a Inglese in questo contesto :

_*Should have been built*_ = Avrebbe dovuto essere costruita (ma la cosa *non *andò in porto)..._*ci si aspettava *_la costruzione in quella data

_*Must have been built,Might have been built, Would have been built,would have had to have been built,could have been built*_ = Dovrebbe/potrebbe essere stata costruita (il grado di certezza è più alto ma c'è comunque un margine di errore)...._*non ci si aspettava niente*_ ed è solo una sorta di assumption/opinion personale con un alto/buono grado di probabilità

NewYorktoLa ha messo l'accento sull'uso di Should per mettere in risalto "expectation" di un qualcosa_* che poi non si è concretizzata*_.
Non userei Should per fare delle assumption infatti, perchè sapresti già in anticipo il risultato della situazione su il quale stai dando un opinione o una stima
Anche in Italiano infatti penso proprio che "_*avrebbe dovuto esser*_e _*costruita*_" tenda a significare che alla fine non venne costruita,o comunque _mi aspettavo che venisse costruita_;  mentre _*dovrebbe essere stata costruita*_ rimane molto più neutro e non incorpora questa finezza.

Giorgio ho fatto una buona analisi ??


----------



## anglomania1

xeno.... said:


> Someone tells a joke and the listener doesn't laugh. Defensively, the jokster says "oh you would have had to have been there!" (to get the joke). *Commonly in England we say "you had to be there"- maybe it's a shortened version of the full sentence??
> I don't think so, though, because if we agree that this sentence can be used for Alex's original query about the church (that 'would have had to have been' = 'must have been'), in this particular example it wouldn't make sense. You wouldn't say in the 'joke' situation 'you must have been there', would you? *
> Did Sarah marry that guy after all? No, she dumped him. She would have had to have been insane to have married him with his philandering. If she had thus married him it is reasonable to think she would be off her rocker! (nuts).*This example, on the other hand, I TOTALLY agree with!*



Hi Xeno, 
as I said before, this phrase is not correct for ALL examples, only in certain cases.
Anglo


----------



## Einstein

The construction "would have had to have been built" is heard but is not correct; the literal translation would be "sarebbe dovuta essere stata costruita", a kind of double past. Possible constructions are:
would have had to be built
would have to have been built

We can use them in the same way, to say that something would have been necessary:
If there had been more children in the town, a new school would have had to be built, but in the end it wasn't necessary.
We can also use the second one in this way:
If there had been more children in the town, a new school would have to have been built, but in the end it wasn't necessary.

My two cents about this sentence:


> Someone tells a joke and the listener doesn't laugh. Defensively, the jokster says "oh you would have had to have been there!" (to get the joke).


I'd say simply: "You would have had to be there". But I'd be more likely to say "Well, if you'd been there you would have laughed".
Also anglomania's _You had to be there_ is used, but I think this is an impersonal use of you, _One had to be there_ (bisognava esserci).

To return to the original question, I agree with the others who have said _It must have been built..._
In spite of the use of _must_, this is speculative.
_It should have been built_ means that something prevented its construction.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Einstein said:


> The construction "would have had to have been built" is heard but is not correct; the literal translation would be "sarebbe dovuta essere stata costruita", a kind of double past. Possible constructions are:
> would have had to be built
> would have to have been built
> 
> We can use them in the same way, to say that something would have been necessary:
> If there had been more children in the town, a new school would have had to be built, but in the end it wasn't necessary.
> We can also use the second one in this way:
> If there had been more children in the town, a new school would have to have been built, but in the end it wasn't necessary.
> 
> My two cents about this sentence:
> I'd say simply: "You would have had to be there". But I'd be more likely to say "Well, if you'd been there you would have laughed".
> Also anglomania's _You had to be there_ is used, but I think this is an impersonal use of you, _One had to be there_ (bisognava esserci).
> 
> To return to the original question, I agree with the others who have said _It must have been built..._
> In spite of the use of _must_, this is speculative.
> _It should have been built_ means that something prevented its construction.




Grazie Einstein ma quindi pensi la mia analisi sia sbagliata a questo punto ??

Per esprimere il mio dubbio (nell'esempio proposto) tu non useresti_* mai *_la struttura con "would",ossia quindi "would have had to be built" ??

Ho notato che Enigmista ha postato nel forum English Only,giustamente per avere conferme e diversi altri natives non hanno visto niente di strano nella struttura con Would, ne tantomeno hanno detto che è sbagliata 
E hanno "ammesso" la struttura grammaticale

Have a look :http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2049382


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ALEX1981X said:


> Ho notato che Enigmista ha postato nel forum English Only,giustamente per avere conferme e diversi altri natives non hanno visto niente di strano nella struttura con Would, ne tantomeno hanno detto che è sbagliata
> E hanno "ammesso" la struttura grammaticale
> 
> Have a look :http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2049382



Non hai notato una cosa: tutti coloro che hanno postato in quel thread sono Americani e certe costruzioni ammissibili in contesti INFORMALI per un americano sono considerate grammaticalmente scorrette secondo i crismi della grammatica del BrE.

*would have to be /should have been*


----------



## ALEX1981X

Paulfromitaly said:


> Non hai notato una cosa: tutti coloro che hanno postato in quel thread sono Americani e certe costruzioni ammissibili in contesti INFORMALI per un americano sono considerate grammaticalmente scorrette secondo i crismi della grammatica del BrE.
> 
> *would have to be /should have been*



Si può essere Paul grazie...vediamo però quanto la questione possa essere _ammissibile_ a questo punto, _*sempre nel contesto di "esprimere un dubbio" e "supporre un qualcosa" però, cosi come Alex ha inteso nel suo esempio *_....l'ho precisato per non fare confusione 

Xeno _non è americano_ e ha difeso a spada tratta la struttura però 

Let's wait for the final verdict


----------



## Einstein

ALEX1981X said:


> Per esprimere il mio dubbio (nell'esempio proposto) tu non useresti_* mai *_la struttura con "would",ossia quindi "would have had to be built" ??


Lo userei, ma per dire che sarebbe stato necessario.

Esiste una possibilità; mettiamo che il cemento armato è stato inventato nell'anno X e che ce n'è nell'edificio.
_There's reinforced concrete in the church, so it must have been built after the year X._
Invece, se non c'è, si può ipotizzare questa conclusione:
_If the church contained reinforced concrete, it would have to have been built after the year X._ Nel senso che in quel caso ipotetico si dovrebbe concludere che fosse stata costruita dopo quell'anno.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Einstein said:


> Lo userei, ma per dire che sarebbe stato necessario.
> 
> Esiste una possibilità; mettiamo che il cemento armato è stato inventato nell'anno X e che ce n'è nell'edificio.
> _There's reinforced concrete in the church, so it must have been built after the year X._
> Invece, se non c'è, si può ipotizzare questa conclusione:
> _If the church contained reinforced concrete, it would have to have been built after the year X._ Nel senso che in quel caso ipotetico si dovrebbe concludere che fosse stata costruita dopo quell'anno.



Ok Einstein vedo quindi che lo colleghi ad una condizione esplicita però !
Equivale ad un: sarebbe stato necessario _*se*_ .... "if clause"

Sbaglio ??...cavolo ma allora aveva ragione Enigmista tutto sommato  ???


----------



## anglomania1

Einstein said:


> The construction "would have had to have been built" *is heard but is not correct*; the literal translation would be "sarebbe dovuta essere stata costruita", a kind of double past. Possible constructions are:
> would have had to be built
> would have to have been built
> 
> *We can use them in the same way*, to say that something would have been necessary:
> If there had been more children in the town, a new school would have had to be built, but in the end it wasn't necessary.
> *We can also use the second one* in this way:
> If there had been more children in the town, a new school would have to have been built, but in the end it wasn't necessary.*So is it correct or not??*
> 
> My two cents about this sentence:
> I'd say simply: "You would have had to be there". But I'd be more likely to say "Well, if you'd been there you would have laughed".
> Also anglomania's _You had to be there_ is used, but I think this is an impersonal use of you, _One had to be there_ (bisognava esserci).*Yes, I agree - (my mum uses it a lot!)*
> 
> To return to the original question, I agree with the others who have said _It must have been built..._
> In spite of the use of _must_, this is speculative.
> _It should have been built_ means that something prevented its construction.


Hi Einstein, 
my initial reaction to Xeno's "would have had to have been built" was that  it was incorrect. Then I saw his examples and some seemed to work. Now you've put a bee in my bonnet!! Is it correct or not? Boh! 

For Paul, who are the Americans? Xeno, me, Murphy and Einstein are all non-Americans!!

Anglo


----------



## xeno....

@anglo...no I profoundly disagree. Yes, your version is an acceptable shortened version...you had to be there simply omits "would have"...it is a truncated form. No I would not have said you must have been there in the joke example. These two forms sometimes say the same thing and can be used in the same context, othertimes not so. That is why I give concrete sentences to bring out the versatility of the structure. I suggest as a native speaker you just consider how in fact we do say things. Do not start from rules as they hold only so far until we find an exception...
Context based learning of how to use certain constructions is preferable.
I would have had to have been blind drunk to have lent you money. This can be hypothetical. The money was not lent, so the idea is I didn't lend you that money, you stole it! This can also be real. I did lend you the money, but I think you must have asked me when I was blind drunk as that is the only way I can think I was fool enough to lend you money.
English is highly versatile, context is so crucial, being very flexible we need to look at how it is used and come to grips with all the possibilities.
@ einstein. Sure you can say things differently but what of that? The way I expressed it was perfect, you have alternatively expressed it. I am afraid some are too quick to discredit themselves by being overly dogmatic.
As paul of italy said this has been posted in the english only forum and my constructions confirmed as accurate. Case over. This does not mean that I covered every which way of expressing things, but any attempt to discredit my examples will prove futile I am afraid  good luck rewriting the English rule book....
And Einstein "would have had to have been built" is heard but incorrect? What on earth! It is actually more correct than heard, since the truncated form is probably used more in speech.
I have refrained from stating dogmatically what one cannot say, I merely tell you as a native what can be said and given ample examples. I would hope london calling could comment here since she is a true bilingual.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

anglomania1 said:


> For Paul, who are the Americans? Xeno, me, Murphy and Einstein are all non-Americans!!
> 
> Anglo


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2049382

This thread has been claimed to be the ultimate proof of the fact that "would have had to be" is definitely correct and I couldn't help but notice that the three people who posted in that thread are all AmE speakers.


----------



## xeno....

I am a speaker of BE and it surely is absolutely correct. The ultimate proof cannot be found anywhere except in its usage. If you need further proof you should find a native to speak to....no competent speaker of either Ae or Be would doubt the construction's validity.
The use of "would" is complex and versatile. 
Would that you were here now! If only you were here now (and not somewhere else).Expressing wish.
If I were rich you would marry me. Expressing likelihood supposition.
Would you mind passing me the salt? Polite way of saying could  you pass the salt.
Could it be that I would have been the happiest man alive if I had married the miller's daughter? Again pure supposition.
You had to be there to get the joke/you would have to have been there to get the joke/you would have had to have been there to get the joke...all correct.
Would that my wife had been faithful! If only my wife had been faithful!
Would you kiss me if I begged?


----------



## anglomania1

xeno.... said:


> @anglo...no I profoundly disagree. Yes, your version is an acceptable shortened version...you had to be there simply omits "would have"...it is a truncated form. No I would not have said you must have been there in the joke example. *But you did, that's why I picked up on it!! Did you go back and edit your post or did I completely imagine it??? I must be going mad!*These two forms sometimes say the same thing and can be used in the same context, othertimes not so. That is why I give concrete sentences to bring out the versatility of the structure. I suggest as a native speaker you just consider how in fact we do say things. Do not start from rules as they hold only so far until we find an exception...
> Context based learning of how to use certain constructions is preferable.*In fact in the Uk we didn't study any grammar whatsoever!! So more context-based than that.....*
> I would have had to have been blind drunk to have lent you money. This can be hypothetical. The money was not lent, so the idea is I didn't lend you that money, you stole it! This can also be real. I did lend you the money, but I think you must have asked me when I was blind drunk as that is the only way I can think I was fool enough to lend you money.
> English is highly versatile, context is so crucial, being very flexible we need to look at how it is used and come to grips with all the possibilities.
> @ einstein. Sure you can say things differently but what of that? The way I expressed it was perfect, you have alternatively expressed it. I am afraid some are too quick to discredit themselves by being overly dogmatic.
> As paul of italy said this has been posted in the english only forum and my constructions confirmed as accurate. Case over. This does not mean that I covered every which way of expressing things, but any attempt to discredit my examples will prove futile I am afraid  good luck rewriting the English rule book....
> And Einstein "would have had to have been built" is heard but incorrect? What on earth! It is actually more correct than heard, since the truncated form is probably used more in speech.
> I have refrained from stating dogmatically what one cannot say, I merely tell you as a native what can be said and given ample examples. I would hope london calling could comment here since she is a true bilingual. *Why do you say this? I think Jo has a similar history to me, though she's been in Italy longer, I think.*


For Paul, I thought you were referring to this thread - I'll go and have a look!
Thanks


----------



## xeno....

@ ANGLO...I do not know your history. I know london has a 30 year spell in Italy. I was not excluding you. No I would not have supported "must" in that context as it says something entirely different. For example, how did you know I wore womens' garters? You must have been hiding in my dressing room?  I don't think I said what you asserted, I didn't edit. Yes you would have had to have gone mad to imagine that I used that sentence!


----------



## anglomania1

xeno.... said:


> @ ANGLO...I do not know your history. I know london has a 30 year spell in Italy. I was not excluding you. No I would not have supported "must" in that context as it says something entirely different. For example, how did you know I wore womens' garters? *Love the example!!!*You must have been hiding in my dressing room?


Hi there, 
I've been here about twenty years (half my life!!) and studied Italian at uni, but I'd never consider myself bilingual!! Those who are bilingual usually write it under "native language".
Anglo


----------



## Enigmista

Bella discussione amici miei...Aspettiamo con calore il parere di London allora ragazzi....a me comunque gli esempi di Xeno convincono e non vedo niente di strano nell'uso di tali varianti di "would" nel contesto mostrato da Alex col suo esempio ...ovvio che si può dire in altri modi ma a tanti di noi interessa sapere se la grammatica dice _se è sbagliato o meno_ 

D'altronde pensavo questa scena:

1)  How much Do you think your grandfather paid that watch ?
2) A lot !! ...but I can't tell you that exactly and above all, how he could have afforded it...Maybe _He would have had to sell his car to buy it/ He would have had to have sold his car.....etc..

_That is the Italian for : _Forse dovrebbe essersi venduto la macchina per comprarselo/Forse avrebbe dovuto vendersi la macchina per compra_rselo

London where are youuu ???


----------



## Einstein

xeno.... said:


> And Einstein "would have had to have been built" is heard but incorrect? What on earth! It is actually more correct than heard, since the truncated form is probably used more in speech.


There is a phenomenon known as hyper-correction. In this case there is a tendency to insert too many auxiliary verbs, just to be sure of expressing the full meaning.
The forum is full of discussions about what we can call correct or incorrect and we all know that with time a construction considered incorrect, if adopted by enough people, comes to be considered correct.
This is not true in the case of "would have had to have been built"; plenty of people say it, but plenty of others don't. We are still in a stage where we can comment on the logicality of the construction. I think you will agree that going from a real past - "It had to be built" - to a hypothetical past - "It would have had to be built" - there is no reason to change "to be built" to "to have been built". It's like claiming that we can't say "he would have had to go" but must say "he would have had to have gone".


----------



## xeno....

@EInstein, what counts as legitimate language? That which is spoken, understood and accepted within and among a community of users of a common language. What I maintain and what is absolutely correct is that the construction I used and which was put to the test in the English only forum and which was confirmed therein, is correct. Since many people do use this construction it is valid linguistically. You are incorrect to state that this structure is still moot. You support this view by merely stating that some say it and some don't. That is a weak argument. We cannot state how many would use it and how many would or could not. The logicality of the construction is for others. So long as it is used and understood widely and it is, or do you challenge this? then it is not to be questioned. It just IS. 
As for your example of the transition between real and hypothetical past. Instead of trying to throttle the construction with the icy hands of logic you should rather just allow the warm breath of the living language guide you to admit that, while you may object to its hyper-correctivity, it remains alive and pulsating.
@enigmista, your example seems accurate to me, you understand its use. 
@einstein, too many auxiliaries? Reminds me of the king who complained the music of Mozart had too many notes....


----------



## london calling

Einstein said:


> There is a phenomenon known as hyper-correction. In this case there is a tendency to insert too many auxiliary verbs, just to be sure of expressing the full meaning.
> The forum is full of discussions about what we can call correct or incorrect and we all know that with time a construction considered incorrect, if adopted by enough people, comes to be considered correct.
> This is not true in the case of "would have had to have been built"; plenty of people say it, but plenty of others don't. We are still in a stage where we can comment on the logicality of the construction. I think you will agree that going from a real past - "It had to be built" - to a hypothetical past - "It would have had to be built" - there is no reason to change "to be built" to "to have been built". It's like claiming that we can't say "he would have had to go" but must say "he would have had to have gone".


I'll be honest with you all. I haven't read all the posts, but this is sound reasoning to me. The construction is correct, people use it, but it's unnecessarily complicated, in my opinion (I repeat, in my opinion).


----------



## johngiovanni

london calling said:


> I'll be honest with you all. I haven't read all the posts, but this is sound reasoning to me. The construction is correct, people use it, but it's unnecessarily complicated, in my opinion (I repeat, in my opinion).


 I have not so far joined in with this epic of a thread because I am not sufficiently au fait with Italian tenses, being just a beginner.  But I would agree wholeheartedly with London's statement.  Just about all of the meanings can be rendered with fewer words, by using "should have" or "must have", and the longer-winded expressions - even if logical - are not necessary and would rarely be heard (apart from in a forum like this!).


----------



## Lorena1970

Honestly, once again I admire this "high-profile thread". A great discussion held by truly civilized people. Reading you all it's a true pleasure. Thank you for sharing your dissertation and knowledge.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Lorena1970 said:


> Honestly, once again I admire this "high-profile thread". A great discussion held by truly civilized people. Reading you all it's a true pleasure. Thank you for sharing your dissertation and knowledge.


 
Io mi ringrazio da solo Lore perchè ho _creato/causato_  tutto questo "casino" grammaticale 

Qualcuno mi starà maledicendo ??


----------



## Yulan

NO, ALEX! 
Perchè? Anzi ... utilissimo per tutti! 

Ciao!


----------



## xeno....

A note regarding johngiovanni...I appreciate as londoncalling says that there are shorter ways of expressing things and examples exist above. It is not at all unknown in other languages for things to be said in a way more complicated than need be. But as any student of a foreign language soon realises that does not mean the more prolix of structures are not used, not merely as johngiovanni wrongly attributes in forums such as this. You will hear it spoken thus quite casually for example at Prime Minister's questions when he might say   "The Leader of the Opposition would have  had to have been living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes we do not need to address the budget deficit."
As a student of Italian I am not interested in anything other than learning the Italian actually spoken by the Italians and my friends I would not lead you down some pointless cul-de sac just to inflate my sense of ego. This form, though wordy is alive and well and you NEED to be at least aware of it, if not to use it yourselves then to at least recognise it when you encounter it.
Regarding hypercorrection.
Linguistic hypercorrection occurs when a real or imagined grammatical  or phonetical rule is applied in a mistaken or non-standard context, so  that an attempt to be "correct" leads to an incorrect result: Faced  with enough exceptions to a rule, the speaker might mistake the  exception for the general rule, applying it to situations where it never  was meant to occur.
*I am not sure this applies to the example in question. It surely is not the case that this structure is the evolved product of mistaken language. And even if it were given that  there is no body which sanctions what is allowed what is not, the final arbiter must be whether a form is used or not.*


----------

