# Deberá esperar



## hfpardue

Amigos, tengo problemas para traducir deber en el futuro. Me gustarían sus opiniones. 

Frase original en español: Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, deberá esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su comprensión.

Mi intento: In order to use this service again, you will have to wait a few seconds. Thanks for your understanding.

Me parece que _deberá_ y _tendrá que_ son básicamente lo mismo en este contexto. ¿Podría decir la frase "Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, tendrá /tendrás que esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su / tu comprensión."? Gracias


----------



## Rayines

Si hablas de "usted", "deberá" es más formal, y casi te diría, más correcto. Si tratas de "tú", "deberás" suena demasiado formal. Queda bien "tendrás que" dentro de ese tono .


----------



## Max27

Las dos frases me parecen perfectas pero seria buen idea esperar la opinion de un hispanohablante (nativo).


----------



## honeypie

Lo que dice Rayines tiene sentido también en inglés.  "Must" funciona mejor en una situación formal (usted) y "have to" funciona mejor en una situación informal (tú).


----------



## NewdestinyX

honeypie said:


> Lo que dice Rayines tiene sentido también en inglés.  "Must" funciona mejor en una situación formal (usted) y "have to" funciona mejor en una situación informal (tú).



Honeypie,
Are you implying then -- that 'deber' (at least in future tense) has a formal sound to it -- like 'must' in English? And that would be the reason to choose 'tendrá que' in Hfpardue's sentence?

I guess my follow up question for the natives would be  -- does 'deberás' (staying away from Ud on purpose) or the impersonal 'se deberá' carry as strong an obligation as -- 'tendrás que' or 'se tendrá que'. I have always read and sensed in native speech and writing that 'deber', in all tenses, had more of a 'sense of personal duty' aspect -- like English's «should and ought to» where 'tener que' has a strong sense of external obligation like 'have to'. Is that an oversimplification in your experience?

Regards,
Grant


----------



## honeypie

Yeah, exactly.  I think that "deberá" would be like "must".  Saying "deberás" would be like saying "you must" to a friend of yours, which obviously isn't incorrect but seems uncommon to me.  

I'm not sure about your second question, but I think you're on the right track seeing as "deber", as a noun, can mean "duty".


----------



## sendai

hfpardue said:


> Mi intento: In order to use this service again, you will have to wait a few seconds. Thanks for your understanding.


De acuerdo con lo que dijo honeypie, yo diría "...you must wait a few seconds."


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Honeypie,
> I have always read and sensed in native speech and writing that 'deber', in all tenses, had more of a 'sense of personal duty' aspect -- like English's «should and ought to» where 'tener que' has a strong sense of external obligation like 'have to'. Is that an oversimplification in your experience?
> 
> Regards,
> Grant



That definition is the one English grammar books give for "must" and "have to" as well: "sense of personal duty = must", "external obligation = have to". So, to sum up:

must = deber
should/ought to = debería
have to = tener que


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> That definition is the one English grammar books give for "must" and "have to" as well:
> "sense of personal duty = must", "external obligation = have to". So, to sum up:
> 
> must = deber
> should/ought to = debería
> have to = tener que



I would say (very simplified):
must (cuando denota un sentido de deber internal) = debo/deberá
should/ought to = debería; (debo, algunas veces); (debía/debiera, cuando se están usando como 'debería')
should have/ought to have = debió (debía); debió haber (debía haber)

In American English we barely use 'must' anymore with regard to 'inward personal duty'. In most cases we will
prefer 'should'/'need to'. I think in the future tense of _deber_ -- _must_ is probably the closest or _will need to_. In
my opinion, _will have to_ is too strong and that's _tendrá que_ which others have said as well.

Of course "must' is used very commonly in English for 'supposition' («deber de» & «the future/conditional/future
perfect of supposition»).

It *must* be close to 8 o'clock. = _*Deben de* ser cerca de las ocho_./_Se*rá*n cerca de las ocho._
----(present of 'deber de' or future of supposition)
He *must have* practiced a lot when he was a child. = _*Debió de* practicar mucho cuando era niño._/_*Habrá* practic*ado* mucho cuando era niño._
----(preterite of 'deber de' or future perfect of supposition)
The girl *must have* been 8 years old. = _La niña *debía de* tener las ocho._/_La niña tend*ría* las ocho_.
----(imperfect of 'deber de' or conditional of supposition)

Ragards,
Grant


----------



## hfpardue

Thanks a lot, everyone. I am content with the translation of deberá as _must _or _will have to _since they are the same.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> Thanks a lot, everyone. I am content with the translation of deberá as _must _or _will have to _since they are the same.



_  Must_ and _will have to_ are not the same at all in the English I speak. And no forero supported 'will have to' to translate the original sentence in question as I reread the thread.


----------



## Ynez

hfpardue said:


> Amigos, tengo problemas para traducir deber en el futuro. Me gustarían sus opiniones.
> 
> Frase original en español: Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, deberá esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su comprensión.
> 
> Mi intento: In order to use this service again, you will have to wait a few seconds. Thanks for your understanding.
> 
> Me parece que _deberá_ y _tendrá que_ son básicamente lo mismo en este contexto. ¿Podría decir la frase "Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, tendrá /tendrás que esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su / tu comprensión."? Gracias



You are right in your guess. The original sentence is in "usted" mode, so I will stick to it:

Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, tendrá que esperar unos segundos
Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, debe esperar unos segundos


In fact, "deberá/as" and all the different forms of "deber" in the future are not frequently used, but here it is adequate to use it to make clear the idea of "after" (using it for the first time or whatever it is the previous idea).

NewdestinyX, all that distinction between "personal duty" and "external obligation" is very interesting, and I admire grammarians for thinking so deeply. But in real life, when we are expressing ourselves, we are all subjective and someone may be cosidering something "external obligation" when in fact it is just "personal obligation", so the use of "must" and "have to" is similar.

I have been thinking of examples, and I have reached the conclusion that "debo" is not used as much as "tengo que" in Spanish either.

1. Debo estudiar más (correct) = I must study harder
2. Tengo que estudiar más (correct and more frequently used than 1) = I have to study harder (I've got to/I gotta...)
3. Debería estudiar más (correct and more frequently used than 1) = I should study harder

So, it is the same idea you were explaining for American English. These verbs should not be a problem for us. They are similary expressed in English and Spanish.


In the particular example with "deberá", the problem was that there is no grammatical future form for "must", but as hfpardue guessed, both "tendrá que" and "debe" give the same idea in the example.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> It *must* be close to 8 o'clock. = _*Debe de* ser cerca de las ocho_./_Se*rá*n cerca de las ocho._
> ----(present of 'deber de' or future of supposition)
> He *must have* practiced a lot when he was a child. = _*Debió de* practicar mucho cuando era niño._/_*Habrá* practic*ado* mucho cuando era niño._
> ----(preterite of 'deber de' or future perfect of supposition)
> The girl *must have* been 8 years old. = _La niña *debía de* tener las ocho._/_La niña tend*ría* las ocho_.
> ----(imperfect of 'deber de' or conditional of supposition)



Deben de ser cerca de las ocho (Esto es lo que yo diría, no "debe").

Él debe de haber practicado mucho cuando era niño = Seguramente practicó mucho cuando era niño = Debió de practicar mucho cuando era niño

La niña tendría unos 8 años = La niña probablemente tenía 8 años = La niña debía de tener unos 8 años (Si he entendido bien el sentido de tu frase).

I must now confess I normally always say "debe ser" and not "debe de ser". It is true that in Spanish to express probability or logical deduction ("it must be true"/"debe de ser verdad"), the correct is "debe de" but many Spanish speakers (myself included) don't reflect on the idea and just always use "debe" without "de".


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Deben de ser cerca de las ocho (Esto es lo que yo diría, no "debe").


 Sí. Mea culpa -- 'deben' y no 'debe'



> Él debe de haber practicado mucho cuando era niño = Seguramente practicó mucho cuando era niño = Debió de practicar mucho cuando era niño


 Yes.. = *must have* practiced, in the English.



> La niña tendría unos 8 años = La niña probablemente tenía 8 años = La niña debía de tener unos 8 años (Si he entendido bien el sentido de tu frase).


 Yes -- also = *must have* been, in the English



> I must now confess I normally always say "debe ser" and not "debe de ser". It is true that in Spanish to express probability or logical deduction ("it must be true"/"debe de ser verdad"), the correct is "debe de" but many Spanish speakers (myself included) don't reflect on the idea and just always use "debe" without "de".


 I've heard this is the case with native speakers. It gets so confusing to students, though. I guess when there could be two meanings you would make the distiction with the 'de'? Can you think of an example where both meanings (obligation & supposition) could be understood and therefore you would make the distiction?


----------



## hfpardue

NewdestinyX said:


> _ Must_ and _will have to_ are not the same at all in the English I speak. And no forero supported 'will have to' to translate the original sentence in question as I reread the thread.


 
Newdestiny, I always tell you to look at context. In this sentence, only this sentence, do you honestly see a difference between _will have to_ and _must_?

In order to use this service, you will have to _or _you must wait a few seconds. Thanks for your understanding.

Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, deberá esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su comprensión.

To me, in this sentence, there is no difference what so ever between_ will have to_ _and must_. 



> _ Must_ and _will have to_ are not the same at all in the English I speak.


 
In the English I speak _must _and _will have to_ look perfectly fine in the sentence I gave. Maybe my English is bad.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> Newdestiny, I always tell you to look at context. In this sentence, only this sentence, do you honestly see a difference between _will have to_ and _must_?
> 
> In order to use this service, you will have to _or _you must wait a few seconds. Thanks for your understanding.
> 
> Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, deberá esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su comprensión.
> 
> To me, in this sentence, there is no difference what so ever between_ will have to_ _and must_.
> 
> In the English I speak _must _and _will have to_ look perfectly fine in the sentence I gave. Maybe my English is bad.



Your English is just fine, Hf. In that particular sentence, an impersonal syntax in the English (impersonal you) -- it would be splitting hairs to make a distinction between 'must' and 'will have to'. In a non-impersonal structure there's a big difference.

Mañana deberé estar allí antes de las 8.
Tomorrow I must be there before 8am. (My personal goal and I really should)

Mañana tendré que estar allí antes de las 8.
Tomorrow I will have to be there before 8am. (or I could get fired or miss my appointment, etc)

There's a world of difference between deberé/tedré que/ 'must' and 'will have to' in that sentence - which is a more general usage -- than an instruction manual entry which was your sentence. And in Spanish in my two sentences -- only deberé would be used for the first and only 'tendré que' would be used for the 2nd.

In impersonal syntaxes I have to concede that 'must/will have to' can work pretty interchangeably for the future of 'deber' coming over to English. But I stand by my general input about the translations of 'deber' in the other thread -- that 'deber's translations to English are almost never 'have to'. A careful professional translator would always make a distinction and, having conceded on your impersonal syntax, they would also use 'either' in your sentence.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## hfpardue

> There's a world of difference between deberé/tedré que/ 'must' and 'will have to' in that sentence - which is a more general usage -- than an instruction manual entry which was your sentence. And in Spanish in my two sentences -- only deberé would be used for the first and only 'tendré que' would be used for the 2nd."


You are the _only _person on this forum who has _ever _said there is a world of difference between deberé/tendré que/ must and will have to in that sentence.  You can insult me all day, but that doesn't make you right.

And yet again you insult me, 





> But I stand by my general input about the translations of 'deber' in the other thread -- that 'deber's translations to English are almost never 'have to'. A careful professional translator would always make a distinction and, having conceded on your impersonal syntax, they would also use 'either' in your sentence.


Does anyone else in here believe that the translations of deber in English are almost never 'have to'?  You are the only one who claims that deber can almost never mean have to.  I believe that deber can often translate into must or have to, depending on the context.  

You can insult me all day, but that won't make you right.


----------



## Rayines

Hola: No quiero intervenir demasiado, porque mi fuerte no es el inglés, y no alcanzo a comprender por qué están discutiendo de esa manera. Lo que sí quiero aclarar es que en la oración que plantea hfpardue, es casi exactamente igual usar ambas expresiones, como se ha ido planteando con algún que otro matiz, a lo largo de este hilo.
También entiendo que en inglés hay diferencias significativas entre los distintos tipos de verbos que denotan obligación y o necesidad. En algunos casos, estas diferencias se traducen al español, pero creo que no en los ejemplos que dan lugar a este hilo, y quizás valdría la pena abrir otro para dichas disquisiciones.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> You can insult me all day, but that won't make you right.



I was not intending any insult. I'm happy to retract the offensive parts. I'm sorry you took in the wrong way. I just showed how in a non-impersonal syntax there is a difference. No one has disagreed with me yet. I'm open. As always.


----------



## hfpardue

NewdestinyX said:


> I was not doing any insulting. Show me the insult. I'm happy to retract. I'm sorry you took in the wrong way. I just showed how in a non-impersonal syntax there is a difference. No one has disagreed with me yet. I'm open. As always.



Not one person in this thread has said that there is a world of difference between the deber translations I proposed.  You are alone.


> Lo que sí quiero aclarar es que en la oración que plantea hfpardue, es casi exactamente igual usar ambas expresiones, como se ha ido planteando con algún que otro matiz, a lo largo de este hilo.





> NewdestinyX, all that distinction between "personal duty" and "external obligation" is very interesting, and I admire grammarians for thinking so deeply. But in real life, when we are expressing ourselves, we are all subjective and someone may be cosidering something "external obligation" when in fact it is just "personal obligation", so the use of "must" and "have to" is similar.





> Si hablas de "usted", "deberá" es más formal, y casi te diría, más correcto. Si tratas de "tú", "deberás" suena demasiado formal. Queda bien "tendrás que" dentro de ese tono .


Those are various quotes showing you there is no _world _of difference.  People keep telling you there is no world of difference, but you refuse to believe them.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> Not one person in this thread has said that there is a world of difference between the deber translations I proposed.  You are alone.
> Those are various quotes showing you there is no _world _of difference.  People keep telling you there is no world of difference, but you refuse to believe them.



They are referring to your sentence -- and I agree with them. But don't forget Honeypies' and Sendai's input which said they're prefer 'must' over "will need to".

Then I offered two non-impersonal syntaxes to show the difference in translation there.

Let me reiterate -- your translations of your sentence were fine. I agree with all input given. When I noted the impersonal nature of your sentence I agreed with you and adjusted my position. Then I gave you an example where they are not interchangeable according to translators I've consulted since we began this topic.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Rayines said:


> También entiendo que en inglés hay diferencias significativas entre los distintos tipos de verbos que denotan obligación y o necesidad. En algunos casos, estas diferencias se traducen al español, pero creo que no en los ejemplos que dan lugar a este hilo,



Así que, Rayines, dirías, en mis ejemplos en cuanto al tiempo de llegar a trabajo, que no habría ninguna diferencia entre un uso de 'deberé' y 'tendré que'.

Gracias,
Grant


----------



## miguel07

hfpardue said:


> Amigos, tengo problemas para traducir deber en el futuro. Me gustarían sus opiniones.
> 
> Frase original en español: Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, deberá esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su comprensión.
> 
> Mi intento: In order to use this service again, you will have to wait a few seconds. Thanks for your understanding.
> 
> Me parece que _deberá_ y _tendrá que_ son básicamente lo mismo en este contexto. ¿Podría decir la frase "Para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, tendrá /tendrás que esperar algunos segundos, gracias por su / tu comprensión."? Gracias


 
Simple y llanamente usamos tanto deberá y tendrá de la misma manera...en español se difuminan esos términos pero en inglés es más complejo.

*para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, tendrá que/tendrás que/tienes   que/deberás/deberá/debes de/esperar algunos segundos.
-estas son todas las conjugaciones posibles con la sutil diferencia que al hablar formalmente se prefiere ''deber'' pero informalmente puedes usar la que te acuerdes por asi decirlo; no problem!


----------



## NewdestinyX

miguel07 said:


> Simple y llanamente usamos tanto deberá y tendrá de la misma manera...en español se difuminan esos términos pero en inglés es más complejo.
> 
> *para utilizar nuevamente este servicio, tendrá que/tendrás que/tienes   que/deberás/deberá/debes de/esperar algunos segundos.
> -estas son todas las conjugaciones posibles con la sutil diferencia que al hablar formalmente se prefiere ''deber'' pero informalmente puedes usar la que te acuerdes por asi decirlo; no problem!



Muy útil, Miguel. El problema sí es en las traducciones al inglés. Pero otros nativos de español con los que he charlado me han contado que, para ellos, hay la diferencia que he compartido y así dice mi libros de la gramática. Supongo que este tema no es fácil. 

Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> I've heard this is the case with native speakers. It gets so confusing to students, though. I guess when there could be two meanings you would make the distiction with the 'de'? Can you think of an example where both meanings (obligation & supposition) could be understood and therefore you would make the distiction?



But NewdesnityX! In English "must" have both meanings and you can perfectly differenciate the ideas:

I must be very frank to get the job.
I must be very frank, because people always tell me so.

It must be finished before tomorrow.
It must be finished since they already left.

I hope the examples don't sound too bad in English, because I want you to understand the difficult thing is not to differenciate the idea but to express it differently. Imagine you should use "to" after "must" when it doesn't mean obligation....that's what we are expected to do to speak perfect grammar.

No wonder it must be really difficult for English learners to say "debe de" in Spanish, because in English both ideas are expressed simply with "must". But don't worry...I think it is correct to use always "debe", that's the safe thing to do. What is not correct is to use "debe de" for obligation. (I think you have better Spanish grammar sources than me to check on this).


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> But NewdesnityX! In English "must" have both meanings and you can perfectly differenciate the ideas:
> 
> I must be very frank to get the job.
> I must be very frank, because people always tell me so.
> 
> It must be finished before tomorrow.
> It must be finished since they already left.
> 
> I hope the examples don't sound too bad in English, because I want you to understand the difficult thing is not to differenciate the idea but to express it differently.
> No wonder it must be really difficult for English learners to say "debe de" in Spanish, because in English both ideas are expressed simply with "must". But don't worry...I think it is correct to use always "debe", that's the safe thing to do. What is not correct is to use "debe de" for obligation. (I think you have better Spanish grammar sources than me to check on this).



Yes, excellent point, Ynez. Context does help us in both languages. I would say that English uses 'must' a lot less for 'obligation' and therefore we often know it is about possibility when we see 'must'. But your English examples were perfect!. And they made your point very clear. And yes 'deber de' for obligation is very much against the rules according to the RAE although they acknowledge that it also exists. As is usually the case in language context tells us the meaning of certain syntaxes when the syntaxes themselves could be ambiguous.



> Imagine you should use "to" after "must" when it doesn't mean obligation....that's what we are expected to do to speak perfect grammar.


 I don't understand this sentence. English never uses 'to' after 'must'. ¿Qué quisiste decir?

Thanks for your reply,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

Ynez said:


> I must be very frank to get the job. = Debo ser muy franca para conseguir el trabajo
> 
> I must be very frank, because people always tell me so. = Debo de ser muy franca, porque la gente siempre me lo dice
> 
> It must be finished before tomorrow. = Debe estar acabado antes de mañana
> It must be finished since they already left. = Debe de estar acabado porque ya se han ido



I knew you would understand the different ideas, but now I wrote the solutions to the quizz in case somebody didn't know when we are supposed to write "de".

Let's remember it is normal to just forget "de".

NewdestinyX, with the last paragraph you quoted now, I was trying to make you understand how difficult it is for Spanish speakers to have in mind if we are referring to the idea of "logical deduction" or "obligation". The verb is the same (like "must" in English). And then, I wanted you to suppose you have to write "must" for obligation, and "must to" for logical deduction...that's what we are expected to do: "deber" for obligation, "deber de" for logical deduction/possibility.

One thing is to be thinking now and giving examples, and another to be aware of all this while I am communicating in normal colloquial Spanish at 100 words per minute.

Is it clear now?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> One thing is to be thinking now and giving examples, and another to be aware of all this while I am communicating in normal colloquial Spanish at 100 words per minute.
> 
> Is it clear now?



Well -- I generally agree with what you're saying -- but I don't think that remembering to use 'de' in 'deber de', when necessary for supposition, is any harder than remembering to use 'tienes' or 'tengas' when necessary. It's all about what we're taught and what we remember. Don't you think it's more likely that people just learn it differently from their parents and their environment?

Grant


----------



## Ynez

Yes, true. That's the only way to have all this inside you naturally. That's not my case. Fortunately, my case is not either to use "deber de" when I don't have to. Maybe others were born into this.

If some Spanish speaker was taught and learnt in an environment where people use the totally perfectly correct Spanish use for all this, he/she should come and tell us


----------



## DocMolly

NewdestinyX said:


> _  Must_ and _will have to_ are not the same at all in the English I speak. And no forero supported 'will have to' to translate the original sentence in question as I reread the thread.


After reading the above, I too would translate "deberá esperar algunos segundos" as "must wait a few secods" or "will have to wait a few seconds." I actually think "will have to" works best as it is more commonly used. As an English speaker, the two phrases mean the same thing to me, but "must" sounds too formal.


----------



## chileno

Any of the English natives would care to explain to me why shouldn't "*shall*" be used?


----------



## DocMolly

chileno said:


> Any of the English natives would care to explain to me why shouldn't "*shall*" be used?


The word "shall" does have a similar meaning to "deberá," but it is not very commonly used in casual conversation. I´ve heard it used in plays and in the bible, or by someone speaking in a theatrical way. However, I personally would stay clear of this word in casual conversation. I would love to hear what others think.


----------



## chileno

DocMolly said:


> The word "shall" does have a similar meaning to "deberá," but it is not very commonly used in casual conversation. I´ve heard it used in plays and in the bible, or by someone speaking in a theatrical way. However, I personally would stay clear of this word in casual conversation. I would love to hear what others think.



Thank you.


----------



## NewdestinyX

chileno said:


> Any of the English natives would care to explain to me why shouldn't "*shall*" be used?


"Shall" is the modal future of "should" - but is rarely used in anything but former writings as DocMolly has shared.


----------



## NewdestinyX

DocMolly said:


> After reading the above, I too would translate "deberá esperar algunos segundos" as "must wait a few secods" or "will have to wait a few seconds." I actually think "will have to" works best as it is more commonly used. As an English speaker, the two phrases mean the same thing to me, but "must" sounds too formal.


What makes this original topic so tricky (looping back after SEVERAL years now.. LOL).. is that native speaking Spaniard, South/Central American and Mexican speakers will, in modern parlance, often use the 'deber' and 'deber de' forms interchangeably.. as if they weren't already hard to translate to English separately..  As with so many things in language - the careful student of Spanish or English will need to (will have to/must) listen to context for a final solution.

( Haha! Right there in my last sentence is another one of those exact sentences we were studying - I think this is one that would call for 'deberá escuchar' as well.. )


----------

