# Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices



## solasequeros

Hi,

I would like you to help to translate the following sentence : "Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices". I think there are different correct ways to say that but I find it difficult:



All I want is for them to be happy
All I want is for they to be happy
All I want is that they are happy
All I want is that they would be happy

Thanks in advance
Best Wishes
Joan


----------



## grahamcracker

solasequeros said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would like you to help to translate the following sentence : "Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices". I think there are different correct ways to say that but I find it difficult:
> 
> All I want is for them to be happy
> All I want is for they to be happy
> All I want is that they are happy
> Thanks in advance
> Best Wishes
> Joan


----------



## Bevj

'All I want is that they would be happy' sounds odd to me, though 'All I want is that they _should_ be happy' sounds OK.
I'm not sure why....


----------



## Mexico RV'er

The most natural sounding expression is "All I want is for them to be happy."  The second choice is incorrect, and the latter two sound very awkward.


----------



## duvija

¿Se puede decir 'All I want for them is to be happy'? (yo lo diría así, pero claro...)


----------



## Bevj

duvija said:


> ¿Se puede decir 'All I want for them is to be happy'? (yo lo diría así, pero claro...)



I'm afraid not.


----------



## duvija

Bevj said:


> I'm afraid not.



Corto y pego de diversas páginas: (puse 'All I want to be'), con el orden de palabras que usé.

-I love someone and *all i want* to do is tell *them* how i feel - 
- *All I want* for Christmas is a fat bank account and a thin body.
-*All I want* for Christmas is cards (and I want *them* now!)
-all I want for my birthday is quite a drive from our house, and I just can't justify it for a $2.00 dessert.
-"*All I Want* For Christmas Is You".
- *All I want* from *them* is a letter of release

Se puede usar este orden, ¿no?


----------



## AquisM

Sí, estas frases son correctas.


----------



## Mexico RV'er

duvija said:


> Corto y pego de diversas páginas: (puse 'All I want to be'), con el orden de palabras que usé.
> 
> -I love someone and *all i want* to do is tell *them* how i feel -
> - *All I want* for Christmas is a fat bank account and a thin body.
> -*All I want* for Christmas is cards (and I want *them* now!)
> -all I want for my birthday is quite a drive from our house, and I just can't justify it for a $2.00 dessert.
> -"*All I Want* For Christmas Is You".
> -*All I want* from *them* is a letter of release
> 
> Se puede usar este orden, ¿no?



In the examples above, yes.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hola, amigos.

"Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices" = "All I want is for them to be happy"

Otras posibilidades:

"All I want is that they be happy"
"All I want is that they should be happy"

With_ "All I want for them is to be happy" _the speaker is saying something different: he's not telling us what he wants most in his/her own life, but rather what he/she most wants for the happy pair (the newly weds, etc.). 

Saludos.

GS


----------



## solasequeros

The last expression written by Giorgio is not clear for me:

_"All I want is that they be happy"_

Why using "be" as subjuntive? For instance, you say..."When I am old, I will be weak" instead of "When I be old, I will be weak", right? (may be not...)
That's the reason I don't understand why _"All I want is that they be happy"_ is correct and _"All I want is that they are happy"_ is incorrect. 

Thank you very much for all your comments. I really appreciate them.


----------



## INFOJACK

All I want is for them to be happy, definitely.


----------



## Mexico RV'er

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hola, amigos.
> 
> "Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices" = "All I want is for them to be happy"
> 
> Otras posibilidades:
> 
> "All I want is that they be happy"
> "All I want is that they should be happy"
> 
> With_ "All I want for them is to be happy" _the speaker is saying something different: he's not telling us what he wants most in his/her own life, but rather what he/she most wants for the happy pair (the newly weds, etc.).
> 
> Saludos.
> 
> GS



Only the one possibility sounds natural to me.


----------



## SevenDays

There are exceptions, but a subject's natural syntactic position is right before the verb. That is true of finite verbs (which is why we say "All I want" and not "All want I") and is also true of non-finite verbs, including "to" infinitives. When a "to" infinitive has an overt subject, that overt subject immediately precede the "to" infinitive, and the overt subject is introduced by for: _*All I want is for them to be happy*, _where "them" is the subject of "to be" and "for" introduces the subject "them." This would be the standard, or _*canonical*_, word order. We often break standard word order for emphasis, particularly in speech. So, in "All I want for them is to be happy," "for them" is brought forward in the sentence to underscore its importance; it's a semantic judgement that overrides the basic syntactic requirement that subjects should immediately precede their verbs. This non-standard word order might fit perfectly well in a song, a poem, narrative, or any context that is not bound to the expected, standard/canonical structure.
Cheers


----------



## duvija

SevenDays said:


> There are exceptions, but a subject's natural syntactic position is right before the verb. That is true of finite verbs (which is why we say "All I want" and not "All want I") and is also true of non-finite verbs, including "to" infinitives. When a "to" infinitive has an overt subject, that overt subject immediately precede the "to" infinitive, and the overt subject is introduced by for: _*All I want is for them to be happy*, _where "them" is the subject of "to be" and "for" introduces the subject "them." This would be the standard, or _*canonical*_, word order. We often break standard word order for emphasis, particularly in speech. So, in "All I want for them is to be happy," "for them" is brought forward in the sentence to underscore its importance; it's a semantic judgement that overrides the basic syntactic requirement that subjects should immediately precede their verbs. This non-standard word order might fit perfectly well in a song, a poem, narrative, or any context that is not bound to the expected, standard/canonical structure.
> Cheers



Why do you say _""for them" is brought forward in the sentence to underscore its importance; it's a semantic judgement that overrides the basic syntactic requirement that subjects should immediately precede their verbs.?" _If it's about 'importance', then it's a pragmatic requirement, and not a semantic one.


----------



## SevenDays

Hello

Shifting "for them" out of its normal/basic/canonical/standard spot (before "to be") and moving it forward in the sentence is not a syntactic requirement. It's a semantic requirement: to give more emphasis to "for them" by the simple fact that it now appears earlier in the sentence, if such emphasis is needed. I'm not sure what you mean by "pragmatic requirement," but to me, "pragmatic" means doing something for "practical" rather than "theoretical" reasons. Use "semantic" instead of "practical," and "syntactic" instead of "theoretical," and I think we are saying the same thing. In other words, whether it is "semantic" or "pragmatic," it's still not "syntactic." That's my basic point.
Cheers


----------



## ribran

I can accept Giorgio's second suggestion.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Sola & Mexico.

1. "All I want is that they be happy" 
2. "All I want is that they should be happy" 

As I see it, sentence 1. requires a subjunctive because of the non-factual nature of the relation between "they" and "be happy". "All I want" is the expression of a desire, a wish, a hope, etc.
Something similar we have with the following minimal pair:

A. It's important that he agrees with you ("He agrees with you" is a fact, and as such requires an indicative)
A'. It's important that he agreeØ with you (No facts here, just a strong desire for something to happen)

In sentence 2., we have a case of "putative" _should_, like in the following:

B. I strongly recommend that he contact Mr Parish
B'. I strongly recommend that he should contact Mr Parish (possibly more often used in Britain)

Best.

GS

PS Hullo, Seven. I'm afraid the adjective _pragmatic_ and the noun _pragmatics_ have  very special meanings in linguistics, far removed from the notion of practical, etc.


----------



## Istriano

I've also heard

*All I want is them/they/their being happy *but I'm not sure if it's correct. (Maybe with a different word order;_ They/their being happy is all I want_).
The gerund constructions are never taught (_my going away has nothing to do with you staying here)_, but I have heard them in Hollywood movies.


----------



## AquisM

Their being happy is all I want sounds more natural to me, but still quite strange. Definitely not what I would use in a conversation.


----------



## duvija

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> PS Hullo, Seven. I'm afraid the adjective _pragmatic_ and the noun _pragmatics_ have very special meanings in linguistics, far removed from the notion of practical, etc.



Exactly. Let's keep the modules as independent as we can.


----------



## SevenDays

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> . . . .
> 
> PS Hullo, Seven. I'm afraid the adjective _pragmatic_ and the noun _pragmatics_ have  very special meanings in linguistics, far removed from the notion of practical, etc.



*Pragmatics *in a *linguistics* sense. Okay, fair enough. It wasn't clear to me how that term, which I didn't introduce, was being used. You only need to pick up a few linguistics books to figure out that the term "pragmatics" lacks precise definition, that conflicting definitions have been presented, and that the distinction between semantics and pragmatics isn't always clearly delineated. Be that as it may. Let's see how semantics and pragmatics plays into this discussion, without getting bogged down with details.

*Syntax *calls for *All I want is for them to be happy*, because subjects and verbs should go together (and here the subject of "to be" is "them"). *Semantics *deals with meaning. It explains the meaning of "All I want is for them to be happy," and it tells us how such sentence differs from "All I want for them is to be happy." Semantics, however, goes part of the way. Semantics may explain the difference in terms of *emphasis*, (the latter being more emphatic than the former), but it can't go much beyond that. Enter *pragmatics*. Pragmatics addresses the *contextual use of language*. It pays attention to intonation, to body language, to available discourse choices, to social interaction, to the effects of language use, etc. Pragmatics looks at a wide array of information to figure out *why *we say *what* we say. Out of the totality of information available, pragmatics might tells us that "All I want for them is to be happy" really means "I don't want them to be unhappy," or that I want "two people in particular," and not "other people," to be happy. Pragmatics might look at context and conclude that "All I want for them to be happy" really means that "I don't want apple pie." The distinction between semantics and pragmatics may be purely academic, a question of terminology, because in *practical *terms, they both concern themselves with *meaning. * In other words, to explain the meaning of *All I want for them is to be happy* and to see how it differs from *All I want is for them to be happy*, look to "semantics" or "pragmatics" (take your pick), and not to syntax.  
Cheers


----------



## duvija

Wow, I'd never seen an antipragmatist so enthusiastic about this issue. Most modules of grammar proper (semantics, syntax, and morphology) have to deal with pragmatics in one end, phonology/phonetics on the other. Sometimes the limits aren't totally clean. So let's deal with blurriness, ok?

For some reason (and I don't know which one) I find 'all I want for them is to be happy', more common in Chicago (radio, tv) than the one with the verb after the subject. My assumption is that they really want to convey the same information.
Compare with: I think not... vs. I don't think... One is used more than the other, but if we go by meaning alone, the second one doesn't make any sense. Yet, it's the one we use.


----------



## SevenDays

I've been called many things in my life, but never _*antipragmatist. *_I might warm up to it, though. It sounds, I dunno, *bohemian* or something. I hope I can fit it into my license plate. More relevant to the topic, "All I want is for them to be happy" and "All I want for them is to be happy" are semantically equivalent because they convey the same information; we are just rearranging an element ("for them") within the sentence. The same goes for "I think not" and "I don't think." They present the same information; what changes is merely the placement of the negation.  Now, suppose we had (a) "All I want for them is to be happy" and (b) "All I want for them is to have their own home." (a) and (b) are not semantically equivalent; they convey different information: happiness in (a) and home ownership in (b). But then we find out that whoever set up choices (a) and (b) equates "happiness" with "home ownership." The two sentences are now pragmatically equivalent. There is no way for us to know that (a) means (b) simply by looking at (a) or (b); we need *context.* That's the idea. From what I gather, linguists call that context "pragmatics" while grammarians call it "semantics," and I'm left wondering whether, at the end of the day, pragmatics and semantics aren't just the same darn thing.           
Cheers


----------



## alanla

*Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices".*
*These were the basic sentences.*



All I want is for them to be happy  [Most common, correct to me, personally]
All I want is for they to be happy 
All I want is that they are happy  
All I want is that they would be happy   ¿ ¿ñ   í   í   é     ¡  á  Ü

*Bottom line:* The 2 with the  are correct. Todas las dos frases son correctas.
He leído los comentarios [posts] de *Duvija *y, me pongo más o menos de acuerdo con ella. O sea, hay variaciones por aquí y por allá, pero al fin creo que son buenos los suyos, como de siempre, porque conozco otros muchos comentarios de ella y las más de las veces son los adecuados. A decir verdad, no he repasado muy a fondo los de más porque encontré la buena respuesta a principios de la cola. Al mismo tiempo, quisiera poner en claro que respecto mucho a todos los foreros y su derecho a comentar una cosa. Todos nosotros tenemos el mismo propósito--ayudar a aclarar algo.
 Al tratar de perfeccionar la respuesta hay alguna que otra variación pequeñina al tema.
Aquí tengo un hilo [thread] que me hace sonreír y, al cual hago referencia, que da al descubierto lo que puede suceder, lo que es:
*"Salimos con un domingo siete." *http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1938873

Después de leer el cuento va a saber lo que significa el modismo... ¿  ¿ñ     í     í          ¡     á  Ü
A fin de cuentas: ¿Confunde o ayuda? 
Digo esto porque creo que yo mismo he sido culpable de hacer esto también.
¡Que les vaya bien! Favor de no tomarlo a pecho, que no es mi intención.  Y: 



*Todo lo que **quiero/deseo**/añoro/anhelo es que **ellos/ellas/los hijos/las hijas de ellos/las hijas de su* *hijas** sean **felices". *


----------



## duvija

SevenDays said:


> From what I gather, linguists call that context "pragmatics" while grammarians call it "semantics,"  Cheers



I'm really curious now about the difference between linguist and grammarian. Can't even imagine the definitions. Would you elaborate?


----------



## Blixa

alanla said:


> *Todo lo que quiero es que ellos sean felices".*
> *These were the basic sentences.*
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is for them to be happy  [Most common, correct to me, personally]
> All I want is for they to be happy
> All I want is that they are happy



O sea que tb es correcto "All I want is that they are happy"??


----------



## Blixa

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Sola & Mexico.
> 
> 1. "All I want is that they be happy"
> 2. "All I want is that they should be happy"
> 
> As I see it, sentence 1. requires a subjunctive because of the non-factual nature of the relation between "they" and "be happy". "All I want" is the expression of a desire, a wish, a hope, etc.
> .


 
 is it OK a subjunctive mood here?  "All I want is that they be happy? If we put it as a desire, it makes sense, but I'm not a grammar expert at all. Thanks for your explanations.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Blix.

What strikes me as a little bizarre in

"All I want is that they are happy"

is the fact that one should express one's wish for something which already _is_.

Best  

GS


----------



## Blixa

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Blix.
> 
> What strikes me as a little bizarre in
> 
> "All I want is that they are happy"
> 
> is the fact that one should express one's wish for something which already _is_.
> 
> Best
> 
> GS



agree since we are just "wishing" them all best. In this way, then subjunctive is OK, I think. Even though I'm not a pro at all when it comes to grammar, I checked out a new book I got and it said so, I guess it's OK then.


----------



## Mexico RV'er

There are a lot of possibilities, and it seems they have all been explored quite thoroughly, but the bottom line is that very few of them are used or sound natural. If I were the OP, I would be scratching my head right now and wondering which way to turn. The most natural and most common expression is still, "All I want is for them to be happy."


----------



## Blixa

Ok, then the oscar goes to "All I want is for them to be happy"


----------

