# if you were he



## afflusso

Vorrei tradurre qualcosa sulla falsariga di "What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?" Sono più interessato alla grammatica, e quindi non c'è contesto.

Mio tentativo: "Che cosa faresti se tu fossi lui, e fossi andato a qualche posto dove avessi saputo che ci fossero stati molta gente?" 
Sono certo che questa frase è piena di sbagli. Grazie! (To be clear, the sentence is about a hypothetical situation, and in the present you are in the process of going to a place, while thinking about the future)


----------



## AlabamaBoy

My suggestion: se fossi tu in lui
Do a search of "if I were you" on the forum.


----------



## giacinta

Il mio tentativo:

"Cosa faresti tu se fossi in lui e andassi a qualche posto dove sapevi ci sarebbe stata molta gente?"

Non sono sicura di "a qualche posto _dove"  -_forse "a qualche posto al quale/nel quale".  Un esercizio interessante.  Asepettiamo i madrelingua!

Giacinta


----------



## Alxmrphi

Non sono sicuro sulla _correttezza_ di '_posto dove_', ma avrei detto io 'posto_ in cui_'.


----------



## luway

These are the only two hypothetical situations I can think of, at the moment..

If that the case is the one you said (present, in the process of going), I think the sentence would be: "What would you do if you were he/him, and you were going/had to go to a place where you know there will be/are lots of people?" => "Cosa faresti se tu fossi (in) lui e stessi andando/dovessi andare in un posto dove sai che ci sarà/c'è un sacco di gente?"

Or, if it's still hypotethical but about the past: "What would you have done if you had been he/him, and you had had to go to a place where you knew there would have been lots of people?" => "Cosa avresti fatto se tu fossi stato (in) lui e fossi dovuto andare in un posto dove sapevi che ci sarebbe stata un sacco di gente?"

_(Not sure about the English. Please correct it, in case of mistakes )_


----------



## afflusso

Grazie! I'm actually grateful that there are several possibilities because I think that's even more helpful for my purpose. If anyone else has other possibilities, post still, per favore.

For the English, I think "if you had been he" is technically correct, although anyone would say "if you had been him" because English speakers tend to use the objective case even when it's wrong.


----------



## Alxmrphi

afflusso said:


> For the English, I think "if you had been he" is technically correct, although anyone would say "if you had been him" because English speakers tend to use the objective case even when it's wrong.


With an eye on your signature () I just wanted to say it's a popular misconception that this is wrong usage. A lot of modern grammars of English fully allow objective forms here and there is not a shred of incorrectness about "If you had been him" from a linguistically descriptive analysis of the construction. As I'm sure most native speakers will say, the nominative here sounds really unusual. It sticks out quite horribly to me. Still, sentence-final pronouns, while usually nominative in some other languages, are generally oblique in English. I wouldn't want our Italian friends to think "If I were him" wasn't perfect and recommended English. 

It'd be counter-productive (IMO) to teach people to always use "he" due to an old fashioned (and demonstrably fallible) analysis. We just don't use it like that. When you've got (I'd be happy to estimate) more than 90% of the native speakers doing one thing and absolutely no stigma attached to using the oblique forms then it's in the student's interest to be introduced into this form. The 'credibility' of an ancient rule shouldn't take precedence and dictate correctness like people are (unfortunately) ever so happy to assume. That's just my take on it, hopefully not too far OT.

Riguardando la traduzione e la domanda principale ti suggerisco la frase '_essere nei panni di qualcuno_' cioé 'to be in someone else's shoes' che calzerebbe a pennello, a mio avviso.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, afflu.

"What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?"

Depending on the meaning of "you were going", I'd say either 

_1. "(Che) Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?"
_
or 

_2. "(Che) Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e saresti andato in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?"
_
Phew, never again!

GS


----------



## luway

Alxmrphi said:


> With an eye on your signature () I just wanted to say it's a popular misconception that this is wrong usage.  [...]
> 
> Riguardando la traduzione e la domanda principale ti suggerisco la frase '_essere nei panni di qualcuno_' cioé 'to be in someone else's shoes' che calzerebbe a pennello, a mio avviso.



Grazie per l'intervento, sarei anch'io per la pragmatica che sostieni ma in effetti, nonostante l'uso nella lingua viva, poi da studenti di una lingua non propria ci si ritrova sempre a fare i conti con le 'regole' e quindi in dubbio 

Per quanto riguarda alternative per l'introduzione: "Se fossi _lui_/_in lui_/_al posto suo_/_al suo posto_/_nei suoi panni_" sono tutte valide a mio avviso.




Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, afflu.
> 
> "What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?"
> 
> Depending on the meaning of "you were going", I'd say either
> 
> _1. "(Che) Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?"
> _
> or
> 
> _2. "(Che) Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e saresti andato in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?"
> _



Giorgio, anch'io nel confrontarmi con la frase originale postata da Afflusso avevo inizialmente pensato a "che ci sarebbe stato", ma poi sinceramente ha continuato a suonarmi male per qualcosa che non è ancora accaduto, tant'è che ho preferito "che c'è/ci sarà". In fondo, che senso ha usare il condizionale se è qualcosa che si sa già? Ecco perché avevo modificato anche la versione inglese, non mi suona.

Anche, noto ora e quindi ti chiedo: è la gente che eventualmente ci sarebbe stata, per cui perché lo concordi al maschile?


----------



## effeundici

Siamo sicuri che la frase in inglese sia del tutto corretta? Secondo me i tempi non tornano.


----------



## Alxmrphi

effeundici said:


> Siamo sicuri che la frase in inglese sia del tutto corretta? Secondo me i tempi non tornano.


A me, sì.
Quale parte ti mette in dubbio?


----------



## Memimao

IMO Italian would not use so many _verb_ forms in a case like this. It would be much more _noun_ based

Cosa faresti al *posto* suo, in *cammino *verso *un luogo *che sapevi pieno di gente.

It is a fallacy to believe that Italian is more verbose than Engilsh


----------



## effeundici

Ciao Alex, evidentemente mi sbaglio dato anche che la frase è molto complicata, però io avrei scritto una delle seguenti 2 opzioni:

What would you do if you _had been him_ , and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?
What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you _know _there _will be_ lots of people?

Dove sbaglio?



Alxmrphi said:


> A me, sì.
> Quale parte ti mette in dubbio?


----------



## luway

Alxmrphi said:


> A me, sì.
> Quale parte ti mette in dubbio?



A me, questa sottilineata: "What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?" perché non riesco a sentirla concorde con quanto precede, come ho già scritto in precedenza (vedi come sarebbe suonata a me nel post #5). Devo però dire che sto andando a orecchio, non avendo ora tempo per rivedere le varie forme ipotetiche e i condizionali relativi.

edit: ecco, anche per me è più o meno come per F11


----------



## rrose17

effeundici said:


> Siamo sicuri che la frase in inglese sia del tutto corretta? Secondo me i tempi non tornano.


I'm with Alex here, I don't see any problem with it, other than the "he" which sounds archaic or odd to me. If you put it in the first person I don't think you'd ever see/hear it said this way. ...if you were I  ...if you were we


----------



## effeundici

Vedi, c'è un tempo che non torna

Cosa faresti al *posto* suo, in *cammino *verso *un luogo *che *sai* pieno di gente
Cosa *avresti fatto* al *posto* suo, in *cammino *verso *un luogo *che sapevi pieno di gente



Memimao said:


> IMO Italian would not use so many _verb_ forms in a case like this. It would be much more _noun_ based
> 
> Cosa faresti al *posto* suo, in *cammino *verso *un luogo *che sapevi pieno di gente.
> 
> It is a fallacy to believe that Italian is more verbose than Engilsh


----------



## london calling

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> "What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?"
> 
> _"(Che) Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?"
> _This is how "going to" should be read, in my opinion.


I think Memi's got a good point in his post - if you wish to pratice your grammar a little, this is spot on, but maybe it would be better to condense it a little!. What do you natives think?

Edit: I'm with Alex and rrose: the English sentence sounds fine to me too.  If we went back a tense we get:

What would you have done if you had been him and you had been going to a place......
_Che cosa avresti fatto se fossi stato in lui e stessi andando.....

_which means something slightly different to the original sentence., but I won't go into that here because there are numerous threads on the subject already.

Poi ricordiamoci che _were going_ e _had been going_ in italiano si possono  tradurre unicamente con "stessi andando" (ovviamente...had been going/fossi stato andando????)


----------



## luway

effeundici said:


> Vedi, c'è un tempo che non torna
> 
> Cosa faresti al *posto* suo, in *cammino *verso *un luogo *che *sai* pieno di gente
> Cosa *avresti fatto* al *posto* suo, in *cammino *verso *un luogo *che sapevi pieno di gente



Esatto, anche per me è così. Lo stesso per il 'sarebbe stato' che proponeva G.S.


----------



## rrose17

effeundici said:


> What would you do if you _had been him_ , and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?
> What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you _know _there _will be_ lots of people?


If you knew there would be lots of people works both in the past and in the present. _If you knew _is an English subjunctive, like if you spoke Chinese, if you sang like Pavarotti, etc.


----------



## Memimao

What would you do if you _had been him_ , and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people  No this would place the _*being him*_ prior to the *would do. Thus: *_What would you have done if you had been him..._*..*
What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you _know there will be lots of people? Acceptable alternative to the grammatically correct form if the action is still today *predicted* for the future

__*E.g. Reported speech: He said he would come tomorrow vs he said he will come tomorrow*_


----------



## Alxmrphi

There are a set of conditionals that are generally described to be a sort of rule of thumb to guide learners, but far too much stock is put by them and it leads to mixed conditionals being seen as 'breaking the rules' when the only thing that's happening is highlighting a different focus of the sentence. Surely there are some combinations which are not grammatical but outside of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd conditional, the possibilities of mixing are definitely there.

"Will be" in your second example F11, since it's a preterite in the first clause (in the unrealisable hypothetical) it's more natural for it to be "would" rather than "will". I don't think this qualifies as a 'change of tense', per se. Still, 'had been' implies a missed opportunity, when here we'd use 'were' because it's not something possible (to 'be' someone else).


----------



## luway

Sinceramente, non c'è regola che riesca a far suonare bene al mio orecchio "stessi andando [adesso] in un posto dove sapessi che ci sarebbe stata [nel passato forse c'era e forse no]".


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Ciao, Luway.

_"Anche, noto ora e quindi ti chiedo: è la gente che eventualmente ci sarebbe stata, per cui perché lo concordi al maschile?"_http://forum.wordreference.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11673937&noquote=1​http://forum.wordreference.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11673937&noquote=1


Mi viene naturale far concordare il participio di _essere_ con il sintagma _sacco di gente_ nella sua totalità, la cui "testa", in italiano, è _sacco_. 

So bene che questioni di questo stesso tipo sono sorte recentemente nei thread del nostro Forum: è evidente però che se ci trovassimo _a destra_ del sintagma non ci sarebbe che la possibilità del femminile:"... ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente incavolata nera". Ma questa è un'ovvietà.

Quanto alla frase colla quale ci siamo cimentati in questo thread, a me pare che i tempi verbali dell'inglese vadano bene. Aggiungo però:
1. _"(Che) Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?", _ancorché complicata e alla fine pesante, credo sia corretta, ma riconosco anche che molti miei connazionali, io compreso, userebbero una "consecutio" a rigore errata ma anche molto più palatabile_:
"Cosa faresti se fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sai che ci sarà un sacco di gente?".

_@ London: ho segnalato le due possibili "letture" di "and you were going to a place" perché, oltre al valore progressivo/continuo ho pensato anche alla espressione della futurità, del tipo "I remember that I was terrified at the idea that the day after I was going to a place full of people". In questo caso la traduzione avrebbe dovuta essere: e saresti andato in un luogo pieno di gente".
Cari saluti a tutti.
_
_​GS


----------



## luway

Grazie del chiarimento, Giorgio


----------



## afflusso

Grazie for the whole discussion. I now notice that the English tenses are kind of weird, so I'll point out some sentences that I find to be _pretty much _equivalent in meaning:
What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?
What would you do if you are him, and you're going to a place where you know there will be lots of people?
What would you do if you were him, and you are going to a place where you knew there will be lots of people?
What would you do if you were him, and you are going to a place where you knew there are lots of people?
What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you knew there were lots of people? <- not as certain about this one

I think you could point out some subtleties depending on whether the people are there in the process of you going, or if they will only be there once you arrive, but they are all grammatically correct to my ear at least. As for he/him, yes, I'd advise anyone learning English to just go with "if you were him," "if I were him," etc. Although I still tend to think that if you were writing for a published journal you should know that using "he" _might _be better.

I think the verbosity can also be avoided in English to match memi's good suggestion: 
Cosa faresti al posto suo, in cammino verso un luogo che sapevi pieno di gente?
What would you do in his place, on the way to a place which you (know/knew) (is/will be) packed?

And to summarize some of the possibilities that seem to be agreed upon:
Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un posto dove sai che c'è un sacco di gente?
Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un posto dove sai che ci sarà un sacco di gente?
Cosa faresti se tu fossi lui e dovessi andare in un posto dove sai che ci sarà un sacco di gente?
Cosa avresti fatto se tu fossi stato in lui e fossi dovuto andare in  un posto dove sapevi che ci sarebbe stata un sacco di gente?
Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?
Che cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e saresti andato in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe stato un sacco di gente?
Cosa faresti al posto suo, in cammino verso un luogo che sai pieno di gente?
Cosa avresti fatto al posto suo, in cammino verso un luogo che sapevi pieno di gente?


----------



## luway

I thought that Memimao's "Cosa faresti al posto suo, in cammino verso un luogo che sapevi pieno di gente" was just meant to express the 'action' clearly while discussing about the grammar, because in Italian we wouldn't say it, so I wouldn't list it among the others.

Also, to me 'sapevi' asks for 'avresti fatto', non 'faresti'; instead --again, to me-- 'faresti' calls for 'sai'.


----------



## giacinta

What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?
What would you do if you are him, and you're going to a place where you know there will be lots of people?[ 
What would you do if you were him, and you are going to a place where you knew there will be lots of people? 
What would you do if you were him, and you are going to a place where you knew there are lots of people? 
What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you knew there were lots of people? <- not as certain about this one 

Giacinta


----------



## ALEX1981X

Per me anche questa potrebbe essere una buona alternativa modificando leggermente i tempi ma conservandone il significato.
La frase è ipotetica irreale e guarda al presente/futuro

What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where  you *know* there *are/will be *lots of people

quanto alla traduzione di quanto richiesto da afflusso cioè: *What would you do if you were he, and you were going to a place where  you knew there would be lots of people?*

Io mi sentirei di tradurla cosi: _Cosa faresti se tu fossi in lui e stessi andando in un luogo in cui sapessi che ci sarebbe un sacco di gente?"_


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Giusto un suggerimento:

*Ofelé fa el to mesté* OVVERO* Stick to what you're good at.*

Io, madrelingua italiano, ci peserei molto ma molto bene prima avere la pretesa di insegnare una lingua (l'inglese che non è la mia madrelinua) a delle persone la cui madrelingua è l'inglese, anche per evitare la classica figura da "cioccolataio".
I nostri contributi valgono di più quando sono fatti nel nostro campo di competenza.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Paulfromitaly said:


> Giusto un suggerimento:
> 
> *Ofelé fa el to mesté* OVVERO* Stick to what you're good at.*
> 
> Io, madrelingua italiano, ci peserei molto ma molto bene prima avere la pretesa di insegnare una lingua (l'inglese che non è la mia madrelinua) a delle persone la cui madrelingua è l'inglese, anche per evitare la classica figura da "cioccolataio".
> I nostri contributi valgono di più quando sono fatti nel nostro campo di competenza.



Scusami Paul ma questo tuo appunto era rivolto a me che ho scritto per ultimo ??


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ALEX1981X said:


> Scusami Paul ma questo tuo appunto era rivolto a me che ho scritto per ultimo ??


Non è rivolto a nessuno in particolare, ma allo stesso tempo a tutti quelli che leggono il thread


----------



## ALEX1981X

Paulfromitaly said:


> Non è rivolto a nessuno in particolare, ma allo stesso tempo a tutti quelli che leggono il thread



Grazie Paul


----------



## effeundici

Beh però Paul lo fai anche te; qua ti sei messo a discutere con CPA e AlexMurphy, 2 colonne anglofone del forum! 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2297417&p=11530220#post11530220


----------



## afflusso

giacinta said:


> What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you knew there would be lots of people?
> What would you do if you are him, and you're going to a place where you know there will be lots of people?[
> What would you do if you were him, and you are going to a place where you knew there will be lots of people?
> What would you do if you were him, and you are going to a place where you knew there are lots of people?
> What would you do if you were him, and you were going to a place where you knew there were lots of people? <- not as certain about this one
> 
> Giacinta



I'm a native speaker of English, and those middle three, while somewhat colloquial maybe, seem fine. I think most English speakers (myself included) aren't talented at using the correct form of the "hypothetical tense" formally, but for those learning English, they should know that they'll encounter phrases like those. I think there's something to the _way_ you say it that makes the present tense fit in for hypothetical questions.


----------



## giacinta

Sorry Afflusso but I can't agree with you. The second one I could accept "at a pinch".  In the 3rd and 4th - although not ideal, you might get away it if you used the present tense in the clause commencing "and you KNOW ..".

Perhaps this could be resolved in the English Only forum.

I just think you will have enormous difficulties translating phrases like the middle three into Italian which is much more precise than English in my opinion.  

As to your point about those learning English, I'm sure they would understand the _meaning_ of the middle three sentences even if they are not grammatically correct.  

Giacinta


----------



## london calling

giacinta said:


> Sorry Afflusso but I can't agree with you. The second one I could accept "at a pinch". In the 3rd and 4th - although not ideal, you might get away it if you used the present tense in the clause commencing "and you KNOW ..".
> 
> Perhaps this could be resolved in the English Only forum.
> 
> I just think you will have enormous difficulties translating phrases like the middle three into Italian which is much more precise than English in my opinion.
> 
> As to your point about those learning English, I'm sure they would understand the _meaning_ of the middle three sentences even if they are not grammatically correct.
> 
> Giacinta


I have to say I agree with you Giacinta, as a speaker of BE: you being an Aussie obviously speak a similar brand of English to me. Maybe those three sentences would be acceptable to a speaker of AE - as you say, it's probably an issue for the English Only forum.


----------



## AlabamaBoy

london calling said:


> Maybe those three sentences would be acceptable to a speaker of AE -


 Hardly. They grate on my ears!


----------



## london calling

AlabamaBoy said:


> Hardly. They grate on my ears!


Right then. Definitely a question for the English Only forum, if only to see how many native speakers from the various English-speaking countries find them acceptable - I think we'd better leave it here, before get deleted for being off-topic.


----------

