# The city is to be destroyed.



## requinology

It's the 'to be' I'm not quite sure how to translate.

In full context, 'It is characteristic of the book's tragic viewpoint that the city is to be destoyed.'

'Es caracteristicó de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad es para ser destruida'?

Orignally I had, 'va ser destruida', but I think that has a different meaning.

Thanks!


----------



## Agró

'Es caracter*í*stico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad *va a* ser destruida/tiene que ser destruida'.


----------



## aztlaniano

Also: la ciudad será destruida, la ciudad se destruirá.


----------



## Agró

requinology said:


> In full context, 'It is characteristic of the book's tragic viewpoint that the city is to be dest*r*oyed.'



We would need some more context to fully understand what is meant here. This sentence reminds me of Cato's "Delenda est Carthago".

What do you think "...is to be destroyed" means?

Must the city be destroyed?
Is the city going to be destroyed in any case?


----------



## requinology

I think it's implying the fate of the city is inevitable; whatever happens, the city will be destroyed.. as part of the tragic ethos of the book.

I don't think va a ser destruida works, but tiene que ser seems to fit. Like, 'It is characteristic of the book's tragic viewpoint that the city has to be destroyed'


----------



## Spharadi

You could also check other uses of the same construction "is to be". For ex. This is to be done. I would translate this as "Esto tiene que ser hecho, esto tiene que hacerse". Accordingly,  "la ciudad tiene que ser destruida" seems to me the more adequate rendering.


----------



## JeanC.Lemoine

$ *Arrangements, orders, instructions:

*You are to follow my orders. _Debes seguir mis ordenes._ (Order, instruction)

Barack Obama is to visit  Prime Minister of Iran next week. _Barack Obama  visitará/tiene agendado visitar el primer ministro iraní la semana que viene. _(arrangment)

$ *Future events:*

The city is to be destroyed. _La ciudad será destruida._

$ *Conditional: *If-clause sentences with preconditions for something to happen.

If we are to destroy the city, would you assist us? _Si tuviesemos que/debiesemos destruir la ciudad, ¿nos ayudarías?_

$ *No materialized events:* be to + Perfect infinitive:

the city was to be destroyed last month but a lack of political commitment left the issue at sake. _La ciudad debío haber sido destruida el mes pasado, pero la falta de voluntad politica dejo el asunto en el aire._


----------



## Spharadi

There's a difference between "the city is to be destroyed" and "the city will be destroyed", and you have to convey this nuance in the translation.


----------



## aztlaniano

Spharadi said:


> "la ciudad tiene que ser destruida" seems to me the more adequate rendering.


It doesn't have to be "tiene que ser", as an obligation, it could just as easily be "la destrucción de la ciudad ha sido programada", it is planned or foreseen that it will be destroyed, as in the example JeanC. Lemoine cites, "Obama is to visit". That a statement that something is expected to happened. In that vein, perhaps "la ciudad acabará siendo destruida" could be another option.


----------



## JeanC.Lemoine

Spharadi said:


> There's a difference between "the city is to be destroyed" and "the city will be destroyed", and you have to convey this nuance in the translation.



_ e.g. La ciudad _t_endrá que ser des_t_ruida. la ciudad deberá ser des_t_ruida._


----------



## aztlaniano

JeanC.Lemoine said:


> _ e.g. La ciudad _t_endrá que ser des_t_ruida. la ciudad deberá ser des_t_ruida._


I'd say these could be translated:
The city must be destroyed. (tendrá que)
The city should be destroyed. (deberá)


----------



## Spharadi

> I'd say these could be translated:
> The city must be destroyed. (tendrá que)
> The city should be destroyed. (deberá)


I don't agree: 
must be ---->   debe ser
should be ----> debería ser


----------



## Outsider

requinology said:


> I think it's implying the fate of the city is inevitable; whatever happens, the city will be destroyed.. as part of the tragic ethos of the book.
> 
> I don't think va a ser destruida works, but tiene que ser seems to fit. Like, 'It is characteristic of the book's tragic viewpoint that the city has to be destroyed'


I think the context is still insufficient. What is meant here by "the city is to be destroyed"? Does it refer to the fact that, in the book, the city gets destroyed eventually? Or is the destruction of the city merely a possibility?


----------



## requinology

The city is Troy, which does get destroyed. This is from an introduction to the Iliad.


----------



## Outsider

Thank you for the clarification. Which of the following paraphrases would you say is closer to the idea in the original text?

...the city is to be destroyed = the city would eventually/later be destroyed
or
...the city is to be destroyed = the city is doomed to destruction, the city awaits destruction


----------



## requinology

requinology said:


> I think it's implying the fate of the city is inevitable; whatever happens, the city will be destroyed.. as part of the tragic ethos of the book.



Like I said, I think the sentiment is that the city is doomed; because of the general, tragic nature of the Iliad.


----------



## aztlaniano

requinology said:


> Like I said, I think the sentiment is that the city is doomed; because of the general, tragic nature of the Iliad.


I think I'd use "la ciudad acabará siendo destruida", even though literally that is "the city will end up being destroyed".


----------



## caniho

requinology said:


> It's the 'to be' I'm not quite sure how to translate.
> 
> In full context, 'It is characteristic of the book's tragic viewpoint that the city is to be destoyed.'
> 
> 'Es caracteristicó de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad es para ser destruida'?
> 
> Orignally I had, 'va ser destruida', but I think that has a different meaning.
> 
> Thanks!



_Es característico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad haya de ser destruida._

Saludos.


----------



## requinology

aztlaniano said:


> I think I'd use "la ciudad acabará siendo destruida", even though literally that is "the city will end up being destroyed".



Thanks for the advice; I think I'll use that.. though I wonder if it deviates a bit much from a literal translation!

Gracias a todos por la ayuda!


----------



## Outsider

How about _que la ciudad esté condenada/destinada a la destrucción_?


----------



## Joaqin

caniho said:


> _Es característico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad haya de ser destruida._
> 
> Saludos.



De acuerdo. Creo que *...la ciudad ha de ser destruida*
es la mejor traducción hasta ahora.


----------



## G.H.Marmotta

caniho said:


> _Es característico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad haya de ser destruida._
> 
> Saludos.




Estoy de acuerdo. La frase tiene un matiz en inglés que es muy difícil de traducir. Por lo tanto, igual que caniho, yo emplearía el subjuntivo en vez del indicativo. La frase no dice/implica que la ciudad vaya a ser destruida, sino que _*
es característico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad sea destruida*_, 
lo cual es distinto.

Saludos!


----------



## inib

I'd like to just make a little comment which is not related to this particular excerpt, but _to be to_ + infinitive is often equivalent to _haber de_ + infinitivo. The quoted example is even more complicated because it includes a passive structure, but for other cases I suggest this general rule:
_You are to be home by 10.30 = has de estar en casa para las 10.30_ (indicating obligation, in a very formal and strict way in both languages. Teenagers would raise an eyebrow on either side of the puddle!)
The above example demonstrates _haber de_ expressing obligation, but I think that sometimes it can also give that idea of destiny. The problem is that I can't think of a good example. Can anyone help? Or am I completely wrong?
PS. I'm too slow. Someone has already mentioned "haber de".


----------



## Spharadi

> but I think that sometimes it can also give that idea of destiny


But in this case you'd probably say something like _the city is doomed to be destroyed_, wouldn't you?
Además no creo que exista una sola traducción. Hay varias posibilidades y todas indican en mayor o menor medida el hecho de que la ciudad está condenada a la destrucción. 

_Es característico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad 
    - ha de ser destruida._
    - será destruida.
    - va a ser destruida
    - está condenada a la destrucción; incluso esta posibilidad no traiciona el sentido de la frase inglesa, ya que ahi se habla de la perspectiva trágica del libro (refiriéndose naturalmente a la ciudad de Troya)


----------



## Milton Sand

Hola:
My vote is for, "...*haya* de ser destruida", as cahino and Spharadi suggested.


----------



## duvija

Outsider said:


> How about _que la ciudad esté condenada/destinada a la destrucción_?


 

¡Me gusta ésta!
Yo estaba buscando cómo agregar un 'fatalmente' o algo que indicara un destino ineludible, y estaba ahí nomás! Gracias, Outsider.


----------



## maidinbedlam

aztlaniano said:


> I think I'd use "la ciudad acabará siendo destruida", even though literally that is "the city will end up being destroyed".


Yo me quedo con ésta. La Ilíada sólo relata un episodio de la guerra de Troya y no su final, pero los oyentes y después lectores sabían muy bien que la ciudad acabaría siendo destruída.


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi,
I still think the sentence in English isn't more dramatic than what the adjective "tragic" makes it. "Haber de" has a sense of fate as "to be to" has. That's why this version seems to me to fit fine and enough:

"Es típico de la perspectiva trágica del libro que la ciudad haya de ser destruida."

[que]* haya* de ser destruida. 
= _[que] su destino sea ser destruida; acabará por ser destruida, finalmente será destruida; tendrá que ser destruida. _
= Its destiny is to be destroyed; it shall eventually be destroyed; will have inevitably to be destroyed.

Regards,


----------



## SevenDays

I see the English as suggesting that the outcome ~ the destruction of the city ~ as predicted or inferred rather than known, which is why I too opt for the subjunctive rather than the indicative:
...que la ciudad sea destruida
...que la ciudad haya de ser destruida
 
sea vs. haya de ser
El sentido temporal es el mismo (futuro). La preferencia por la forma simple o compuesta depende si tenemos en mente un aspecto imperfectivo (sea) o perfectivo (haya).
 
Saludos


----------



## Milton Sand

Espera, Seven. Que la forma con "hay" no es perfectiva; es de la expresión "haber de" y no de una forma verbal perfecta (como "haya sido").
Saludos,


----------



## SevenDays

Milton Sand said:


> Espera, Seven. Que la forma con "hay" no es perfectiva; es de la expresión "haber de" y no de una forma verbal perfecta (como "haya sido").
> Saludos,


 
Ha!
Yes, of course!
Thanks for catching that . . .
Obviously, I can't post and watch tv at the same time
Saludos

Pensándolo mejor, claro:
_haber de + infinitivo_
perífrasis modal para expresar probabilidad...


----------

