# Konjunktiv: It was important for you to arrive on time



## Whodunit

Hi other natives   ,

I recently had a conversation with a native English speaker, and he asked me how to translate:

_*"It was important for you to arrive on time."*_

The word "arrive" should be in the past subjunctive. I suggested the following:

Es wäre wichtig für dich gewesen, rechtzeitig anzukommen.

... which would be the correct literal translation. But it should be formed with a "dass" clause, so I tried the following:

Es wäre wichtig gewesen, dass du rechtzeitig angekommen wärst.

But I'm not sure, because it sounds VERY archaic to my young ears.   

Do you have any other idea?


----------



## alc112

Hi Daniel!!!
I think the first part shouldn't be in subjuntive. In spanish I would translate it as:
Era importante para mi que llegue temprano
Era is in past. the subjuntive is fuera/fuese.
Es war wichtig für mich, dass er früh ankämme ------> (I don't if it is correct the subjuntive form for ankommen)


----------



## Jana337

alc112 said:
			
		

> Es war wichtig für mich, dass er früh ankämme ------> (I don't if it is correct the subjuntive form for ankommen)



kommen - kam - gekommen ---> k*ä*m*e*

Jana


----------



## alc112

Thank you Jana!!!
Are you going to do your 1000 th post today?


----------



## Whodunit

alc112 said:
			
		

> Hi Daniel!!!
> I think the first part shouldn't be in subjuntive. In spanish I would translate it as:
> Era importante para mi que llegue temprano
> Era is in past. the subjuntive is fuera/fuese.
> Es war wichtig für mich, dass er früh ankämme ------> (I don't if it is correct the subjuntive form for ankommen)



No, it's impossile in German to say:

Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig ankämest.


----------



## alc112

Ok
Thanks for telling me


----------



## Whodunit

alc112 said:
			
		

> Ok
> Thanks for telling me



Yup. You're most welcome.


----------



## elroy

alc112 said:
			
		

> Hi Daniel!!!
> I think the first part shouldn't be in subjuntive. In spanish I would translate it as:
> Era importante para mi que llegue temprano
> Era is in past. the subjuntive is fuera/fuese.
> Es war wichtig für mich, dass er früh ankämme ------> (I don't if it is correct the subjuntive form for ankommen)



Also, the sentence is not "It was important for me..."  It says "It was important for you to arrive on time."

In Spanish it means "Era importante que llegases a tiempo.

The "for you to arrive" means "that you arrive" in this case.  Because English tends to avoid the subjunctive at all costs, we use that formulation.

So really, the question is the following:

How do you translate 

"It was important that you arrive on time" into German?


----------



## Jana337

*Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig kommst* wäre falsch? Ich habe leider kein Gefühl für Sätze wie "es wäre wichtig gewesen".

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> *Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig kommst* wäre falsch? Ich habe leider kein Gefühl für Sätze wie "es wäre wichtig gewesen".
> 
> Jana



Ist falsch. Weil du im ersten das Imperfekt und im zweiten das Präsens verwendet hast! Beides passiert zur selben Zeit. Also wenn schon, dann:

*Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig gekommen wärst.*

Aber im ersten Teil sollte der Subjunktiv oder Konjunktiv verwendet werden. Also:

Es wäre wichtig gewesen, dass du rechtzeitig ... (und jetzt brauche ich eine Zeitform vor der Vorvergangenheit, dem Plusquamperfekt! Diese gibt es aber gar nicht!)


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:
			
		

> So really, the question is the following:
> 
> How do you translate
> 
> "It was important that you arrived on time" into German?


The past subjunctive of all English verbs except "to be" is identical to the past  indicative. "Arrive" would be the present subjunctive (which is identical to the bare infinitive in all verbs).


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> The past subjunctive of all English verbs except "to be" is identical to the past  indicative. "Arrive" would be the present subjunctive (which is identical to the bare infinitive in all verbs).



Yes, of course, because it's "*to* arrive", and "to" is never followed by a subjunctive. But I was looking for the correct German clause, since we don't use constructions like "to + verb" instead of a conjunction clause.


----------



## Outsider

Doesn't Elroy's sentence work?


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> Doesn't Elroy's sentence work?



Elroy's? Well, he didn't suggest any German translation.


----------



## Outsider

No, but he gave an alternate English sentence with a similar meaning...


----------



## alc112

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, of course, because it's "*to* arrive", and "to" is never followed by a subjunctive. But I was looking for the correct German clause, since we don't use constructions like "to + verb" instead of a conjunction clause.


 

I thought to +verb would be zu+verb in German...
Is this correct?


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> The past subjunctive of all English verbs except "to be" is identical to the past  indicative. "Arrive" would be the present subjunctive (which is identical to the bare infinitive in all verbs).



I'm sorry, but "It was important that you arrived on time" does not mean the same thing as "It was important that you arrive [i.e., for you to arrive] on time."

My version means that at that point in time it was important for you to arrive on time.  Whether or not you did, we don't know.

Your version means that you did arrive on time, and that that was an important thing.  

Bear in mind that nobody would really say "that you arrive" in this case; I just wanted to clarify the subjunctive meaning of "for you to..."  It doesn't mean "für dich."


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but "It was important that you arrived on time" does not mean the same thing as "It was important that you arrive [i.e., for you to arrive] on time."
> 
> My version means that at that point in time it was important for you to arrive on time.  Whether or not you did, we don't know.
> 
> Your version means that you did arrive on time, and that that was an important thing.


I don't think so. "Arrived" can be the indicative (you arrived on time) or the subjunctive (we don't know if you arrived on time).


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't think so. "Arrived" can be the indicative (you arrived on time) or the subjunctive (we don't know if you arrived on time).



Hey, you're referring to an if-subordinate-clause! But we're talking about a "dass/that" clause in German. "if" translates with "ob", but "that" with dass":

Ich wusste nicht, ob du kommst.
- I didn't know if you'll arrive. -
Ich wusste nicht, dass du kommen würdest/kämest.
- I didn't know that you arrived. -


----------



## Outsider

The if-subordinate-clause I wrote was only to explain the meaning of the tense, in the same way that Elroy had done. It wasn't meant to be an analogy with the topic you're discussing.

P.S. That should be "I didn't know if you*'d* arrive".


----------



## alc112

Well, I hace asked my teacher and she translatede as :
Es war wichtig für dich, daß du rechtzeitig ankammst
or
Es war wichtig, rechtzeitig anzukommen

Cheers!!


----------



## Whodunit

alc112 said:
			
		

> Well, I hace asked my teacher and she translatede as :
> Es war wichtig für dich, daß du rechtzeitig ankammst
> or
> Es war wichtig, rechtzeitig anzukommen
> 
> Cheers!!



That's correct! And your teacher is correct, too! But asked for a totally different point. I see you all got me wrong:

THIS ACTION NEVER HAPPENED!

"Es WÄRE wichtig (für dich), daSS du rechtzeitig ANGEKOMMEN WÄRST." (But I need a pre-past subjunctive tense here, unlike in English.)

Alexis, ask your teacher again!


----------



## alc112

Whodunit said:
			
		

> That's correct! And your teacher is correct, too! But asked for a totally different point. I see you all got me wrong:
> 
> THIS ACTION NEVER HAPPENED!
> 
> "Es WÄRE wichtig (für dich), daSS du rechtzeitig ANGEKOMMEN WÄRST." (But I need a pre-past subjunctive tense here, unlike in English.)
> 
> Alexis, ask your teacher again!


 
ok
Tomorrow I have classes with her. I'll ask her.
See you


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't think so. "Arrived" can be the indicative (you arrived on time) or the subjunctive (we don't know if you arrived on time).



You are right.  But in this case, "It was important that you arrived on time," the ONLY possible meaning is that you definitely arrived on time and that was important. 

In German: Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig angekommen bist.
In Spanish: Fue importante el que llegaste a tiempo.
In French: Il était important que tu est arrivé à l'heure.

Sorry, I don't know Portuguese!


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hi other natives  ,
> 
> I recently had a conversation with a native English speaker, and he asked me how to translate:
> 
> _*"It was important for you to arrive on time."*_



I'm several days late, but I want to tell you that I do not know for sure what this sentence means. Lack of context.

The most likely meaning is this:

"You needed to arrive on time. It was important."

Once you know that, you can freely re-combine those two ideas into any German sentence that is natural.

Notice what we do NOT know, again because of lack of context.

We don't know if the person arrived on time. In fact, we don't even know if the person arrived at all. In my mind this makes it impossible to translate the English sentence into German, since it is not clear in English.

Gaer


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> You are right. But in this case, "It was important that you arrived on time," the ONLY possible meaning is that you definitely arrived on time and that was important.
> 
> In German: Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig angekommen bist.
> In Spanish: Fue importante el que llegaste a tiempo.
> In French: Il était important que tu est arrivé à l'heure.
> 
> Sorry, I don't know Portuguese!


I agree with you, but I think we need context. Look at these sentences:

1) "It was important that you *arrived* on time. Where the h--- were you? Now you've screwed everything up. We'll miss our next connection."

2) "It was important that you *arrive* on time. Where the h--- were you? Now you've screwed everything up. We'll miss our next connection."

In my opinion the first is wrong (because it grammatically expresses that the arrival took place) and the second is right. 

But I have a suspicion that the first might be used. Remember, as we think about these things, they become elusive! Once again, just a bit of context will make things clear even if the language itself, by itself, is not. 

Gaer

PS: I wanted to add this. If you change the pronoun to "he", it becomes clear either in present or past tense that "arrive" is used subjunctively!

3) "It is important that he *arrive* on time."
4) "It was important that he *arrive* on time."


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but I think we need context. Look at these sentences:
> 
> 1) "It was important that you *arrived* on time. Where the h--- were you? Now you've screwed everything up. We'll miss our next connection."
> 
> 2) "It was important that you *arrive* on time. Where the h--- were you? Now you've screwed everything up. We'll miss our next connection."
> 
> In my opinion the first is wrong (because it grammatically expresses that the arrival took place) and the second is right.
> 
> But I have a suspicion that the first might be used. Remember, as we think about these things, they become elusive! Once again, just a bit of context will make things clear even if the language itself, by itself, is not.
> 
> Gaer
> 
> PS: I wanted to add this. If you change the pronoun to "he", it becomes clear either in present or past tense that "arrive" is used subjunctively!
> 
> 3) "It is important that he *arrive* on time."
> 4) "It was important that he *arrive* on time."



I personally would never say the first one.  I think that one can only mean that the person did arrive on time and that was important.  I would say this:

"It was important that you arrived on time.  Otherwise, we would have missed the train."

Yes, you are right about the lack of ambiguity in the third person.  The problem, however, is not in English.  The challenge is finding a German equivalent to "It was important that you arrive on time."


----------



## Whodunit

SORRY, SORRY, SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you all got me wrong. I should have asked for

_*"It would have been important for you to arrive on time."*_

The first tense should be in the conditional and the second one in the past subjunctive.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> SORRY, SORRY, SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I think you all got me wrong. I should have asked for
> 
> _*"It would have been important for you to arrive on time."*_
> 
> The first tense should be in the conditional and the second one in the past subjunctive.



Well that's a different sentence, now, isn't it?


----------



## AndrewLivingston

Just a quick suggestion.  I was at odds with the use of wäre in the very first post.

I agree that this action (scenario) took place in the past and that the action of arriving did not take place, but it was and remains that "it was important"...

Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig hättest ankommen sollen.

Now, that sounds a bit weird to me, but I do like it.  Whether it is correct, I don't know, I can't say...

Also, the feeling from the above sentence is that the speaker is quite miffed at the person who hasn't arrived on time.

Perhaps another way would be:

Es hat dich sehr obgelegen, rechtzeitig anzukommen

but I like strange and wonderful constructions, somehow it makes the language more alive.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I personally would never say the first one. I think that one can only mean that the person did arrive on time and that was important. I would say this:


I agree with you except for one small point. I am very wary about saying that I would never say something.  I suspect that if we were recorded, 24/7, we might be surprised at the things we say, in a hurry. However, I don't believe I would write it.


> "It was important that you arrived on time. Otherwise, we would have missed the train."


This is definitely correct.


> Yes, you are right about the lack of ambiguity in the third person. The problem, however, is not in English. The challenge is finding a German equivalent to "It was important that you arrive on time."


I still suspect that if we expressed such a thought, in a paragraph, where the situation was perfectly clear, any German would instantly translate it effortlessly. That was my point all long. There is nothing more difficult to translate than a single sentence, unless you have to deal with a part of a sentence!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> That's correct! And your teacher is correct, too! But asked for a totally different point. I see you all got me wrong:
> 
> THIS ACTION NEVER HAPPENED!
> 
> "Es WÄRE wichtig (für dich), daSS du rechtzeitig ANGEKOMMEN WÄRST." (But I need a pre-past subjunctive tense here, unlike in English.)
> 
> Alexis, ask your teacher again!


 
The closest thing I can come up with, if I am reading your German sentence correctly, is this:

"It would be important that you arrived on time."

This might happen if we were discussing taking a trip, going to a movie, etc.. Perhaps I might say, "Well, I don't think arriving on time is important." And you might reply that IF we are going to take a particular trip, or get seated for a popular movie, it WOULD matter if I arrived on time, because arriving late would cause us to miss a flight (on a plane) or have either terrible seats or no seats at all (at a movie theatre). But our discussion would be hypothetical. We would be talking about the possibility of doing something. And we would be talking about what MIGHT happen if I were to arrive late.

This is why I said that we need a scenario. The moment we know what the situation is, the language we need to use becomes clear.

Do I understand your point?

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> The closest thing I can come up with, if I am reading your German sentence correctly, is this:
> 
> "It would be important that you arrived on time."
> 
> This might happen if we were discussing taking a trip, going to a movie, etc.. Perhaps I might say, "Well, I don't think arriving on time is important." And you might reply that IF we are going to take a particular trip, or get seated for a popular movie, it WOULD matter if I arrived on time, because arriving late would cause us to miss a flight (on a plane) or have either terrible seats or no seats at all (at a movie theatre). But our discussion would be hypothetical. We would be talking about the possibility of doing something. And we would be talking about what MIGHT happen if I were to arrive late.
> 
> This is why I said that we need a scenario. The moment we know what the situation is, the language we need to use becomes clear.
> 
> Do I understand your point?
> 
> Gaer



No, not quite, although you're right about "would be". I forgot a German verb:

Es WÄRE wichtig GEWESEN, dass du rechtzeitig ANGEKOMMEN WÄR(E)ST. (maybe "wärest" is the correct tense here?)


----------



## Whodunit

AndrewLivingston said:
			
		

> Es war wichtig, dass du rechtzeitig hättest ankommen sollen.



That's the best translation of "It was important that you arrived on time."

And I can also say in German "Es wäre wichtig (für dich) gewesen, rechtzeitig anzukommen", but I like conjunctive clauses with "dass".   



			
				AndrewLivingston said:
			
		

> Es hat *dir* sehr obgelegen, rechtzeitig anzukommen



This one is very crazy, because - believe me - the word "obliegen" is VERY archaic. And it doesn't sound very good, indeed.


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> I agree with you except for one small point. I am very wary about saying that I would never say something.  I suspect that if we were recorded, 24/7, we might be surprised at the things we say, in a hurry. However, I don't believe I would write it.
> 
> Gaer



Well, I didn't mean that I would never ever say it.  I meant I would not say it to mean "it was important for you to arrive on time" or "it was important that you arrive on time."  To me, that sentence means that you definitely arrived on time, so I don't think I'd say it to berate somebody for not having arrived on time, or at least to show ambiguity.  For example, say the next day I'm talking to a group of students with whom I was on a trip.  Some of them arrived on time; some didn't.  I could say, "It was very important that you arrive on time," simply indicating the importance of arriving on time and not specifying whether the person addressed actually did or didn't.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Some of them arrived on time; some didn't.  I could say, "It was very important that you arrive on time," simply indicating the importance of arriving on time and not specifying whether the person addressed actually did or didn't.



What could you say to the students who didn't arrive? "It would've been important that you'd arrive on time."???


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> What could you say to the students who didn't arrive? "It would've been important that you'd arrive on time."???



No, I would say the same thing - that's the whole point.

"It was important for you to arrive on time."
"It was important that you arrive on time."

"It would have been important..." implies that the importance of punctual arrival depends on something else.  For example,

If you had been going for the last train, it would have been important for you to arrive on time.

If you had been going for an earlier train, it would not have been as important for you to arrive on time, because you would have been able to take the next train.

Does this make sense?  See, it all depends on context!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> "It would have been important..." implies that the importance of punctual arrival depends on something else.  For example,
> 
> If you had been going for the last train, it would have been important for you to arrive on time.
> 
> If you had been going for an earlier train, it would not have been as important for you to arrive on time, because you would have been able to take the next train.
> 
> Does this make sense?  See, it all depends on context!



Yes, but I would go for the first sentence: ... last train.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, but I would go for the first sentence: ... last train.



Huh?  That's a different situation...or is it?  At this point I'm lost as to what the original question/request was.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Well, I didn't mean that I would never ever say it. I meant I would not say it to mean "it was important for you to arrive on time" or "it was important that you arrive on time." To me, that sentence means that you definitely arrived on time, so I don't think I'd say it to berate somebody for not having arrived on time, or at least to show ambiguity. For example, say the next day I'm talking to a group of students with whom I was on a trip. Some of them arrived on time; some didn't. I could say, "It was very important that you arrive on time," simply indicating the importance of arriving on time and not specifying whether the person addressed actually did or didn't.


Elroy, I think the kind of scenario you are presenting here is unrealistic. You are using English that is grammatically 100% correct, but it leaves me wondering what in heaven is going on?

IF you said that, "It was very important that you arrive on time," my immediately question is. Why? Why did you say that? What happened to those that did not arrive in time, IF some did not. I feel as though you have lifted some tiny part of a story out of context, and I have no idea what your point is.  

If I don't understand exactly what point you're making here, I would think it would be impossible for someone learning English.

Do you see my point? 

Suppose, on the other hand, I wrote this:

"I told my students last week that it was important that they arrive on time, and those who arrived late found out why. I had no breaks, no way to make up lost time, so those who arrived a few minutes late lost a valuable part of their lesson time."

Even that may not be enough context, because I may not have made the situation clear enough (half and hour lessons that must start and end exactly on time), but at least now we have some context.

I don't believe all the precision in the universe of about verbs, tenses, etc. can make up for lack of context. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> No, I would say the same thing - that's the whole point.
> 
> "It was important for you to arrive on time."
> "It was important that you arrive on time."
> 
> "It would have been important..." implies that the importance of punctual arrival depends on something else. For example,
> 
> If you had been going for the last train, it would have been important for you to arrive on time.
> 
> If you had been going for an earlier train, it would not have been as important for you to arrive on time, because you would have been able to take the next train.
> 
> Does this make sense? See, it all depends on context!


It doesn't make sense to me.

This makes sense to me: "I TOLD you all that it was important for you to arrive on time if you planned to catch the last train."

I would expect someone to make such a statement to make a point, that people had not listened to reasonable advice.

I'm not arguing. I'm not trying to "one-up" you. I'm simply insisting that it is logical to want to know WHY you are saying "it was important". Normally your explanations are extremly clear to me. But this one was not, at least to me. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Elroy, I think the kind of scenario you are presenting here is unrealistic. You are using English that is grammatically 100% correct, but it leaves me wondering what in heaven is going on?
> 
> IF you said that, "It was very important that you arrive on time," my immediately question is. Why? Why did you say that? What happened to those that did not arrive in time, IF some did not. I feel as though you have lifted some tiny part of a story out of context, and I have no idea what your point is.
> 
> If I don't understand exactly what point you're making here, I would think it would be impossible for someone learning English.
> 
> Do you see my point?
> 
> Suppose, on the other hand, I wrote this:
> 
> "I told my students last week that it was important that they arrive on time, and those who arrived late found out why. I had no breaks, no way to make up lost time, so those who arrived a few minutes late lost a valuable part of their lesson time."
> 
> Even that may not be enough context, because I may not have made the situation clear enough (half and hour lessons that must start and end exactly on time), but at least now we have some context.
> 
> I don't believe all the precision in the universe of about verbs, tenses, etc. can make up for lack of context.
> 
> Gaer



Of course you need context, and scenarios such as the one I suggest are spontaneously concocted and exploited only for the purpose of clarification.  Let me try to add some more context, though: Say the kids who didn't arrive on time didn't hear the announcement that was made at the beginning of class.  Since it would take too long to repeat the announcement, the teacher is insisting on not taking up the time required to do that.  So she could say (addressing all students):

It was important that you arrive on time, so you could hear the announcement.

This is applicable whether the student arrived on time or not.

Does this make sense, or am I wandering into inextricable labyrinths again?


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> It doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> This makes sense to me: "I TOLD you all that it was important for you to arrive on time if you planned to catch the last train."
> 
> I would expect someone to make such a statement to make a point, that people had not listened to reasonable advice.
> 
> I'm not arguing. I'm not trying to "one-up" you. I'm simply insisting that it is logical to want to know WHY you are saying "it was important". Normally your explanations are extremly clear to me. But this one was not, at least to me.
> 
> Gaer



Okay.  It seems to me you get what I'm trying to say with regard to the situation in which the person addressed did NOT arrive on time.  The example you gave fits perfectly.  However, consider this: You did arrive on time, and we were able to make it to the theater.  However, while I was waiting for you, I didn't know whether you'd arrive on time.  I say the following: "I was waiting around at the train station, hoping you'd arrive on time, because *it was important for you to arrive on time*, so that we wouldn't miss the play.  Good thing you did, because otherwise we would have missed it." (Excuse the possible redundancy, but I'm just trying to elucidate the point.)

Do you see how this statement can be used simply to indicate that it was important to arrive on time (during the point in which said arrival was in question), whether or not that arrival ended up taking place....


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Okay. It seems to me you get what I'm trying to say with regard to the situation in which the person addressed did NOT arrive on time. The example you gave fits perfectly. However, consider this: You did arrive on time, and we were able to make it to the theater. However, while I was waiting for you, I didn't know whether you'd arrive on time. I say the following: "I was waiting around at the train station, hoping you'd arrive on time, because *it was important for you to arrive on time*, so that we wouldn't miss the play. Good thing you did, because otherwise we would have missed it." (Excuse the possible redundancy, but I'm just trying to elucidate the point.)
> 
> Do you see how this statement can be used simply to indicate that it was important to arrive on time (during the point in which said arrival was in question), whether or not that arrival ended up taking place....


Absolutely. Now your ideas are completely clear to me. As I said, I need a situation. Context. The moment I have that context, everything falls into place.

My point, which I think is valid, is that this sentence (which is now part of a clause) is terribly ambiguous until it is part of something. Perhaps that was YOUR point all along, that we don't really known anything about what happened, just that something was considered important. And think about the fact that you and I are talking about this problem as native speakers of English! 

TOUGH to explain, I think…

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Now your ideas are completely clear to me. As I said, I need a situation. Context. The moment I have that context, everything falls into place.
> 
> My point, which I think is valid, is that this sentence (which is now part of a clause) is terribly ambiguous until it is part of something. Perhaps that was YOUR point all along, that we don't really known anything about what happened, just that something was considered important. And think about the fact that you and I are talking about this problem as native speakers of English!
> 
> TOUGH to explain, I think…
> 
> Gaer



Haha.  Yes, my point was that this sentence, taken out of context, does not indicate whether the person(s) addressed arrived on time, or whether some of them did and others didn't.  That's why we need a German equivalent that is similarly free of connotations toward either possibility.  I guess German is a saner language than English because it seems that there isn't one!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Haha.  Yes, my point was that this sentence, taken out of context, does not indicate whether the person(s) addressed arrived on time, or whether some of them did and others didn't.  That's why we need a German equivalent that is similarly free of connotations toward either possibility.  I guess German is a saner language than English because it seems that there isn't one!



Well, we can't translate the idea into German, unless we have more context in English.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, we can't translate the idea into German, unless we have more context in English.



Exactly.  I suppose after over 40 posts it's come down to that simple conclusion: CONTEXT NEEDED...


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Exactly.  I suppose after over 40 posts it's come down to that simple conclusion: CONTEXT NEEDED...



Hey, and we have no context. Not even after 40 posts.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hey, and we have no context. Not even after 40 posts.



Nope - because we were trying to find one translation for a perhaps ambiguous sentence.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Haha. Yes, my point was that this sentence, taken out of context, does not indicate whether the person(s) addressed arrived on time, or whether some of them did and others didn't. That's why we need a German equivalent that is similarly free of connotations toward either possibility. I guess German is a saner language than English because it seems that there isn't one!


Oh, I just think English and German are sane and insane at different times.  

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Oh, I just think English and German are sane and insane at different times.
> 
> Gaer



Fair enough.


----------

