# debió hacer/debió haber hecho



## olcountrylawyer

Would you please be so kind as to tell me the difference (if there is one)  between _debió hacer_ and _debió haber hecho_?

Regards,

OCL


----------



## stooge1970

I believe "debió hacer" = I had to do it.
                      whereas
"debió haber hecho" = debería haber hecho = I should have done it.


----------



## Aurin

stooge1970 said:


> I believe "debió hacer" = I had to do it.
> whereas
> "debió haber hecho" = debería haber hecho = I should have done it.


It´s the third person:
He or she had to do it.
He or she had to have it done. (I´m not sure if this is correct English.)


----------



## stooge1970

Aurin said:


> It´s the third person:
> He or she had to do it.
> He or she had to have it done. (I´m not sure if this is correct English.)




Wow. I can't believe I translated it in the first person. Thanks for pointing that out! It would be "He or she had to have done it".


----------



## dakotabrett

I believe they both mean "He/She/You should have done...".


----------



## clevermizo

olcountrylawyer said:


> Would you please be so kind as to tell me the difference (if there is one)  between _debió hacer_ and _debió haber hecho_?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OCL



There's a little more force in the second as to someone being compelled to do something _to completion_. The preterite tense in *debió* kind of implies that the person went through with what they were supposed to do, but with *haber(lo) hecho*, it sounds like they were expected to have finished something. 

- Dónde están los documentos que pedí?
- Aaaaa... Juan debió haberlos traído, no sé donde los puso. 
- Bueno, búscalos!


Secondly, the compound *haber hecho* is used in the sense of a pluperfect to locate one past action in time before another past action. 

- Ella debió haber completado todas las tareas antes de que su mamá viniera a llevarla a la escuela.

To my ears the choice between *debía* and *debió* in these cases is probably mostly stylistic.


----------



## Ivy29

olcountrylawyer said:


> Would you please be so kind as to tell me the difference (if there is one) between _debió hacer_ and _debió haber hecho_?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OCL


 
The diference is *between simple past* and *present perfect*.
*Debió hacer* = It is farther past than *present perfect* = recent past and *related* with the moment of utterance.

Ivy29


----------



## clevermizo

Ivy29 said:


> The diference is *between simple past* and *present perfect*.
> *Debió hacer* = It is farther past than *present perfect* = recent past and *related* with the moment of utterance.
> 
> Ivy29



Tengo que decir que no estoy cien por ciento de acuerdo con Ud. Quiere decir que "debió haber hecho" está  *más* cerca al presente que "debió hacer"? O mejor dicho, que "debió hacer" está más lejos o más profundo en el pasado que "debió haber hecho"? "Haber hecho" no es exactamente "presente perfecto" porque no está conjugado entonces no podemos saber y puede referirse igualmente a "ha hecho" y "había hecho" y esto depende en el verbo el cual sí está conjugado y está estableciendo la temporalidad de la frase. En mi opinión (que no es sin falta ) la diferencía principal entre las dos formas es una del aspecto verbal en que la idea de compleción y terminación está más aparente en "haber hecho."


----------



## Aurin

Isn´t it that debió hacer means the present in the past and debió haber hecho means present perfect in the past?


----------



## Aurin

If we change “debió” to “debe” , the difference might be more obvious.
Debe hacer sus deberes. He has to do his homework.
Debe haber hecho sus deberes. He has to have done his homework


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> Isn´t it that debió hacer means the present in the past and debió haber hecho means present perfect in the past?



I will insist again, as in the previous post, that *haber hecho* is perfective in aspect, but is atemporal, being a non-finite form of the verb. As such, it takes its temporal position from the verb that is c-commanding it or otherwise governing it. Since debió is past tense, that makes the utterance "past perfect" or "pluperfect" at least partially in nature. I would ask you to examine what "present perfect in the past" could possibly mean.


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> If we change “debió” to “debe” , the difference might be more obvious.
> Debe hacer sus deberes. He has to do his homework.
> Debe haber hecho sus deberes. He has to have done his homework



Very good examples! *Debe hacer* does not imply that the homework is expected to be done _now_, but *debe haber hecho* does expect that the homework be already finished.


----------



## Ivy29

clevermizo said:


> Tengo que decir que no estoy cien por ciento de acuerdo con Ud. Quiere decir que "debió haber hecho" está *más* cerca al presente que "debió hacer"? O mejor dicho, que "debió hacer" está más lejos o más profundo en el pasado que "debió haber hecho"? "Haber hecho" no es exactamente "presente perfecto" porque no está conjugado entonces no podemos saber y puede referirse igualmente a "ha hecho" y "había hecho" y esto depende en el verbo el cual sí está conjugado y está estableciendo la temporalidad de la frase. En mi opinión (que no es sin falta ) la diferencía principal entre las dos formas es una del aspecto verbal en que la idea de completación y terminación está más aparente en "haber hecho."


*Es exactamente ( It is exactly what I said) lo que dije. The SIMPLE PAST is farther past than the present perfect ( RE-READ my post.)*
*In a Verbal PERIPHRASIS, the auxilairy verb is conjugated.*

*DEBIÓ is simple past + infinitive.*
*DEBIÓ haber hecho is perfect infinitive, it has the connotations of recent past as I stated in my post.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Aurin

clevermizo said:


> Very good examples! *Debe hacer* does not imply that the homework is expected to be done _now_, but *debe haber hecho* does expect that the homework be already finished.


That is what I wanted to explain before, too. I think we had the same ideas. I´m not so confident with (in/of?) English.


----------



## Aurin

Ivy29 said:


> *Es exactamente ( It is exactly what I said) lo que dije. The SIMPLE PAST is farther past than the present perfect ( RE-READ my post.)*
> *In a Verbal PERIPHRASIS, the auxilairy verb is conjugated.*
> 
> *DEBIÓ is simple past + infinitive.*
> *DEBIÓ haber hecho is perfect infinitive, it has the connotations of recent past as I stated in my post.*
> 
> *Ivy29*


I think "debió haber hecho" is simple past + perfect infinitive


----------



## clevermizo

Ivy29 said:


> *Es exactamente ( It is exactly) lo que dije. The SIMPLE PAST is farther past than the present perfect ( RE-READ my post.)*
> *In a Verbal PERIPHRASIS, the auxilairy verb is conjugated.*
> 
> *DEBIÓ is simple past + infinitive.*
> *DEBIÓ haber hecho is perfect infinitive, it has the connotations of recent past as I stated in my post.*
> 
> *Ivy29*



Cuál es exactamente lo que dijo? Lo leí bien ya cuatro veces pero parece que no está de acuerdo conmigo. Está o no está? Si no está pues entonces no estamos de acuerdo pero si está, no estoy comprendiendo algo que quería decir.


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> That is what I wanted to explain before, too. I think we had the same ideas. I´m not so confident with (in/of?) English.




Hah, I think we might all have the same ideas actually, but there may be some issue explaining ourselves. Your putting "debió" into the present with "debe" was a perfect way to show the difference between the two. Now all that has to be done is relatively move the whole thing into the past. With debió hacer there was no expectation at some point in the past that something was finished, but with debió haber hecho there is an expectation from the point of reference of the past that something in the past was already finished.


----------



## Aurin

clevermizo said:


> Hah, I think we might all have the same ideas actually, but there may be some issue explaining ourselves. Your putting "debió" into the present with "debe" was a perfect way to show the difference between the two. Now all that has to be done is relatively move the whole thing into the past. With debió hacer there was no expectation at some point in the past that something was finished, but with debió haber hecho there is an expectation from the point of reference of the past that something in the past was already finished.


Isn´t it that debió hacer means the present in the past and debió haber hecho means present perfect in the past?
Con esta frase quise decir lo mismo que puse después en los ejemplos pasándolo al presente (en vez de debió debe). Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con lo que dices.


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> Isn´t it that debió hacer means the present in the past and debió haber hecho means present perfect in the past?



No, *infinitives do not have tense*. They exist outside of time, so you cannot refer to "hacer" as present and "haber hecho" as present perfect. They take their meaning in time in relation to other verbs. "Hacer" is referred to as "the infinitive" and "Haber hecho" as the "perfect infinitive." (I'm not exactly sure about the latter term.)

*Debió hacer* is past tense because *debió* is past and *hacer *is tense-less. Past + 0 = Past 
*Debió haber hecho* is past perfect because debió is past and haber hecho is perfect but tense-less. Past + Perfect = Past Perfect

I think we all actually just have some problems with precision in terminology.


----------



## Aurin

clevermizo said:


> No, *infinitives do not have tense*. They exist outside of time, so you cannot refer to "hacer" as present and "haber hecho" as present perfect. They take their meaning in time in relation to other verbs. "Hacer" is referred to as "the infinitive" and "Haber hecho" as the "perfect infinitive." (I'm not exactly sure about the latter term.)
> 
> *Debió hacer* is past tense because *debió* is past and *hacer *is tense-less. Past + 0 = Past
> *Debió haber hecho* is past perfect because debió is past and haber hecho is perfect but tense-less. Past + Perfect = Past Perfect
> 
> I think we all actually just have some problems with precision in terminology.


*Debió haber hecho* is past perfect because debió is past and haber hecho is perfect but tense-less

I don´t understand: You say that it is perfect (what is a tense) and at the same time tense-less?


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> *Debió haber hecho* is past perfect because debió is past and haber hecho is perfect but tense-less
> 
> I don´t understand: You say that it is perfect (what is a tense) and at the same time tense-less?



Perfect is not tense. Perfect is aspect. Es decir, el término "perfecto" no se refiere a un *tiempo* verbal sino a un *aspecto *verbal. He encontrado algo que le puede ayudar aquí en alemán.

El concepto del "perfecto" no se limite a cualquier tiempo verbal (pasado, presente, ni futuro) y por eso tenemos los términos "plúscuam perfecto" "presente perfecto" y aún "futuro perfecto." El problema que enfrenta a los estudiantes es desgraciadamente que nos referimos al pasado *im*perfecto solamente con el nombre "imperfecto," pero en realidad el término "imperfecto" también es como el término perfecto, o al menos debe ser así. A veces para explicarlo de una manera más precisa en la lingüística podemos usar los términos "perfectivo" e "imperfectivo" que no van usándose de otras maneras en los términos comunes.


----------



## Aurin

I´m more confused.
In English Wikipedia:
In linguistics, a *non-finite verb* (or a *verbal*) is a verb form that is not limited by a subject; and more generally, it is not fully inflected by categories that are marked inflectionally in language, such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender, and person
In German Wikipedia:
Since in this forum German isn´t allowed I´ll say it in English: There are infinitives in different tenses (to have seen).
Apart from the terms how would you translate both expressions to English?


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> I´m more confused.
> In English Wikipedia:
> In linguistics, a *non-finite verb* (or a *verbal*) is a verb form that is not limited by a subject; and more generally, it is not fully inflected by categories that are marked inflectionally in language, such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender, and person
> In German Wikipedia:
> Since in this forum German isn´t allowed I´ll say it in English: There are infinitives in different tenses (to have seen).
> Apart from the terms how would you translate both expressions to English?



Is "to have seen" really a different tense? I would say that the difference between "to see" and "to have seen" is one of aspect again. "I want to have seen his face before I decide to hire him" is a possible sentence in English and does not refer to the past, but rather, the future. "To have seen" is not past tense a priori. It refers to the completed act of seeing something, which can occur across the time axis.

The infinitives in Spanish are non-finite verbal forms, as is described. The wikipedia entry does not say the non-finite form must be *free* *from every single one of those categories*, but rather that it is not fully inflected as are other verb forms in the language. The infinitive is *not* inflected in Spanish for person, number, gender nor tense, but compound infinitives can be created to show aspectual constrasts.

If we are going to quote wikipedia, I refer you to this Spanish article on the infinitive:

*"El infinitivo designa una forma verbal en la que que no se distingue la persona, el número ni el tiempo"

*Elsewhere in the article it claims that an infinitive does not demonstrate aspect, but I would strongly disagree with this claim. This is because, *haber hecho*, in my opinion entirely represents a perfective infinitive. From the point of view of the wikipedia entry, only the "haber" part is the infinitive. Again, I disagree with this assertion.


----------



## Aurin

Quote:
"I want to have seen his face before I decide to hire him" is a possible sentence in English and does not refer to the past, but rather, the future." 
I interpret it as a past situation ( have seen his face) from the point of view of the future (hire him).


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> Quote:
> "I want to have seen his face before I decide to hire him" is a possible sentence in English and does not refer to the past, but rather, the future."
> I interpret it as a past situation ( have seen his face) from the point of view of the future (hire him).



That interpretation does not change the temporality of the entire utterance as being future. Of course you can interpret it this way, and in a sense most perfective utterances can lend themselves to this interpretation. 

In my opinion, that does not change the fact that the primary distinction between "to see" and "to have seen" is one of aspect. 

As Spanish terminology is concerned, the construction "haber hecho" is not properly called "presente perfecto." It is, and I must correct an earlier post, properly called the "infinitivo compuesto." The construction "ha hecho" *is* called "presente perfecto." Interpretations aside, this is the standard terminology

I think that the distinction between aspect and tense is a little beyond the scope of this thread. I encourage you to read more about it. In Indo-European linguistics, the two in finite verb forms are usually conflated, while in infinitives they are not. In Slavic languages, the two are little more noticeably separate.

Edit: Also, you may be free to call "debió haber hecho" "present perfect in the past" if you want - but this is not normal terminology. And to be honest, a "present perfect relative to the past" is basically what the past perfect/plurperfect is .


----------



## Aurin

What I really wanted was and is to make clearer the difference between both and I chose this words to explain it. It seems interesting to get more information about the aspects. Now I´m too tired.
But I´d like to know how you translate both expressions to English being you the expert as a bi-lingual speaker.


----------



## clevermizo

Aurin said:


> What I really wanted was and is to make clearer the difference between both and I chose this words to explain it. It seems interesting to get more information about the aspects. Now I´m too tired.
> But I´d like to know how you translate both expressions to English being you the expert as a bi-lingual speaker.



The difference between "él lo debió hacer" and "él debió haberlo hecho" without more context is actually hard for me to translate. Like I said in my first response, the meaning behind the second one is that there is definitely an expectation that so-and-so has finished something or they were supposed to start and finish something completely. 

I perhaps would translate the first as "*He was supposed to do X*" and the second as "*He was supposed to already have done X...*" I use the word *already* in English because even though it isn't there in Spanish, I feel like it makes the meaning a little more clearer in English, because of how we actually speak. 

Note, that the choice of *debió  *to  *debía* here implies to me, at least, that the speaker expects that by this point in time so-and-so has started or started-and-finished what it is he was supposed to do. With *debía* I feel like it implies that he was supposed to do something, but he never did it.

I may be bilingual but I'm hardly an expert. I do know a fair amount of linguistics theory though, which certainly helps. If you want me to talk more about what I think the contrasts in Spanish between aspect and tense are, you should start a new thread about it, and I'll be happy to give it some thought.


----------



## Ivy29

Aurin said:


> I´m more confused.
> In English Wikipedia:
> In linguistics, a *non-finite verb* (or a *verbal*) is a verb form that is not limited by a subject; and more generally, it is not fully inflected by categories that are marked inflectionally in language, such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender, and person
> In German Wikipedia:
> Since in this forum German isn´t allowed I´ll say it in English: There are infinitives in different tenses (to have seen).
> Apart from the terms how would you translate both expressions to English?


 
One thing is *verbal periphrasis* ( auxiliary verb inflected)+infinitive, and another quite different the non-finite verbal = INFINITIVE.
Debió haber hecho ( aspect perfective of the infinitive)
Debió hacer ( simple past of the modal debió+simple infinitive).

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

clevermizo said:


> The difference between "él lo debió hacer" and "él debió haberlo hecho" without more context is actually hard for me to translate. Like I said in my first response, the meaning behind the second one is that there is definitely an expectation that so-and-so has finished something or they were supposed to start and finish something completely.
> 
> I perhaps would translate the first as "*He was supposed to do X*" and the second as "*He was supposed to already have done X...*" I use the word *already* in English because even though it isn't there in Spanish, I feel like it makes the meaning a little more clearer in English, because of how we actually speak.
> 
> According to 'Gramática descriptive de la lengua Español tomo 2, pág,3348, numeral 51.3.1.1
> 
> <<The modal DEBER in the verbal periphrasis is compatible with compound or perfect infiitive
> *1- Only when 'deber' is not used into the present.*
> *El debió haberlo hecho ( 'not' el debe haberlo hecho=wrong).*
> *2- the modal 'deber' cannot appear in a subordinate sentence neither preceded by 'ir a', wrong : me gustaría deber ayudaros; voy a ( ir a) deber ayudaros.*
> *3- If the auxiliary DEBER in modal periphrasis and the timing is simple past, imperfect preterite ( indicative and subjunctive = debía/debiera) and simple conditional = debería.*
> *él debía, debiera, debió, debería haberlo hecho. ( implies an OBLIGATION of the subject, plus a desiderative aspect of the speaker. ( semantically all these timings forms are neutralized) in other words they mean the same. The semantic value is a desire upon a 'fact necessity' that didn't occur.*
> *4- According to this grammar, there is no difference between :*
> *debió meterlo a la cárcel, debió/debía haberlo metido a la cárcel. ( timing neutralization).*
> *5- When 'DEBER' appears in Imperfect preterite ( indicative or subjunctive or in simple conditional + simple infinitive ( the semantic meanings are one of OBLIGATION of the subject and 'desire' of the speaker referred to facts not done but possible into the future.*
> *6- These forms : debían/debieran/deberían+simple infinitive are used as courtesy formulas, instead of the more direct forms = debes/debías/deberías/debieras trabajar.*
> *in English an obligation into the past :*
> *should/ought to +have+past participle.*
> *he should have done it but he didn't. ( el debió hacerlo pero no lo hizo (obligation of the subject that didn't occur)*
> *Expectation of the speaker : you should/ought to have finished your home work by the end of the week.*
> *For less strong obligation you can use (be) supposed to, instead of should and ought to.*
> 
> *SO . he should have done/he ought to have done = debió hacer or debió haber hecho. According to this source.*
> 
> *Ivy29*


----------



## Aurin

clevermizo said:


> The difference between "él lo debió hacer" and "él debió haberlo hecho" without more context is actually hard for me to translate. Like I said in my first response, the meaning behind the second one is that there is definitely an expectation that so-and-so has finished something or they were supposed to start and finish something completely.
> 
> I perhaps would translate the first as "*He was supposed to do X*" and the second as "*He was supposed to already have done X...*" I use the word *already* in English because even though it isn't there in Spanish, I feel like it makes the meaning a little more clearer in English, because of how we actually speak.
> 
> Note, that the choice of *debió *to *debía* here implies to me, at least, that the speaker expects that by this point in time so-and-so has started or started-and-finished what it is he was supposed to do. With *debía* I feel like it implies that he was supposed to do something, but he never did it.
> 
> I may be bilingual but I'm hardly an expert. I do know a fair amount of linguistics theory though, which certainly helps. If you want me to talk more about what I think the contrasts in Spanish between aspect and tense are, you should start a new thread about it, and I'll be happy to give it some thought.




There is another thread about tenses and aspects.


----------



## Ivy29

Aurin said:


> [/color]
> 
> There is another thread about tenses and aspects.


 
<<Note, that the choice of *debió *to *debía* here implies to me, at least, that the speaker expects that by this point in time so-and-so has started or started-and-finished what it is he was supposed to do. With *debía* I feel like it implies that he was supposed to do something, but he never did it.

*Debió y debía hacer* o *debió haber hecho o debía haber hecho*, are semantically the same. It means the same.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

clevermizo said:


> I perhaps would translate the first as "*He was supposed to do X*" and the second as "*He was supposed to already have done X...*" I use the word *already* in English because even though it isn't there in Spanish, I feel like it makes the meaning a little more clearer in English, because of how we actually speak.



I like your analysis, Clevermizo. Having done some extensive work, during my Master's, on the topic of DEBER.. I too came up with sort of a chart that attempted to equate every Spanish conjugation possibility with an English alternative. Even finding and English alternative for the formation HABER + DEBIDO + INFINITIVE (to have been obliged to + inf).. But as I talked with many a native who were fully bilingual in English and Spanish they all pretty much told me that there's no semantic difference between the two we've been discussing in this thread. I know you got that feedback from Ivy29 and others. I too also found BE SUPPOSED TO and TO NEED TO to work nicely in English. The trick with DEBER is that DEBER is in an INWARD PERSONAL SENSE of DUTY or OBLIGATION. There's no REAL OBLIGATION from an outside force with DEBER -- outside force obligation is TENER QUE.  Now in English we can use NEED TO for real obligation or inward obligation and that's why several of my bilingual friends weren't thrilled with NEED TO as a choice. Though is really can show a difference between the two we've studied.

DEBIÓ HACER = He NEEDED TO DO (at some point in the past)
DEBIÓ HABER HECHO = He SHOULD HAVE DONE

My first translation there captures your point about SUPPOSED TO DO but NEVER DID. Where the 2nd one gives you the sense that the OPPORTUNITY to do is now over in the present. 

It also complicates matters that SHOULD is a DEFECTIVE modal in English. There is no PAST of it -- therefore we have to use SHOULD HAVE + PP to throw it into the past. 

My $0.02 
Grant


----------



## olcountrylawyer

Your observations are most interesting, sir. Might I ask what your opinion is of the comments made by the gentleman who goes by the monicker 'Ivy29'?


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I like your analysis, Clevermizo. Having done some extensive work, during my Master's, on the topic of DEBER.. I too came up with sort of a chart that attempted to equate every Spanish conjugation possibility with an English alternative. Even finding and English alternative for the formation HABER + DEBIDO + INFINITIVE (to have been obliged to + inf).. But as I talked with many a native who were fully bilingual in English and Spanish they all pretty much told me that there's no semantic difference between the two we've been discussing in this thread. I know you got that feedback from Ivy29 and others. I too also found BE SUPPOSED TO and TO NEED TO to work nicely in English. The trick with DEBER is that DEBER is in an INWARD PERSONAL SENSE of DUTY or OBLIGATION. There's no REAL OBLIGATION from an outside force with DEBER -- outside force obligation is TENER QUE. Now in English we can use NEED TO for real obligation or inward obligation and that's why several of my bilingual friends weren't thrilled with NEED TO as a choice. Though is really can show a difference between the two we've studied.
> 
> DEBIÓ HACER = He NEEDED TO DO (at some point in the past)
> DEBIÓ HABER HECHO = He SHOULD HAVE DONE
> 
> My first translation there captures your point about SUPPOSED TO DO but NEVER DID. Where the 2nd one gives you the sense that the OPPORTUNITY to do is now over in the present.
> 
> It also complicates matters that SHOULD is a DEFECTIVE modal in English. There is no PAST of it -- therefore we have to use SHOULD HAVE + PP to throw it into the past.
> 
> My $0.02
> Grant


 

<<DEBIÓ HACER = He NEEDED TO DO (at some point in the past) (*INCORRECT*)
DEBIÓ HABER HECHO = He SHOULD HAVE DONE.

*The action did not occur or happen*. *He needed to do sth*, the implication is that the action did occur or happen.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> READ this from the source i quoted.
> 
> According to 'Gramática descriptive de la lengua Española tomo 2, pág,3348, numeral 51.3.1.1


 
Hello my old friend. I read it the first time you posted it. I agree they are semantically identical in Spanish. For the most part. Your inferences about English, as you know, I summarily dismiss because I have found your input on the English side of things to be faulty. I won't fight with you here, Ivy29. Give your input and I will give mine. The good people of this forum can decide for themselves what is the most suitable for their needs.

Best regards,
Grant



Ivy29 said:


> *He needed to do sth*, the implication is that the action did occur or happen.
> 
> Ivy29


 
This is an incorrect assertion according to American Heritage English Grammar. I'll leave it at that. 

TO NEED TO can transmit both:
•INTERNAL DUTY (be obliged to/should/ought to) -or- 
•EXTERNAL OBLIGATION (have to) depending on the context.
It is germane when talking about DEBER. And it can refer, in the past to unfulfilled actions or fulfilled ones.



Ivy29 said:


> *SO he should have done/he ought to have done = debió hacer or debió haber hecho. According to this source.*
> 
> *Ivy29*


 
*I concur. As a native, do you concur with this source?*

*Grant*


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> *I concur. As a native, do you concur with this source?*
> 
> *Grant*


 
Of course, these 3 volumes  (Nebrija-Bello)are the most extensive grammar in the Spanish world.

Ivy29


----------



## hfpardue

The translation of debió hacer can be "must have done" or "should have done" depending on the country and the context. There is no set rule that is true for every Spanish-speaking country. I have only heard of debió haber hecho as translating as "should have done".


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> _<<Ivy29: Of course, these 3 volumes (Nebrija-Bello)are the most extensive grammar in the Spanish world.>>_
> 
> I was wondering, because at other times on other forums you've said that DEBIÓ HACER and DEBIÓ HABER HECHO were semantically *different*. Now you say they are not as a result of reading these volumes. I have ordered those volumes too. I hear they're fantastic.
> 
> _<<Ivy29: __*THE PROBLEM is not English*, the problem is that you *DO NOT**It is a matter of KNOWLEDGE*_
> _*NEEDED to do something*= _understand the nuances of my language. _*it means that the action did occur, here or elsewhere in English or in Spanish.*__>>_
> 
> I have no argument with the Spanish as I've said that I agree with your assessment on this syntax. But you are wrong about the English. TO NEED TO (modal verb) in the past can refer to actions that did eventually happen or didn't happen. That's a fact and supported by many grammar sources including the American Heritage New English Grammar.
> 
> John needed to show up early, but he woke up late again. (didn't happen) CORRECT
> John needed to get to school on time and he got there with 2 minutes to spare. (did happen) CORRECT
> 
> *Well, we have a different perspective with NEED, as modal the past is referred with the PERFECT INFINITIVE= Modal+have +pp. as any other MODAL. The modal NEED is mostly used as a negative modal.*
> *Need I fill in this form? = Modal (question)*
> *You needn't fill this form= Modal ( negative)*
> *You needn't have done that ( past) = modal. ( negative past) action did happen.*
> *I wonder if I need to fill in this form = Modal. Indirect question.*
> *According to Michael Swan, page 351, numeral 2, quoting :*
> *<<<Modal forms of need refer to immediate necessity. They are often used to ask for or give permission- usually permission NOT TO DO something. Modal forms are not used to talk about habitual, general necessity.>>>>*
> *Your construction is not a MODAL one , it is a regular form of the verb to NEED, not a modal form.*
> 
> *Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

<<Ivy 29: *Your construction is not a MODAL one , it is a regular form of the verb to NEED, not a modal form.>>

**Incorrect. *TO NEED TO -- is ALWAYS 'modal'. Any time one conjugated verb is followed by an INFINITIVE or BARE INFINITIVE it is functioning modally. 

TRY TO
NEED(S) TO 
WANT TO
SHOULD
HAVE TO
HAD BETTER
--these are used modally.

"He NEEDS an OPERATION" --- non modal use of NEED --transitive verb.


----------



## Forero

Aurin said:


> He or she had to have it done. (I´m not sure if this is correct English.)


Good English, but with a different meaning entirely.  This means that he/she had to get someone else to do it.

The second sentence translates as "He/She had to have done it."


----------



## Forero

Could someone please post the original Spanish version of "Gramática descriptive de la lengua Español tomo 2, pág,3348, numeral 51.3.1.1"?  I am having difficulty making sense out of the English translation.

To me there appear to be at least 4 _need_ verbs in English:

1. The regular verb "to need" used with a direct object (to have need of),
2. The regular verb "to need" used intransitively (to be in need),
3. The regular verb "to need" followed by the infinitive (to have a need [to]),
4. The defective invariate verb "need" followed by the bare infinitive (am/is/are required to, have/has to).

Though 3 and 4 can both be called "modal", I would say that a "proper" modal is one like 4 (as a "proper" noun is an actual name, though common nouns also "name" in some sense).

1. He needs an operation.
2. He needs for nothing.
3. He needs to have an operation.
4. He needn't have suffered so long without the operation.


----------



## hfpardue

Ivy29 said:


> *THE PROBLEM is not English*, the problem is that you *DO NOT* understand the nuances of my language. *It is a matter of KNOWLEDGE*
> *NEEDED to do something*= *it means that the action did occur, here or elsewhere in English or in Spanish.*
> *IN SPANISH : debió hacer or debió haberlo hecho, conveys that the action should happened into the past but didn't occur or happen. This is the issue ( Your Spanish is NOT correct).*
> *Hoping you are NOT confusing the verb NEED as a modal and to need as a regular verb.*
> 
> *Ivy29*



Si vamos a hablar de gramática, más vale que corrijas tu propia gramática.  
*"IN SPANISH : debió hacer or debió haberlo hecho, conveys that the action should happened into the past but didn't occur or happen."

*Primero, "debió hacer" no siempre significa que la acción no pasara.  Hay que reconocer que todo depende del país.  Por ejemplo, en Chile "debí leer mucho" y "debí haber leído mucho" pueden ser diferentes. Se puede decir "Debí leer mucho" y significa "Tuve que leer mucho."  Leíste mucho y ahora has terminado, así que la acción ya pasó.  Debí haber leído significa que yo debería haber leído, pero no lo hice.  En cuanto a tu inglés, no puedes decir "should happened".  Necesitas decir "should *have *happened". Si quieres ser sumamente estricto, deberías decir "...conveys an action that should have happened."  Decir "conveys that the action should have happened _into the past_" es redundante. "Should have" siempre se refiere al pasado.  También, no puedes convey an action into something.  Quizás querías decir "in the past".  Quedaría mejor así.
*
"Hoping you are NOT confusing the verb NEED as a modal and to need as a regular verb."
*
Esta frase suena mal ya que estás empezándola con "hoping".  Puedes decir "I hope" y no tendrás problemas.  Disculpa que haya sido muy exigente, pero estamos aquí para aprender.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> 1. He needs an operation.
> 2. He needs for nothing.
> 3. He needs to have an operation.
> 4. He needn't have suffered so long without the operation.



I agree generally with what you say, Forero.. But your example #3 has TO HAVE AN OPERATION as a VERB CLAUSE acting as a DIRECT OBJECT. It's important to note the function of the whole clause. NEEDN'T is for sure a modal usage. But also 'properly' modal is when NEED TO is the modal and the bare infinitive follows. "I need to go." TO GO there is not a direct object of the regular verb NEED. That's where Ivy29 is confused. NEED TO and NEED (something) are different verbs and have different functions. Your number 3 highlights how tricky it is to properly parse these sentences and what's a true infinitive or bare infinitive.

I need to have an operation. TO HAVE is a true infinitive there
I need to go. GO is a bare infinitive there following the modal NEED TO.

Another way to help distinguish the difference is to remember that the regular verb NEED refers to an immediate necessity as Mark Swan's grammar book stated that Ivy29 quoted. NEED TO, the modal, is referring to a need to ACT SOME WAY at some point. --but not necessarily immediately. NEED TO also is ONLY being used MODALLY when it conveys OBLIGATION. In "I need to have an operation" there is no obligation being expressed. NEED TO, for obligation, uses NEED TO as a modal verb + the bare infinitive to express obligation on the order of HAVE TO/SHOULD, etc.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> <<Ivy 29: *Your construction is not a MODAL one , it is a regular form of the verb to NEED, not a modal form.>>**Incorrect. *TO NEED TO -- is ALWAYS 'modal'. Any time one conjugated verb is followed by an INFINITIVE or BARE INFINITIVE it is functioning modally.
> 
> TRY TO
> NEED(S) TO
> WANT TO
> SHOULD
> HAVE TO
> HAD BETTER
> --these are used modally.
> 
> "He NEEDS an OPERATION" --- non modal use of NEED --transitive verb.


 
You are confusing the issue, let me remind my statment. NEEDED to is NOT a modal. ( the past tense of a modal is modal+have+pp). That was the issue. READ carefully.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> You are confusing the issue, let me remind my statment. NEEDED to is NOT a modal. ( the past tense of a modal is modal+have+pp). That was the issue. READ carefully.
> 
> Ivy29



I always read carefully. What you are saying is generally true for most common modals -- but not always true. The issue is -- Only DEFECTIVE modal verbs in the past require the formation MODAL + HAVE + PP. 
DEFECTIVE MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS:
CAN/COULD
SHOULD
MAY
MIGHT
OUGHT TO
NEEDN'T/MUSTN'T
NON DEFECTIVE MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS:
TRY TO
NEED TO
WANT TO
HAVE TO
HAVE/HAS GOT TO
BE ABLE TO, etc.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I always read carefully. What you are saying is generally true for most common modals -- but not always true. The issue is -- Only DEFECTIVE modal verbs in the past require the formation MODAL + HAVE + PP.
> DEFECTIVE MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS:
> CAN/COULD
> SHOULD
> MAY
> MIGHT
> OUGHT TO
> NON DEFECTIVE MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS:
> TRY TO
> NEED TO
> WANT TO


 

STRANGE that NONE of my books ( GRAMMAR) say what you write above. Must of its usage is as NEGATIVE needn't and questions with IF. (AZAR's, practical English usage, page 357, numeral 2, OXFORD GUIDE to English, M. Swan and Catherine Walter, How English works, grammar) try is no listed as modal neither want to). If you have a source that states that want to, need to, and try are modals, write it down to review them).
*AZAR, similar expressions, to modal auxiliaries are :*
Be able to
Be going to
Be supposed to
Be to
Have to
Have got to
Used to.
Be allowed to

*And needn't, musn't, don't have to. *

*PAST :*

*for NEEDN't, if you use the regular past ( he didn't need to stand) mean it was not necessary because there were seats.*
*Needn't have worried, something you did but now you know it wasn't necessary ( Oxford practice grammar unit 48)*

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> STRANGE that NONE of my books ( GRAMMAR) say what you write above. Must of its usage is as NEGATIVE needn't and questions with IF. (AZAR's, practical English usage, page 357, numeral 2, OXFORD GUIDE to English, M. Swan and Catherine Walter, How English works, grammar) try is no listed as modal neither want to). If you have a source that states that want to, need to, and try are modals, write it down to review them).
> *AZAR, similar expressions, to modal auxiliaries are :*
> Be able to
> Be going to
> Be supposed to
> Be to
> Have to
> Have got to
> Used to.
> Be allowed to
> 
> *And needn't, musn't, don't have to. *
> 
> *PAST :*
> 
> *for NEEDN't, if you use the regular past ( he didn't need to stand) mean it was not necessary because there were seats.*
> *Needn't have worried, something you did but now you know it wasn't necessary ( Oxford practice grammar unit 48)*
> 
> Ivy29



Yes, yes. I believe we are close to agreement here. I agree with Betty Azar's assessment that they can be called SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS TO MODAL AUXILIARIES. And you're right in your expanded list. NEEDN'T and MUSTN'T (though not much used anymore) are all 'common "real" modals' but HAVE TO, NEED TO, TRY TO, WANT TO (and their negatives) "ALL" function the SAME as the 'real' MODAL verbs syntactically. That's the ONLY part you seem to not be INFERRING from what you're reading in the grammar books. In FUNCTION, the "similar expressions to MODAL auxiliaries", to use Azar's words, work the same way as 'real' modals. They take a BARE infinitive -- but they AREN'T "defective" in the past tense as the 'real' modals are and therefore *do NOT need MODAL + HAVE + PP to be expressed in the past.* 

The only thing about what you were saying that I was correcting was your assertion that I was using the TRANSITIVE VERB "TO NEED" in my use of NEEDED TO as a possible translation for DEBIÓ/DEBÍA -- that is an incorrect statement. I was using the "MODAL-like expression" {Azar}, NEED TO, in the past -- which is VERY different than NEEDED + DirObj (the transitive verb}

*He needed a drink of water.* (Transitive TO NEED + DIRECT COMPLEMENT - noun) -- _Él necesitaba una..._

*He needed to get an operation*. (Transitive TO NEED + DIRECT COMPLEMENT - verb phrase with an infinitive) _Él necesitaba una operación.
_ 
*He needed to go to the principal's office.* (Modal-like auxiliary TO NEED TO + bare inf) -- THIS IS NOT expressing IMMEDIATE NECESSITY but rather OBLIGATION. --_Él tenía que/debió ir a la oficina.._..etc..

Sí notas la diferencia. ¿no?

Coincido contigo en lo de 'similar expressions functioning like modals' no ser EXACTAMENTE igual "gramaticalmente" que los MODALES "reales" -- pero sí funcionan sintáctimente igual en inglés. En inglés tenemos MÁS expresiones modales que en español. ¿No te parece?

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes, yes. I believe we are close to agreement here. I agree with Betty Azar's assessment that they can be called SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS TO MODAL AUXILIARIES. And you're right in your expanded list. NEEDN'T and MUSTN'T (though not much used anymore) are all 'common "real" modals' but HAVE TO, NEED TO, TRY TO, WANT TO (and their negatives) "ALL" function the SAME as the 'real' MODAL verbs syntactically. That's the ONLY part you seem to not be INFERRING from what you're reading in the grammar books. In FUNCTION, the "similar expressions to MODAL auxiliaries", to use Azar's words, work the same way as 'real' modals. They take a BARE infinitive -- but they AREN'T "defective" in the past tense as the 'real' modals are and therefore *do NOT need MODAL + HAVE + PP to be expressed in the past.*
> 
> The only thing about what you were saying that I was correcting was your assertion that I was using the TRANSITIVE VERB "TO NEED" in my use of NEEDED TO as a possible translation for DEBIÓ/DEBÍA -- that is an incorrect statement. I was using the "MODAL-like expression" {Azar}, NEED TO, in the past -- which is VERY different than NEEDED + DirObj (the transitive verb}
> 
> *He needed a drink of water.* (Transitive TO NEED + DIRECT COMPLEMENT - noun) -- _Él necesitaba una..._
> 
> *He needed to get an operation*. (Transitive TO NEED + DIRECT COMPLEMENT - verb phrase with an infinitive) _Él necesitaba una operación._
> 
> *He needed to go to the principal's office.* (Modal-like auxiliary TO NEED TO + bare inf) -- THIS IS NOT expressing IMMEDIATE NECESSITY but rather OBLIGATION. --_Él tenía que/debió ir a la oficina.._..etc..
> 
> Sí notas la diferencia. ¿no?
> 
> Coincido contigo en lo de 'similar expressions functioning like modals' no ser ( *SON*) EXACTAMENTE igual*es*"gramaticalmente" que (*a*) los MODALES "reales" -- pero sí funcionan sintáctimente igual en inglés. En inglés tenemos MÁS expresiones modales que en español. ¿No te parece?
> 
> Un saludo,
> Grant


 
*NEED to assume the role of a modal should follow the MODAL RULES*. no (s) in the third person, the auxiliary 'DO' is no used as MODAL and the past is more common as modal as have+pp.
*You needn't have done that ( modal)*
*You don't need to do that ( regular usage).*
*Need she fill in that form? ( modal).*

*WANT TO, TRY TO are not modals* according to all my books. ( British and American ones.)  NEED only if acts as MODAL ( NEGATIVE and no(s) or auxiliary (DO).

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *NEED to assume the role of a modal should follow the MODAL RULES*. no (s) in the third person, the auxiliary 'DO' is no used as MODAL and the past is more common as modal as have+pp.
> *You needn't have done that ( modal)*
> *You don't need to do that ( regular usage).*
> *Need she fill in that form? ( modal).*
> 
> *WANT TO, TRY TO are not modals* according to all my books. ( British and American ones.)  NEED only if acts as MODAL ( NEGATIVE and no(s) or auxiliary (DO).
> 
> Ivy29



I won't fight with you, old friend. I think one of the things you've never really comprehended is that truth that NOT "ALL" there is to know about grammar is contained in any one book -- nor are ALL possibilities exhausted. In books you are given EXAMPLES of the phrases that are being studied but you are not given ALL of them. You assume that because TRY TO and WANT TO are not listed -- that they are NOT included. That is a faulty conclusion. What you should focus on is the definition of MODAL and then apply that definition against the syntax being studied. Please explain for me how HAVE TO (on Azar's list of modal expressions) and WANT TO are distinctively different grammatically. You will see they are not.

Azar's list proves my point about NEEDED TO. That was the only point I was making strong. TO NEED TO is a modal-type expression which functions the same as a MODAL syntactically. That is undeniable. But the issue isn't WANT TO or TRY TO. Let's stay focussed like a lazar beam. On this forum -- they require focus. So no rabbit trails.

You are confusing TO NEED + VERB PHRASE as a DIRECT COMPLIMENT (I need to go in out of the rain-necessity, not obligation) with MODAL "NEED TO" + INF= obligation (I need to get my work to him now). They are very different. Surely you can see the difference -- right?


----------



## Ivy29

hfpardue said:


> Si vamos a hablar de gramática, más vale que corrijas tu propia gramática.
> *"IN SPANISH : debió hacer or debió haberlo hecho, conveys that the action should happened into the past but didn't occur or happen."*Primero, "debió hacer" no siempre significa que la acción no pasara. Hay que reconocer que todo depende del país. Por ejemplo, en Chile "debí leer mucho" y "debí haber leído mucho" pueden ser diferentes. Se puede decir "Debí leer mucho" y significa "Tuve que leer mucho." Leíste mucho y ahora has terminado, así que la acción ya pasó. Debí haber leído significa que yo debería haber leído, pero no lo hice. En cuanto a tu inglés, no puedes decir "should happened". Necesitas decir "should *have *happened". Si quieres ser sumamente estricto, deberías decir "...conveys an action that should have happened." Decir "conveys that the action should have happened _into the past_" es redundante. "Should have" siempre se refiere al pasado. También, no puedes convey an action into something. Quizás querías decir "in the past". Quedaría mejor así.
> 
> *"Hoping you are NOT confusing the verb NEED as a modal and to need as a regular verb."*
> 
> Esta frase suena mal ya que estás empezándola con "hoping". Puedes decir "I hope" y no tendrás problemas. Disculpa que haya sido muy exigente, pero estamos aquí para aprender.


 
*En español es correcta mi afirmación. En Inglés puedes tener razón.*
*Se puede decir My hoping that you are...???*

Gracias
Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I won't fight with you, old friend. I think one of the things you've never really comprehended is that truth that NOT "ALL" there is to know about grammar is contained in any one book -- nor are ALL possibilities exhausted. In books you are given EXAMPLES of the phrases that are being studied but you are not given ALL of them. You assume that because TRY TO and WANT TO are not listed -- that they are NOT included. That is a faulty conclusion. What you should focus on is the definition of MODAL and then apply that definition against the syntax being studied. Please explain for me how HAVE TO (on Azar's list of modal expressions) and WANT TO are distinctively different grammatically. You will see they are not.
> 
> Azar's list proves my point about NEEDED TO. That was the only point I was making strong. TO NEED TO is a modal-type expression which functions the same as a MODAL syntactically. That is undeniable. But the issue isn't WANT TO or TRY TO. Let's stay focussed like a lazar beam. On this forum -- they require focus. So no rabbit trails.
> 
> You are confusing TO NEED + VERB PHRASE as a DIRECT COMPLIMENT (I need to go in out of the rain-necessity, not obligation) with MODAL "NEED TO" + INF= obligation (I need to get my work to him now). They are very different. Surely you can see the difference -- right?


 
*You have not answered my question. If you are so SURE why not give me a SOURCE where TRY TO, WANT to are modals ???*
*Strange that ALL my BOOKS do not list want to or try to.*

*Many verbs in English are followed by to and others by a gerund-ING. Besides this NEEDN'T to, is the one listed in Azar's, and Michael Swan with IF.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Forero

Forero said:


> Could someone please post the original Spanish version of "Gramática descriptive de la lengua Español tomo 2, pág,3348, numeral 51.3.1.1"?  I am having difficulty making sense out of the English translation.


I have not been able to gain access to the Spanish grammar book two of you know so well.  As I said before, I am not able to get the information I need from an English translation and would like to see what the original actually says.

I would also like to see some applicable comments about usage in different countries.


Forero said:


> 3. He needs to have an operation.
> 4. He needn't have suffered so long without the operation.





NewdestinyX said:


> I agree generally with what you say, Forero.. But your example #3 has TO HAVE AN OPERATION as a VERB CLAUSE acting as a DIRECT OBJECT. It's important to note the function of the whole clause. NEEDN'T is for sure a modal usage. But also 'properly' modal is when NEED TO is the modal and the bare infinitive follows. "I need to go." TO GO there is not a direct object of the regular verb NEED. That's where Ivy29 is confused. NEED TO and NEED (something) are different verbs and have different functions. Your number 3 highlights how tricky it is to properly parse these sentences and what's a true infinitive or bare infinitive.
> 
> I need to have an operation. TO HAVE is a true infinitive there
> I need to go. GO is a bare infinitive there following the modal NEED TO.
> 
> Another way to help distinguish the difference is to remember that the regular verb NEED refers to an immediate necessity as Mark Swan's grammar book stated that Ivy29 quoted. NEED TO, the modal, is referring to a need to ACT SOME WAY at some point. --but not necessarily immediately. NEED TO also is ONLY being used MODALLY when it conveys OBLIGATION. In "I need to have an operation" there is no obligation being expressed. NEED TO, for obligation, uses NEED TO as a modal verb + the bare infinitive to express obligation on the order of HAVE TO/SHOULD, etc.
> 
> Grant


Thank you for pointing out the difference between _need_ as a transitive verb and _need_ used modally.  

However, I don't think how soon I need to go or to have an operation is at all relevant.  Nor do I think that "I need to go" implies obligation on the order of "I have to go" or "I should go".  I see it as reflecting internal need.  What does it for me is not the time factor or the similarity of meaning between modal _need to_ and other modals but the grammatical meaning of the bare infinitive, which to me defines modality.  With a modal, the infinitive acts neither as a direct object nor as an adverbial phrase (of purpose or whatever) but as a "modal complement" if you will.


NewdestinyX said:


> Azar's list proves my point about NEEDED TO. That was the only point I was making strong. TO NEED TO is a modal-type expression which functions the same as a MODAL syntactically. That is undeniable. But the issue isn't WANT TO or TRY TO. Let's stay focussed like a lazar beam. On this forum -- they require focus. So no rabbit trails.


I believe the word you meant was _semantically_, or perhaps _functionally_, rather than _syntactically_.  _Need to_ and what I call "proper" modals do not fit all the same syntactic models.  For example "I am going to need to go" is proper syntax for _need to_, used modally but "I am going to must go" is not normal English syntax.


NewdestinyX said:


> But we can move on. The original issue of this thread, a Spanish syntax, is resolved. And we agree. Rare for us.


I _do_ want to get back to the original question, which may have been answered but still seems to me to need some clarification and so is not "resolved":


olcountrylawyer said:


> Would you please be so kind as to tell me the difference (if there is one)  between _debió hacer_ and _debió haber hecho_?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> Thank you for pointing out the difference between _need_ as a transitive verb and _need_ used modally.



I was swimming upstream on that one with Ivy29 'hunting me' -- but it is an important distinction.



> However, I don't think how soon I need to go or to have an operation is at all relevant.


Yes, you're right. I stand corrected on that point. One of hte English grammars stated that TO NEED, transitive verb, always refers to immediate need -- and I was trying to make that a distinctive of it when compared to modal TO NEED TO and I *needn't have used *that aspect for the contrast. ;-) Agreed. 



> Nor do I think that "I need to go" implies obligation on the order of "I have to go" or "I should go".


I never implied it was on the order of HAVE TO.



> I see it as reflecting internal need.


Yes -- a sense of personal duty -- But that is also what SHOULD does in English. There's no outside obligation -- but an internal one. NEED TO is semantically the same for me as SHOULD.



> What does it for me is not the time factor or the similarity of meaning between modal _need to_ and other modals but the grammatical meaning of the bare infinitive, which to me defines modality.  With a modal, the infinitive acts neither as a direct object nor as an adverbial phrase (of purpose or whatever) but as a "modal complement" if you will.


YES! YES! That's it -- you're explaining it better than I. Thanks. Most students of English can't distinguish the role of the bare infinitive and that means everything in determining modality or  "'modal-like' expressions", a term which we've used here borrowed from grammarian, Betty Azar.



> I believe the word you meant was _semantically_, or perhaps _functionally_, rather than _syntactically_.  _Need to_ and what I call "proper" modals do not fit all the same syntactic models.  For example "I am going to need to go" is proper syntax for _need to_, used modally but "I am going to must go" is not normal English syntax.


I will accept the adjustment of my term to FUNCTIONALLY per your examples. But 'semantically' isn't right. The point is -- and this is where Ivy29 won't give me any room and he has to -- is that when you're translating you have to allow for syntaxes that match in the target language to arrive at the most faithful translation. Therefore if we have modal-like expressions in English that more faithfully capture the essence of the 'pure' modal from the other language -- we should be able to use them in the translation. The problem with expressing DEBIÓ HACER in English is that we have no PAST tense of SHOULD.. But we DO have a modal-like expression that CAN BE expressed in the past to show the same LIGHT INTERNAL obligation as DEBIÓ HACER does. In this case NEEDED TO DO -- which is 'semantically the same' as SHOULD HAVE DONE. Both are internal senses of duty/obligation.



> I _do_ want to get back to the original question, which may have been answered but still seems to me to need some clarification and so is not "resolved"


Oddly enough I actually think Ivy29 did answer this one with the grammar passages he cited. His English translation of the Spanish wasn't perfect -- but the idea remains that Spanish grammarians believe that they are semantically identical -- though grammatically different. So the grammarians are saying they're interchangeable (debió hacer and debió haber hecho) in Spanish with no nuance of any kind. The student and grammarian in me wants to fight against that conclusion. But even when I try to reassign the pure modal, 'deber', to a 'modal-like' expression (for DEBIÓ HACER) over into English -- I still get the exact same meaning for DEBIÓ HABER HECHO. So it's not such a stretch to believe they are semantically equal after all.

Have LOVED this thread.


----------



## Forero

Hi, NewdestinyX, and others who may be "tuning in"!



NewdestinyX said:


> I will accept the adjustment of my term to FUNCTIONALLY per your examples. But 'semantically' isn't right. The point is -- and this is where Ivy29 won't give me any room and he has to -- is that when you're translating you have to allow for syntaxes that match in the target language to arrive at the most faithful translation. Therefore if we have modal-like expressions in English that more faithfully capture the essence of the 'pure' modal from the other language -- we should be able to use them in the translation. The problem with expressing DEBIÓ HACER in English is that we have no PAST tense of SHOULD.. But we DO have a modal-like expression that CAN BE expressed in the past to show the same LIGHT INTERNAL obligation as DEBIÓ HACER does. In this case NEEDED TO DO -- which is 'semantically the same' as SHOULD HAVE DONE. Both are internal senses of duty/obligation.


I agree with your principle, but I don't see _needed to do_ and _should have done_ as general synonyms, though they may sometimes be interchangeable depending on context.

One very important datum we are missing here is context.  All we have is two Spanish sentences, or parts thereof, and we have been trying to come up with a good translation of one or the other, preferably translations of both that demonstrate the change that might need to occur in English to translate what happens in Spanish (if anything).  Two translations that mean the same thing could also show how the two Spanish expressions mean the same thing in this case but not in other cases where a simple infinitive is replaced by a perfect infinitive or whatever.

We are trying to explain, for as many cases as possible (to simplify the process of translation for someone not necessarily fluent in Spanish), what the difference is or isn't or may seem to be in similar constructions but isn't in this case.

In fact, if we can find just the right analogy, we do not need necessarily to find a good translation for either Spanish sentence to explain what is or isn't different about the two.


> Oddly enough I actually think Ivy29 did answer this one with the grammar passages he cited. His English translation of the Spanish wasn't perfect -- but the idea remains that Spanish grammarians believe that they are semantically identical -- though grammatically different. So the grammarians are saying they're interchangeable (debió hacer and debió haber hecho) in Spanish with no nuance of any kind. The student and grammarian in me wants to fight against that conclusion. But even when I try to reassign the pure modal, 'deber', to a 'modal-like' expression (for DEBIÓ HACER) over into English -- I still get the exact same meaning for DEBIÓ HABER HECHO. So it's not such a stretch to believe they are semantically equal after all.


I tend to want to fight that conclusion too, especially given the generalization I think we are called on to come up with.  If these two are the same, I want to see whether or not that is logical in Spanish and especially if there is a nuance in _deber_ that doesn't exist anywhere in English - a nuance possibly with Latin roots, or that varies from country to country, or whatever.

My first version of the two sentences is:

He had to do it.
He had to have done it.

I don't see _had to_, _must have_, _should_, or _needed to_ being quite equivalent to _debí_ for reasons of syntax, function, _and_ meaning, but I thought I had captured the difference in aspect between the simple and the perfect (infinitives).

I am intrigued by the idea that _debí_ could somehow neutralize the apparent difference in aspect between the two Spanish constructions.

Our best source appears to be the Spanish grammar book already mentioned, but I want to see everything it has to say about _deber_ and _debí_ to ferret out what it is the authors believe is the "neutralizer".  I don't want to read "they mean the same, stupid; get used to it" but rather "_deber_ has such-and-such meaning in "our" language, which naturally obliterates the apparent difference in aspect."

This _is_ interesting, and I don't want to give it up yet.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> Hi, NewdestinyX, and others who may be "tuning in"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first version of the two sentences is:
> 
> He had to do it.
> He had to have done it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes -- good -- HAD TO is also in some grammar books as DEBÍO + INF. But HAD TO, in English, is WAY more obligation than DEBER. DEBER is internal personal duty and not outside obligation. Of that I'm sure. HAD TO, in English MAY have more slack -- but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see _had to_, _must have_, _should_, or _needed to_ being quite equivalent to _debí_ for reasons of syntax, function, _and_ meaning, but I thought I had captured the difference in aspect between the simple and the perfect (infinitives). I am intrigued by the idea that _debí_ could somehow neutralize the apparent difference in aspect between the two Spanish constructions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how DEBÍ messes things up. Not following you there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This _is_ interesting, and I don't want to give it up yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you.. I'm in for the long haul. Heck -- the next episode of "24" isn't until next January - I'm bored.. ;-) -- I love this stuff. I'm about as grammar geek as it gets.
> 
> Good to meet you, Forero.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> TRY TO and WANT TO are 'modal-like expressions' like HAVE TO. They would fit on Azar's list. You should get American Heritage New English Grammar where more modal expressions are discussed than on Azar's list. But 've said all I wish to say about this topic. This thread is not about types of modals.
> 
> I submit as I did before that NEEDED TO (modal expression) is an acceptable translation to English of DEBIÓ + INF.
> 
> That was the main point.
> 
> Como ya sabes, a mí no me vale la pena debatir contigo.. You only trust certain grammarians and discard others and that of educated natives.
> 
> You are welcome to discard what you will, Iván.. it will be to your own ignorance though.. And that has nothing to do with me.
> 
> I've enjoyed our interchange until now. You may have the last word. I will not answer.


 
*As usual you have not answered my question, neither the source to support with PAGES, it is amazing that I give you my sources and you do not write down yours. Amazing too, that NONE of my books list want to, try to as modals.*

*NEED TO is used the most as the NEGATIVE form : needn't to. And with IF questions.*
*'old habits die hard* '

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Ivy29 said:


> *THE PROBLEM is not English*, the problem is that you *DO NOT* understand the nuances of my language. *It is a matter of KNOWLEDGE*
> *NEEDED to do something*= *it means that the action did occur, here or elsewhere in English or in Spanish.*
> *IN SPANISH : debió hacer or debió haberlo hecho, conveys that the action should happened into the past but didn't occur or happen. This is the issue ( Your Spanish is NOT correct).*
> *My Hoping that you are NOT confusing the verb NEED as a modal and to need as a regular verb.*
> 
> *Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *As usual you have not answered my question, neither the source to support with PAGES, it is amazing that I give you my sources and you do not write down yours. Amazing too, that NONE of my books list want to, try to as modals.*
> 
> *NEED TO is used the most as the NEGATIVE form : needn't to. And with IF questions.*
> *'old habits die hard* '
> 
> Ivy29



NEEDN'T TO is not in the English language. Read again. As you said earlier. Pure modals are followed by the bare infinitive. NEEDN'T TO is not a modal. NEEDN'T is a modal. NEED TO is a modal-like expression per Azar and others.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> NEEDN'T TO is not in the English language. Read again. As you said earlier.  NEEDN'T TO is not a modal. NEEDN'T is a modal. NEED TO is a modal-like expression per Azar and others.


 
<<Pure modals are followed by the bare infinitive>>>>
That's not true, *OUGHT TO* is a PURE MODAL. 
*Need to* is not a modal either
NEEDN'T is a modal ( NOT 'TO' agreed).
 OXFORD for advanced learner's dictionary, page 851, brings a NOTE about need that I quote here, straight from the dictionary :

<<NEED as a modal verb has need for all forms of the present tense, *need you?* as the question form and need not, (needn't) as tthe negative. The past is need have, needn't have.. It is used to say that something is or is not necessary; Need I pay the whole amount now.>>>

The modal need follows the rules about MODALS : No (s) NO auxiliary DO, and past tense  modal+have+pp). This mine.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> <<Pure modals are followed by the bare infinitive>>>>
> That's not true, *OUGHT TO* is a PURE MODAL.
> *Need to* is not a modal either
> NEEDN'T is a modal ( NOT 'TO' agreed).
> 
> Ivy29


As usual you do not understand simple English. NEEDN'T is followed by a bare infinitive not a full one. OUGHT TO is the MODAL itself -- the 'TO' is NOT part of an INFINITIVE it is part of the modal. ALL pure modals are followed by BARE infinitive. (Page 141 section 'c' American Heritage Grammar).

NEEDN'T HAVE, NEEDN'T HAVE GONE
NEEDN'T GO, NEEDN'T HAVE GONE, etc.

NEEDN'T TO GO = *INCORRECT
* NEED NOT TO GO = *INCORRECT*


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> As usual you do not understand simple English. NEEDN'T is followed by a bare infinitive not a full one. OUGHT TO is the MODAL itself -- the 'TO' is NOT part of an INFINITIVE it is part of the modal. ALL pure modals are followed by BARE infinitive. (Page 141 section 'c' American Heritage Grammar).
> 
> NEEDN'T HAVE, NEEDN'T HAVE GONE
> NEEDN'T GO, NEEDN'T HAVE GONE, etc.
> 
> NEEDN'T TO GO = *INCORRECT*
> NEED NOT TO GO = *INCORRECT*


 
*Do not beat around the bush*, *I know English modals as I do with my Spanish modals*. *ANSWER my question*, give me a source where TRY TO or WANT to are modals as you stated before ???

I know pretty well what is a *bare infinitive*, too basic.

Ivy29



NewdestinyX said:


> As usual you do not understand simple English. NEEDN'T is followed by a bare infinitive not a full one. OUGHT TO is the MODAL itself -- the 'TO' is NOT part of an INFINITIVE it is part of the modal. ALL pure modals are followed by BARE infinitive. (Page 141 section 'c' American Heritage Grammar).
> 
> NEEDN'T HAVE, NEEDN'T HAVE GONE
> NEEDN'T GO, NEEDN'T HAVE GONE, etc.
> 
> NEEDN'T TO GO = *INCORRECT*
> NEED NOT TO GO = *INCORRECT*


 

Did you read this :

*<<OXFORD for advanced learner's dictionary, page 851, brings a NOTE about need that I quote here, straight from the dictionary :*

<<*NEED as a modal verb has 'need' for all forms of the present tense, need you? as the question form and need not, (needn't) as tthe negative. The past is need have, needn't have.. It is used to say that something is or is not necessary; Need I pay the whole amount now.>>>*

*The modal 'need' follows the rules about MODALS : *
*a)Bare infinitives*
*b)No (s) *
*c) NO auxiliary DO.*
*d) and past tense modal+have+pp). This is mine.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Forero

_Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que debí sufrir un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica._

_Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que debí haber sufrido un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica._

Creo que la última dice que el examen escrito había sido otro día pero la primera no.  ¿Verdad?


----------



## Ivy29

Forero said:


> _Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que debí sufrir  ( presentar) un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica._
> 
> _Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que debí haber sufrido(presentado)un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica._
> 
> Creo que la última dice que el examen escrito había sido otro día pero la primera no. ¿Verdad?


 
Both have the same meaning; the adverbial of time 'ANTES de' points to a moment BEFORE of the main verb (supe).

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *Do not beat around the bush*, *I know English modals as I do with my Spanish modals*. *ANSWER my question*, give me a source where TRY TO or WANT to are modals as you stated before ???
> 
> I know pretty well what is a *bare infinitive*, too basic.
> 
> Ivy29



And yet you made this terrible blunder of grammar.



> *NEED TO is used the most as the NEGATIVE form : needn't to. *


That is NOT English. So if you make errors of that magnitude I'm cautious about other things you offer here.



> Did you read this :
> 
> *<<OXFORD for advanced learner's dictionary, page 851, brings a NOTE about need that I quote here, straight from the dictionary :* <<*NEED as a modal verb has 'need' for all forms of the present tense, need you? as the question form and need not, (needn't) as tthe negative. The past is need have, needn't have.. It is used to say that something is or is not necessary; Need I pay the whole amount now.>>>* *The modal 'need' follows the rules about MODALS : *
> *a)Bare infinitives*
> *b)No (s) * *c) NO auxiliary DO.* *d) and past tense modal+have+pp). This is mine.* *Ivy29*


I have already conceded that 'modal-like' expressions (NEED TO, HAVE TO, HAD BETTER, WANT TO, etc.) are NOT pure modals and then as such they wouldn't meet all the rules for pure modals. Agreed. No contest. But your assertion that [NEED TO +bare inf.] can't be an adequate translation of DEBIÓ, which is the topic of this thread -- is simply wrong and short-sighted -- since modal-like expressions have the SAME FUNCTION as pure modals. My original translation still stands. The moderators don't allow off-topic discussion here as we've both been recently deleted in another thread. So let's move on, compadre. You stated and made your case, I've stated and made my case. The students can choose for themselves.


----------



## Babel_b

Hi!

My mother tongue is Spanish so I can help you out with this one. 
We don't conjugate "_*deber*_ hacer" in this way. The equivalent for "He _*should have done*_ it" is "El _*debería haberlo hecho*_" and NOT "debió"

I have to do it - Debería hacerlo o Tengo que hacerlo (we omit the subject pronoun *YO*)
I should have done it - Debería haberlo hecho o Tendría que haberlo hecho 

Espero haber ayudado!!


----------



## NewdestinyX

Babel_b said:


> Hi!
> 
> My mother tongue is Spanish so I can help you out with this one.
> We don't conjugate "_*deber*_ hacer" in this way. The equivalent for "He _*should have done*_ it" is "El _*debería haberlo hecho*_" and NOT "debió"
> 
> I have to do it - Debería hacerlo o Tengo que hacerlo (we omit the subject pronoun *YO*)
> I should have done it - Debería haberlo hecho o Tendría que haberlo hecho
> 
> Espero haber ayudado!!



Thanks, Babel.. But there are thousands of examples of DEBIÓ HACER in articles on Google and many other places. So it definitely IS conjugated that way in Spanish - so your statement confuses me.

But thanks for the translation of DEBERÍA HABERLO HECHO. Very helpful.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> And yet you made this terrible blunder of grammar.
> 
> That is NOT English. So if you make errors of that magnitude I'm cautious about other things you offer here.
> 
> I have already conceded that 'modal-like' expressions (NEED TO, HAVE TO, HAD BETTER, WANT TO, etc.) are NOT pure modals and then as such they wouldn't meet all the rules for pure modals. Agreed. No contest. But your assertion that [NEED TO +bare inf.] can't be an adequate translation of DEBIÓ, which is the topic of this thread -- is simply wrong and short-sighted -- since modal-like expressions have the SAME FUNCTION as pure modals. My original translation still stands. The moderators don't allow off-topic discussion here as we've both been recently deleted in another thread. So let's move on, compadre. You stated and made your case, I've stated and made my case. The students can choose for themselves.


 

Where TRY to or WANT to is considered a modal like structure. Give me a SOURCE. Stop beating around the bush.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Where TRY to or WANT to is considered a modal like structure. Give me a SOURCE. Stop beating around the bush.
> 
> Ivy29



TRY TO and WANT TO are off-topic in this thread. If you wish to read and learn. Get a copy of Michael R Perkins work called "Modal Expressions in English". You may send me a private message if you wish to pursue the topic further.


----------



## Forero

Ivy29 said:


> Both have the same meaning; the adverbial of time 'ANTES de' points to a moment BEFORE of the main verb (supe).
> 
> Ivy29



¿Es que el verbo _deber_ es único?  A ver si ponemos _tuve que_:

Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que tuve que presentar un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica.[/I]

_Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que tuve que haber presentado un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica._

¿Ya parece que la segunda es un poco diferente?


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> TRY TO and WANT TO are off-topic in this thread. If you wish to read and learn. Get a copy of Michael R Perkins work called "Modal Expressions in English". You may send me a private message if you wish to pursue the topic further.


 
Well, For now on I will answer with the same style your questions if they are brought up here.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Forero said:


> ¿Es que el verbo _deber_ es único? A ver si ponemos _tuve que_:
> 
> Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que tuve que presentar un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica.[/i]
> 
> _Al llegar donde se pueden obtener licencias de conductor, tras meses de practicar a manejar, supe que tuve que haber presentado un examen escrito antes de poder aprobar el examen de práctica._
> 
> ¿Ya parece que la segunda es un poco diferente?


 
*TENER que+infinitivo.*

a) Se admite el infinitivo compuesto en pretérito indefinido y condicional simple ( tenía o tendría que+ infinitivo).
b) De su significado de obligación pasa al de necesidad o conveniencia sobre todo cuando el sujeto es cosa o sujeto cero.
c) las pasivas+tener que+infinitivo : Estos datos tienen que ser publicados pronto. ( es necesario).
d) si el auxiliar TENER aparece en pretérito indefinido ( simple past) con el auxiliado en infinitivo SIMPLE ( obligación pasiva o de necesidad)
tuve que ayudarlo ( obligación)
Tuvo que llover para que no se secaran los árboles ( fue necesario)

PERO si el auxliar en pretérito imperfecto de indicativo y el auxiliado en infinitivo compuesto, la perífrasis indica un hecho no realizado pero sí el deseo del hablante. En estos casos de OBLIGACIÓN-desiderativa parece clara la NEUTRALIZACIÓN deber +infinitivo= Debíamos haberlo hecho. Sin embargo esta no es posible con el auxiliar en pretérito indefinido con *TENER se alude a un hecho que se realizó. Con deber se alude a un hecho no realizado.*

*AMBAS oraciones citadas arriba necesitan el auxiliar en TENÍA/tendría + infinitivo, pues el orden y contexto de las oraciones y esta perífrasis de infinitivo con TENER así lo exigen. De otra manera serían ILÓGICAS en su contexto.*

Ivy29


----------



## hfpardue

En caso de que alguien estuviera preguntándose, "needn't" no es común. Suena a inglés antiguo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hfpardue said:


> En caso de que alguien estuviera preguntándose, "needn't" no es común. Suena a inglés antiguo.



Sí. Eso. NEEDN'T ya no es común en inglés.


----------



## Forero

_Needn't_ sí se usa bastante donde vivo yo, en inglés hablado.  Formalmente se usa _need not_.

Todavía me quedo confuso en cuanto al sujeto original.  El verbo _deber_ en pretérito, ¿tiene una propiedad única en cuanto al tiempo o al aspecto?  Si sí, ¿es por alguna razón semántica, o sólo por su uso actual?  ¿Los dos?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> _Needn't_ sí se usa bastante donde vivo yo, en inglés hablado.  Formalmente se usa _need not_.
> 
> Todavía me quedo confuso en cuanto al sujeto original.  El verbo _deber_ en pretérito, ¿tiene una propiedad única en cuanto al tiempo o al aspecto?  Si sí, ¿es por alguna razón semántica, o sólo por su uso actual?  ¿Los dos?



Lo siento.. pero no entiendo tu pregunta en español -- NI en inglés. Puébalo de nuevo para mi, porfa.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Lo siento.. pero no entiendo tu pregunta en español -- NI en inglés. Puébalo ( inténtalo de nuevo) de nuevo para mi, porfa.


 

Ivy29


----------



## Forero

NewdestinyX said:


> Lo siento.. pero no entiendo tu pregunta en español -- NI en inglés. Puébalo/Inténtalo de nuevo para mi, porfa.


 
Hi, Newdestiny.

I am still hung up on whether _debí hacerlo_ and _debí haberlo hecho_ have identical meanings in all cases to all educated native speakers.

The answer may be somewhere in the reference work Ivy was citing, but I don't see what I need to online and I don't have access to that work.

If they do always mean the same, I am wondering if _deber_ is the only verb that acts this way. For example, if we use _tuve que_ in the same environment in place of _debí _(as in post #69, regardless of whether _tuve que _means _debí_), does the simple infinitive still mean the same as the compound (perfect) infinitive?

If _debí_ alone levels the infinitives, my next question is "why?" Is it a consequence of what _deber_ means, or a consequence of its being used so commonly in a "pluferfect situation" that _debí hacerlo_ seems to be pluperfect in and of itself, or both? Is there a reason _debí_ almost has "English defective verb" behavior?

Is there a (vulgar) Latin basis for this leveling of compound and simple infinitives after the preterite (perfect) of _deber_ (debere)? Does the same thing happen in other peninsular languages?

I think there's is more to the original question than a simple yes or no, even if we leave English usage and translation issues out of the picture.  I need to understand what is happening in Spanish before trying to deliver an explanation in English.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Originally Posted by *NewdestinyX* Lo siento.. pero no entiendo tu pregunta en español -- NI en inglés. Puébalo ( inténtalo de nuevo) de nuevo para mi, porfa.



Gracias, Ivy -- Eso es lo que había escrito al principio pero lo cambié.


----------



## Ivy29

Forero said:


> Hi, Newdestiny.
> 
> I am still hung up on whether _debí hacerlo_ and _debí haberlo hecho_ have identical meanings in all cases to all educated native speakers.
> 
> The answer may be somewhere in the reference work Ivy was citing, but I don't see what I need to online and I don't have access to that work.
> 
> If they do always mean the same, I am wondering if _deber_ is the only verb that acts this way. For example, if we use _tuve que_ in the same environment in place of _debí _(as in post #69, regardless of whether _tuve que _means _debí_), does the simple infinitive still mean the same as the compound (perfect) infinitive?
> 
> If _debí_ alone levels the infinitives, my next question is "why?" Is it a consequence of what _deber_ means, or a consequence of its being used so commonly in a "pluferfect situation" that _debí hacerlo_ seems to be pluperfect in and of itself, or both? Is there a reason _debí_ almost has "English defective verb" behavior?
> 
> Is there a (vulgar) Latin basis for this leveling of compound and simple infinitives after the preterite (perfect) of _deber_ (debere)? Does the same thing happen in other peninsular languages?
> 
> I think there's is more to the original question than a simple yes or no, even if we leave English usage and translation issues out of the picture. I need to understand what is happening in Spanish before trying to deliver an explanation in English.


 
TENER alone is not a modal. Tuve un carro rojo, it means you don't now.
*Tener que* is a modal similar expression = TO HAVE TO
*Tuve que* does not  have the same connotations of DEBISTE/DEBIÓ/YO DEBÍ HABER+pp into the past.
*I had a quiz this morning and I didn't do well* in the quiz because I didn't sutdy. *You should have studied last night* ( debiste haber estudiado anoche/debías haber estudiado anoche ) (it didn't happen).
I hurt my back.* I should not have carried up* the heavy box two flights of stairs. Me afecté la columna. *No debí haber subido* esa caja pesada dos tramos de la escalera ( the action did happen)
DEBISTE estudiar anoche ( didn't happen)
No debiste subir esa caja pesada. ( action did happen).

Tuve que estudiar anoche ( you did study)
Tenía que estudiar anoche ( you didn't)

TIMING LIMITS with MODALS ARE NOT accurate like the INDICATIVE MODE.

Ivy29


----------



## hfpardue

_



Needn't sí se usa bastante donde vivo yo, en inglés hablado. Formalmente se usa need not.
		
Click to expand...

_People often say "needn't" where you live? Where do you live? I have seen "need not", but only in a newspaper article or a book. I don't remember the last time someone said, "You needn't worry!"


----------



## olcountrylawyer

Si _needn't_ ya no se usa en tu variedad de inglés, ¿cómo se distingue entre _needn't have done_ y _didn't have to do_?

I needn't have written a five-page essay. (But I did.)

I didn't have to write a five-page essay. (So I didn't.)


----------



## Forero

Welcome back, olcountrylawyer!

As you can see, you started quite a thread.  Do you feel your original question has been answered?

By the way, I live in Arkansas, where _needn't_ is alive and well.


----------



## olcountrylawyer

Forero said:


> Welcome back, olcountrylawyer!
> 
> As you can see, you started quite a thread.  Do you feel your original question has been answered?
> 
> By the way, I live in Arkansas, where _needn't_ is alive and well.



Thank you, Forero. The answers have been most interesting. I'm not sure the question has been resolved, however. Perhaps we should submit it to the RAE. 

I'm originally from Southern California, but after nearly twenty years in Europe, I believe I'm gradually becoming a speaker of Mid-Atlantic English, and it's sometimes hard for me to remember which features of my speech I picked up on that side of the pond and which on this. 

Regards,

OCL


----------

