# Non mi sarebbe piaciuto diventare l'uomo più ricco del cimitero



## angelmary

come posso tradurre: 
NON MI SAREBBE PIACIUTO DIVENTARE...?


----------



## stella_maris_74

Ciao e benvenuta 
Per favore, fornisci una frase intera, qualche parola di contesto e il tuo tentativo di traduzione, e non dimenticare di dare un'attenta lettura qui:
Read BEFORE posting - Leggere PRIMA           di postare - Rules, Guidelines & Resources - Regole, Linee           Guida, Risorse

Grazie,

Moderatrice


----------



## angelmary

Non mi sarebbe piaciuto diventare l'uomo più ricco del cimitero, volevo godermi la vita e l'ho fatto
io tradurrei: "I wouldn't be the richest man of the cemetry, I wanted to enjoy the life and I done it."
è giusto??????


----------



## krissmix

ecco il mio suggerimento:

"I wouldn't like to be the richest man six feet under, I wanted to enjoy life and I did it"


----------



## rrose17

In this case I don't know if I'd keep the conditional. I think the past works better.

_I didn't want to be the richest man in the graveyard. I wanted to enjoy life and I did._
Or with the conditional I think it should be 
_I wouldn't want to be the richest man in the graveyard. I want to enjoy life and I am._


----------



## krissmix

Always good to get the real thing from a native speaker.
I must say I really dig the intellectual stimulation this forum brings about...

Goodnight.


----------



## MrJamSandwich

I agree that the past is best. It makes everything simpler.

As the speaker is describing how he felt at some (unspecified) point in the past and not at present, 'I wouldn't like to' or similar isn't exactly right. The conditional sentence would have to be: 'I wouldn't have wanted to be,' which already sounds horrible.

Then you'd also have the problem of the second sentence, which, as rrose7 says, would end up as: '_I want to enjoy life and I am.' _Leaving aside the fact that this changes the original tense completely, it also sounds stilted. The reason for this is that we've tried to avoid saying '_I want to enjoy life and I am enjoying it' _by omitting the second instance of the verb. This only really works when the verbs are in the same form, otherwise we have to mentally correct the implied incorrect sentence: '_I want to enjoy life and I am enjoy life._'


----------



## Alxmrphi

_I wouldn't have liked to be the richest man in the cemetery, I wanted to enjoy life_ _instead_.

Un mio tentativo


----------



## ALEX1981X

Alxmrphi said:


> _I wouldn't have liked to be the richest man in the cemetery, I wanted to enjoy life_ _instead_.
> 
> Un mio tentativo



I like your attempt...è molto fedele all'originale


----------



## CPA

Alxmrphi said:


> _I wouldn't have liked to be the richest man in the cemetery, I wanted to enjoy life_ (_instead) *and I did*_.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Woops, didn't see the "e l'ho fatto"...


----------



## Victoria32

Non mi sarebbe piaciuto diventare l'uomo più ricco del cimitero, volevo godermi la vita e l'ho fatto





Alxmrphi said:


> Woops, didn't see the "e l'ho fatto"...



I would suggest putting it all in the past - "I didn't want to be the richest man in the cemetery, I wanted to enjoy life and I have!

Because of the mix of tenses, I think that's legitimate...
Vicky


----------



## ALEX1981X

Victoria32 said:


> Non mi sarebbe piaciuto diventare l'uomo più ricco del cimitero, volevo godermi la vita e l'ho fatto
> 
> I would suggest putting it all in the past - "I didn't want to be the richest man in the cemetery, I wanted to enjoy life and I have!
> 
> Because of the mix of tenses, I think that's legitimate...
> Vicky



Vicky Can you explain why ??

What you mean with "Mix of tenses" ? 

Alxmrphi's  attempt seems to be grammatically correct !...


----------



## W00t-1603

I completely agree with CPA:


I* wouldn't have liked to be* the richest man in the cemetery, I wanted to enjoy life *and I did*.


----------



## Victoria32

ALEX1981X said:


> Vicky Can you explain why ??
> 
> What you mean with "Mix of tenses" ?
> 
> Alxmrphi's  attempt seems to be grammatically correct !...


Really, Alex, I believe you're right, and I think I might be wrong about the mix of tenses... so we're agreed then?


----------



## W00t-1603

ALEX1981X said:


> Vicky Can you explain why ??
> 
> What you mean with "Mix of tenses" ?
> 
> Alxmrphi's  attempt seems to be grammatically correct !...


 
Some mistakes:

What* do *you mean *by* "Mix of tenses"?

As for the Vicky's reply I would say that it can be acceptable since it would translate in fact the following Italian sentence:

"Non volevo essere l'uomo più ricco del cimitero. Volevo solo godermi la vita e l'ho fatto."

This sentence conveys enough the meaning which we were searching for as you can see.


----------



## ALEX1981X

W00t-1603 said:


> Some mistakes:
> 
> What* do *you mean *by* "Mix of tenses"?
> 
> As for the Vicky's reply I would say that it can be acceptable since it would translate in fact the following Italian sentence:
> 
> "Non volevo essere l'uomo più ricco del cimitero. Volevo solo godermi la vita e l'ho fatto."
> 
> This sentence conveys enough the meaning which we were searching for as you can see.



I don't agree ...no mistakes at all

_What do you mean* with*_ is fine 

I dropped the auxiliary "do" *on purpose* my friend ...

Anyway your attempt is fine as well...


----------



## ALEX1981X

Victoria32 said:


> Really, Alex, I believe you're right, and I think I might be wrong about the mix of tenses... so we're agreed then?



Sure I agree .._._but _Simple past_ is fine too


----------



## Victoria32

ALEX1981X said:


> I don't agree ...no mistakes at all
> 
> _What do you mean* with*_ is fine
> 
> I dropped the auxiliary "do" *on purpose* my friend ...
> 
> Anyway your attempt is fine as well...


Sorry, Alex, I have to agree with w00t1603 in the matter of his corrections... 'What you mean with' is slangy, not just idiomatic (possibly American English, but certainly not standard), and it is not permissible to drop the auxiliary _do_ - even if it is on purpose.. It makes your question look ill-formed... 
Vicky


----------



## ALEX1981X

Victoria32 said:


> Sorry, Alex, I have to agree with w00t1603 in the matter of his corrections... 'What you mean with' is slangy, not just idiomatic (possibly American English, but certainly not standard), and it is not permissible to drop the auxiliary _do_ - even if it is on purpose.. It makes your question look ill-formed...
> Vicky



I don't agree with you... 

I'm certainly not the first one who says these kind of things...

I lived in America for 5 years and I can assure you it's very common...Use google and have a look


Obviously you must always use the auxiliary as a rule ! you're a little fussy in my view


----------



## Victoria32

ALEX1981X said:


> I don't agree with you...
> 
> I'm certainly not the first one who says these kind of things...
> 
> I lived in America for 5 years and I can assure you it's very common...Use google and have a look
> 
> 
> Obviously you must always use the auxiliary as a rule ! you're a little fussy in my view


I don't doubt you, so I shan't bother to use google! Yes, I am a bit fussy, but I am a teacher  of BE, and not of Am E. I am not criticising you as a person...
Vicky


----------



## ALEX1981X

Victoria32 said:


> I don't doubt you, so I shan't bother to use google! Yes, I am a bit fussy, but I am a teacher  of BE, and not of Am E. I am not criticising you as a person...
> Vicky



I know you're not criticising me...Don't worry ...I appreciate..


----------



## MrJamSandwich

@Alex: What is common (oral or netspeak) usage in a certain part of the world is one thing; what is good written English is often quite another. If I were marking a translation into English, 'What you mean with ...?' would be marked wrong a) for the lack of auxiliary in an interrogative sentence and b) for the non-standard preposition (which I have never heard used in this way). I accept that learning to use colloquial, non-standard expressions is a part of achieving spoken fluency, but don't forget: many non-native speakers with less spoken experience than you are using these forums to search for correct expressions, which they probably intend to duplicate in a context where only standard English is acceptable.


----------



## london calling

Victoria32 said:


> Sorry, Alex, I have to agree with w00t1603 in the matter of his corrections... 'What you mean with' is slangy, not just idiomatic (possibly American English, but certainly not standard), and it is not permissible to drop the auxiliary _do_ - even if it is on purpose.. It makes your question look ill-formed...
> Vicky


I agree, it sounds really bad.....I would assume the person speaking was uneducated. Might I add that say I've been to the States many times (different places), have several American friends and have worked with Americans but I have never heard them say anything like that!

You're not being fussy at all, in my opinion, Vicky. 

Bad English is bad English, Alex. Don't drop the auxiliary on purpose: it will make people think you can't speak English properly.


----------



## Enigmista

Concordo 

La lingua parlata è un'altra storia rispetto alla lingua scritta...e le regole son le regole ci mancherebbe 

Però,confermando che "_*mean by*_" è corretto, a dire il vero "_*mean+ with"*_ l'ho sentito dire molte mooolte volte...anche dagli amici Usa...forse sarà _slang_ e basta

Vi chiedo : è proprio sbagliato in qualunque caso ??


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Enigmista said:


> Concordo
> 
> La lingua parlata è un'altra storia rispetto alla lingua scritta...e le regole son le regole ci mancherebbe
> 
> Però,confermando che "_*mean by*_" è corretto, a dire il vero "_*mean+ with"*_ l'ho sentito dire molte mooolte volte...anche dagli amici Usa...forse sarà _slang_ e basta
> 
> Vi chiedo : è proprio sbagliato in qualunque caso ??



What do you mean by vs with


----------



## rrose17

Sorry to break the news but "What do you mean with that?" is very common, just as Enigmista stated.


----------



## ALEX1981X

rrose17 said:


> Sorry to break the news but "What do you mean with that?" is very common, just as Enigmista stated.



Ecco! almeno uno che mi sostiene ...Thank you bro


----------



## cecil

Victoria32 said:


> Sorry, Alex, I have to agree with w00t1603 in the matter of his corrections... 'What you mean with' is slangy, not just idiomatic (possibly American English, but certainly not standard), and it is not permissible to drop the auxiliary _do_ - even if it is on purpose.. It makes your question look ill-formed...
> Vicky


 
I've never heard "what you mean with" anywhere in the US. It's definitely not idiomatic no matter what Google pulls up. However, I wouldn't be surprised at any expression now slangy that the current culture could not standardize. I suppose it's always been so with languages, but such adoptions are hard to accept. Very hard.


----------



## london calling

rrose17 said:


> Sorry to break the news but "What do you mean with that?" is very common, just as Enigmista stated.


Yes, but not without "do", surely!


----------



## Enigmista

London infatti sul "do" non discuto...ho solo ricordato che *mean* accompagnato da with non mi sembrava una follia...e forse rrose la pensa allo stesso modo..


----------



## london calling

Enigmista said:


> London infatti sul "do" non discuto...ho solo ricordato che *mean* accompagnato da with non mi sembrava una follia...e forse rrose la pensa allo stesso modo..


Diciamo che la versione con "with" non mi piace e non lo utilizzo, ma nell'America del Nord mi sembra piuttosto comune.

In ogni caso contestavo Alex che dice che almeno qualcuno lo sostiene, ma in effetti rrose lo ha sostenuto solo in parte (riguardo all'utilizzo di "with"). Non ho assolutamente contestato l'utilizzo di "with", ma contesto con tutta me stessa "what you mean by/with...?".


----------



## cecil

@London calling

>>Non ho assolutamente contestato l'utilizzo di "with"

Ma io, sì e come! Per inciso, "What*'yu* mean *by* that?" _is_ very common among some certain ethnic groups.


----------

