# Mi aveva detto che se anche avessi sentito dei rumori strani non avrei dovuto scappare



## Dattero

Buongiorno a tutti

non riesco a capire quali tempi e modi verbali utilizzare per tradurre una frase italiana...
la frase è la seguente:

_Mi aveva detto che se anche avessi sentito dei rumori strani non avrei dovuto scappare perché avrei potuto essere visto
_
Pensavo di usare il Past perfect per la prima parte della frase condizionale e "must" per esprimere il divieto, ma non ne sono affatto sicuro :/
Ecco il mio tentativo:

_He had told me that even if i had heard strange noises i mustn't run away because i could be seen
_
Grazie mille in anticipo a tutti!


----------



## HalfTaff

I think "....I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen".


----------



## rrose17

Hi, the issue of the "future in the past" which causes so many difficulties for translators has been covered many times. I wonder if the mods might think of grouping them as a reference? He had told me that if I were to hear would be closer but stilted sounding. In this case I think I'd go with the simple past mixed with the past perfect. Very often in literature English writers tend to drop the "had" for stylistic reasons, otherwise you would be repeating it endlessly.
_He (had) told me that I shouldn't run away even if I heard strange noises because I could be seen._


----------



## HalfTaff

rrose17 said:


> He (had) told me that I shouldn't run away even if I heard strange noises because I could be seen.



If this is correct - and I'm not challenging it  - then I'm completely confused about how my (apparently) erroneous translation into English would be translated back into Italian -i.e., for_: "He had told me that even if i had heard strange noises i mustn't run away because I could be seen"_ I can't come up with anything significantly different from the original Italian sentence, which was:_ "Mi aveva detto che se anche avessi sentito dei rumori strani non avrei dovuto scappare perché avrei potuto essere visto"._


Can anyone sort this out for me?

Edit Note: What I meant to write, above, was:

'I'm completely confused about how my (apparently) erroneous translation into English would be translated back into Italian -i.e., for_: _'_He had told me that even if I had heard strange noises I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen" _I can't come up with anything significantly different from the original Italian sentence...


----------



## rrose17

HalfTaff said:


> If this is correct - and I'm not challenging it


Please challenge, I could be all wrong. Let's see if anyone can corroborate.


----------



## MR1492

I agree with rrose as to how we would actually say or write the translation of the OP.  When I first read the original, I said it just the way rrose translated it!  While the original translation was grammatically correct, to those of us who are native English-speakers, it just doesn't "sound right."  As rrose noted, it sounds stilted and artificial.

Phil


----------



## rrose17

_She/He told/*had *told me that I shouldn't *have* run away even if I* had* heard strange noises because I could* have* been seen._
I understand that this is the literal translation but I maintain, and this has been discussed before here although I can't find the threads right now, that the more natural way to say this in English is as I wrote it, without all the had's and have's. The meaning, to an English speaker, would be the same.

edit: Sorry, I could be wrong. In the Italian did the person speaking, in fact, run away? Or is this not clear?


----------



## Jasmyn

rrose17 said:


> Sorry, I could be wrong. In the Italian did the person speaking, in fact, run away? Or is this not clear?


That's not clear.


----------



## rrose17

Like I said this has been discussed a lot on this forum. I know it seems counter intuitive but when a phrase is introduced with "He told me that..." and then something is spoken that will take place in the future, English and Italian (and French) part company. And again I could be wrong but I believe _He said I would be king _is translated as _Mi ha detto che sarei stato il re_ and not _Mi ha detto che sarei il re. _
Plus there remains the stylistic choice of English writers to often drop the word "had" and "have". It's not considered grammatically incorrect, simply common usage.


----------



## Pietruzzo

Someone had told me not to run away even in case of noises
Someone told me not to run away even in case of noises
To me that's not the same thing. Isn't the past perfect necessary?


----------



## johngiovanni

rrose17 said:


> edit: Sorry, I could be wrong. In the Italian did the person speaking, in fact, run away? Or is this not clear?



This thread reminds me of another recent thread where it seemed that the indirect speech could be ambiguous unless one were sure of the context and the actual content (including tenses) of the direct speech utterance.  However, in this post, the use of the _trapassato prossimo_ in the original would appear to remove the ambiguity because at the time of the original direct speech neither the speaker or anyone else for that matter would  _know_ whether the person he was warning "did" run away or not.  So whether the person being warned did or did not run away would seem irrelevant as far as the translation is concerned.  (Hope this makes sense!)

That's why HalfTaff's English sentence in post 4 (beginning with "He had told me..." - _He had told me that even if I had heard strange noises I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen" _) seems strange to me, whereas if the sentence had begun with "He told me" - it would have seemed more natural, except that the second "had" also seems strange - though not a translation of the Italian sentence in the OP -  (because with "he told me" the direct speech could have been uttered after the person he was speaking to had run away or not run away).

@ Pietruzzo -  I think in your English sentences it doesn't really matter whether you use the past perfect or not _if the context is otherwise clear_.   However, the use of the _trapassato prossimo_ in the Italian sentence appears to me significant.

I agree with Rrose's translation in post 3, but personally I would keep the "He had" or the contracted "He'd".


----------



## Paulfromitaly

rrose17 said:


> I wonder if the mods might think of grouping them as a reference?


We did that a couple of years ago

*Future in the past/condizionale passato*

The problem is that some people "forget" to search first 



MR1492 said:


> As rrose noted, it sounds stilted and artificial.


Actually the original sentence is not an example of clarity either..
When the source is so convoluted I'd personal just care to convey the correct meaning when I translate it, which is, in the end, the most important thing.



rrose17 said:


> He (had) told me that I shouldn't run away even if I heard strange noises because I could be seen.


I would go with this translation too (it flows well and it's not as stilted as a literal translation would be) 
While it's true that there's a little difference between  "mi disse" and "mi aveva detto", the meaning doesn't change in this sentence and I'm not even sure whether the writer chose "mi aveva detto" for an actual reason.
It might be a good idea to translate the "direct speech" version of the sentence first and then change it to the past tense.

_He says: don't run away even if you hear strange noises because someone could see you.
He told me that I shouldn't run away even if I heard strange noises because I could be seen_


----------



## HalfTaff

Paul makes the point that the most important thing is to convey the correct meaning, which is what I tried to do, although I am still not sure whether I succeeded - and anyway the meaning of the sentence as written may not be the meaning that the writer had in mind.

I continue to wonder how my disputed translation would be translated back into Italian if not in the form of the sentence that is the subject of this thread, but perhaps I should raise that as a new thread.

With regard to JohnGiovanni's point about "He had told me" sounding odd, it's possible, I think, in something like this: "He had told me that even if I had heard noises I shouldn't have run away.  He now tells me I was right to run". We don't know the context of the sentence in this instance; perhaps it would help to know (it often does).


----------



## johngiovanni

Thanks, Paul, for the confirmation.

I assumed that it was a deliberate choice to use the _trapassato prossimo_ because the direct speech was before the time when the warning was being recalled, so that "He had said, 'Don't run away even if you hear strange noises because someone could see you.'"  (or something similar in direct speech) becomes "He had told me ....." in indirect speech.  That is why I wanted to keep the past perfect in the English translation.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

johngiovanni said:


> I assumed that it was a deliberate choice to use the _trapassato prossimo_ because the direct speech was before the time when the warning was being recalled


If that's the case, you need the past perfect.


----------



## Dattero

Grazie mille a tutti quanti, ho capito che è meglio usare "should" per esprimere "avrei dovuto".
thanks to everyone!


----------



## HalfTaff

The early references to "future in the past" confused me, but it's since been made clear to me why they were made, and why my translation was seen to be stilted.

When I wrote "He had told me that even if I had heard strange noises I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen", I was assuming that "I" had run away from strange noises, and had been told that I shouldn't have done so - and that is how I interpreted the Italian sentence. The more common interpretation seems to have been that "I" was told that I shouldn't run away if, in the future, I were to hear strange noises.

Is my interpretation wrong beyond all doubt? Is it not, at least, a possibility that the speaker was commenting on a past, not a future, act? If that possibility doesn't exist, then clearly my translation is wrong.


----------



## L'Enrico

My intial interpretation was also as a future of the past. I thought that for it to be a counterfactual it should have read, "anche se avevo sentito dei rumori non sarei dovuto scappare."
But now I'm not so sure anymore. 

E.


----------



## Pietruzzo

HalfTaff said:


> Is my interpretation wrong beyond all doubt? Is it not, at least, a possibility that the speaker was commenting on a past, not a future, act?


Your interpretation is not impossible but it's very unlikely. The scenario could be like this
Oggi è sabato. 
Ieri, venerdì, l'ho incontrato e gli ho ricordato che giovedì mi aveva detto che mercoledì, anche se avessi sentito rumori, non sarei dovuto scappare.
Just a bit too complicated. Isn't it?
My intepretation(and the others' I guess) is like this:
Oggi, sabato, sto raccontando quello che è successo ieri, venerdì, e ti dico che "giovedì mi aveva detto che  anche se ieri, venerdì, avessi sentito dei rumori non sarei dovuto scappare"


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

For me, "He told me that even if I heard [even if I were to hear] strange noises, I mustn't/shouldn't run away because I would/could be seen." is advice I had been given regarding a future or hypothetical situation, e.g to a spy or advance scout. Perhaps "Mi ha detto che anche se io sentissi rumori strani, non dovrei scappare perche sarei visto."
And "He told me that even though I had heard strange noises, I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen." means that I had heard strange noises and did run away, but although luckily for me I hadn't been seen, I could have been. Perhaps "Mi ha detto che anche se avessi sentito rumori strani, non avrei dovuto scappare perche avrei potuto essere visto."
And "He had told me that even if I heard strange noises I shouldn't run away because I could be seen." These are instructions he gave me and that I am now recalling. Perhaps I am on a mission when I remember them, perhaps not, and if I am I may be remembering them and so will not run away, or may be remembering them too late if I had been seen. In this case, perhaps "Mi ricordevo che lui mi aveva detto che anche se io senttissi rumori strani non dovrei scappare pench sarei stato visto." 
Scusatemi per gli errori in Italiano ; voglio sopratutto dare qui' il mio proprio intrepretazione del senso delle frasi in Inglese. Spero che mi sia reso utile .


----------



## london calling

_He (had) told me that even if I were to hear/heard any strange noises I was not to run/I should stay put because otherwise they might see me.
_
I have read all your suggestions. This is just another take.


----------



## HalfTaff

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> And "He told me that even though I had heard strange noises, I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen." means that I had heard strange noises and did run away, but although luckily for me I hadn't been seen, I could have been.



This is exactly the interpretation I put on the original sentence. If this is definitely wrong, I need to know that as part of my Italian language learning process. Can anyone give me a categorical yea or nay on that? And if it is wrong, may I ask what the Italian form of my erroneous translation would be? Many thanks to anyone who can further my understanding.


----------



## london calling

I see this as a future in the past, as others have said, hence my translation above (..I was not to run/I should stay put because otherwise they might see me). Your translation (....I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen) translates back to the original sentence but to my mind it is a little odd in English, by which I means it sounds like a literal translation which doesn't really render the idea that the person is being advised not to move so as not to be seen.


----------



## Jasmyn

Lo stesso discorso indiretto:
"Mi aveva detto che se anche avessi sentito dei rumori strani non avrei dovuto scappare perché avrei potuto essere visto"
può derivare da 2 diversi discorsi diretti:

Mi aveva detto:

1 "Se anche dovessi sentire strani rumori, non devi/dovrai scappare perché potresti essere visto"; (raccomandazione)


Paulfromitaly said:


> He says: don't run away even if you hear strange noises because someone could see you.





rrose17 said:


> He (had) told me that I shouldn't run away even if I heard strange noises because I could be seen.



2 "Se anche avessi sentito strani rumori, non avresti dovuto scappare perché avresti potuto essere visto"; (ammonimento).

"Even if you had heard strange noises, you shouldn't have run away because you could have been seen"


HalfTaff said:


> "He had told me that even if I had heard strange noises I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen"


----------



## HalfTaff

london calling said:


> I see this as a future in the past, as others have said, hence my translation above (..I was not to run/I should stay put because otherwise they might see me). Your translation (....I shouldn't have run away because I could have been seen) translates back to the original sentence but to my mind it is a little odd in English, by which I means it sounds like a literal translation which doesn't really render the idea that the person is being advised not to move so as not to be seen.



Bur is it odd in English if the person is being told that he had taken a wrong action, rather than being advised about a future course of action?


----------



## bicontinental

I’d like to join the ranks of the (still) confused: It remains unclear to me how you would express the (English) _second and third conditional in reported speech in Italian._
Let’s try this from English to Italian instead (expanding on posts #20 and #24 above, if I may):

*Scenario 1:*

a. Direct speech: “Even if you hear strange noises you shouldn’t run away because you could be seen”  -->

b. Indirect speech:  He (had) told me that even if I heard strange noises I shouldn’t run away because I could be seen.

This scenario would represent a second conditional …it’s hypothetical and in a present of future time frame, the noises and the running away haven’t happened, and they may or may not, we don’t know.

*Scenario 2: *

a. Direct speech: “Even if you had heard strange noises you shouldn’t have run away because you could have been seen.” -->

b. Indirect speech: He had told me that even if I had heard strange noises I shouldn’t have run away because I could have been seen.

This is a third conditional…this is after the fact and here we know that the person didn’t hear noises and didn’t run away. It’s hypothetical, counterfactual and refers to an event in the past.

*Question:* There’s a clear, semantic difference between the two conditionals in English. Based on comments above, it looks like these two sentences (1b and 2b) would be translated into the same sentence in Italian: _Mi aveva detto che se anche avessi sentito dei rumori strani non avrei dovuto scappare perché avrei potuto essere visto. _Is that correct? And if so, how can some of you favor one translation into English over another given this single sentence in isolation?

Thanks in advance...
Bic


----------



## Pietruzzo

bicontinental said:


> *Question:* There’s a clear, semantic difference between the two conditionals in English. Based on comments above, it looks like these two sentences (1b and 2b) would be translated into the same sentence in Italian: _Mi aveva detto che se anche avessi sentito dei rumori strani non avrei dovuto scappare perché avrei potuto essere visto. _Is that correct?


I thought I had already answered the same question  in post 19. For your quite improbable scenario 2b, you should use specific time referencies in Italian
Eg. Mi aveva detto che il giorno prima non sarei dovuto fuggire per nessun motivo
With no time reference, all Italian speakers would think of future in the past


----------



## london calling

I agree with Pietruzzo (of course). As I said above, I immediately thought 'future in the past' when I read the sentence, hence my translation attempts.


----------



## HalfTaff

Pietruzzo said:


> I thought I had already answered the same question in post 19. For your quite improbable scenario 2b, you should use specific time referencies in Italian
> Eg. Mi aveva detto che il giorno prima non sarei dovuto fuggire per nessun motivo
> With no time reference, all Italian speakers would think of future in the past



Thanks for that final clarification, which has relieved me of my doubts and misconceptions.


----------



## Pietruzzo

HalfTaff said:


> Thanks for that final clarification, which has relieved me of my doubts and misconceptions.


Amen


----------



## bicontinental

Thanks, Pietruzzo and LC. Now it's completely clear... even to me! 
Bic.


----------



## gold&grey

It is clear that you all have dealt with rather "future in the past" than any other possible tense here. I was reading with strong interest all your versions and I must admit, also as a teacher, this paragraph of the English grammar could turn to be confusing and misleading, especially if the mother-tongue is Italian. As a young student I was taught that future in the past could be susceptible of tense changes, whether the action took or didn't take place. Now, taking into account the reported speech (that contains future in the past): A) "He told me he would arrive at 1 o'clock" (it's 11,00 at the time of the statement). What was reoccurring in learning this part of grammar when I was a student was that the same sentence, stated at 5 o'clock was to turn into B)" He told me he would have arrived at 5" without specifying any obvious condition (as third conditional). Now, only today I realise that's indeed very confusing, that if I stick with simply reporting a "I will come at 1 o'clock" speech I should still use A) but if I look at that from a future in the past perspective, the fact the he did not turn up at 1 o'clock could be enough to make me tense-shift into past conditional..B) Am I talking nonsense? Were my earlier English grammar notions incorrect or did something change in these few past decades? Many thanks for helping me understand whether the result of the plan/prediction/promise in the r. speech/future in the past has still got an impact on the tense.

Hi there, sorry if I insist on this one. But while we could easily write "I thought he would come" translating it into Italian with "Pensavo sarebbe venuto" why on the other hand would we have almost no doubt in writing "I knew he would have said yes", therefore maintaining the same past conditional as in Italian? They're both future in the past, aren't they? In neither is there any hint of a condition or unreal hypothesis, that's clear.
Although we could possibly contemplate the option "I knew he would say yes" as as correct we could never say the same for "I thought he would have come" considering this "have" obsolete, redundant and not exactly "future in the past" compliant .. What's there that changes?? Great thanks!


----------



## johngiovanni

Ciao gold&grey.

I've sent you a PM.

Regards


----------

