# I enjoyed those days and wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer



## raffavita

Hi there,
I have this passage here which sounds a bit contradictory to me.
A man is talking about his past.
The cop has just asked him whether he used to climb with the deceased man.
"Oh, adventure. *I enjoyed those days and wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer*."

Isn't it a bit contradictory?
He enjoyed those days, but he wouldn't come back to that period?
Then he smiles as a man does over past glories. So, if he considers them as past glories, how come he "wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer"?
I'm afraid I can't grasp the actual meaning of this passage.
Can yo help me?
Grazie in anticipo. Rafs


----------



## bLux

Forse perché quando sei giovane fai delle cose che ti sembrano divertenti, ma poi da adulto ci pensi e le vedi come errori che non rifaresti... Se un ragazzo fuma lo fa perché magari gli piace... Ma poi quando è vecchio dice:"Mi piaceva fumare ma non vorrei tornare indietro per rifarlo"


----------



## Saoul

A meno che in questo caso "to have something back for something else" non voglia dire "non li scambierei".

Just a try. Let's wait for natives. 

Blux, il tuo ragionamento per quanto condivisibile non prende in considerazione "for a Pulitzer!"


----------



## raffavita

Ciao bLux,
quindi secondo te dice proprio non ritornerei indietro neanche per un Pulitzer?
A me sembrava più logico che dicesse "e non ci rinuncerei nemmeno per un Pulitzer."
La trovo un po' ambigua questa frase.
Grazie mille.


----------



## bLux

Saoul said:


> Blux, il tuo ragionamento per quanto condivisibile non prende in considerazione "for a Pulitzer!"


 
Lo so, infatti non l'avevo preso in considerazione... Ho appena letto che il Pulitzer è un premio di alta onorificenza americano... Ho pensato a "Mi sono piaciuti quei giorni, ma non li vorrei rivivere per niente al mondo" (Anche se fosse una cosa preziosa come si dice "Nemmeno per tutto l'oro del mondo") No?


----------



## MünchnerFax

Io sostengo l'ipotesi di Saoul. _Mi sono divertito in quei giorni, e non li scambierei nemmeno con un Pulitzer.
_L'idea è quella dei due fustini al posto di uno...


----------



## Saoul

bLux said:


> Lo so, infatti non l'avevo preso in considerazione... Ho appena letto che il Pulitzer è un premio di alta onorificenza americano... Ho pensato a "Mi sono piaciuti quei giorni, ma non li vorrei rivivere per niente al mondo" (Anche se fosse una cosa preziosa come si dice "Nemmeno per tutto l'oro del mondo") No?



Secondo me no, per via del "and".

Fosse stato "I enjoyed those days but I wouldn't have the back (even) for a Pulitzer!" allora sarei d'accordo con te, ma con "and" la frase, come dice Raffa è contraddittoria.


----------



## raffavita

bLux said:


> Lo so, infatti non l'avevo preso in considerazione... Ho appena letto che il Pulitzer è un premio di alta onorificenza americano... Ho pensato a "Mi sono piaciuti quei giorni, ma non li vorrei rivivere per niente al mondo" (Anche se fosse una cosa preziosa come si dice "Nemmeno per tutto l'oro del mondo") No?


 
Beh, allora questo tizio ha un po' di problemi di bipolarismo.
Subito dopo brinda alle passate glorie.
L'ipotesi di Saoul mi sembra la più coerente, ma in effetti, alla lettera quella frase sembra dire il contrario.
Mah!
Grazie mille a entrambi!!!


----------



## bLux

Appunto per quello ho tradotto con "ma" senza dare importanza a "and"... Mi sembrava tranquillamente trascurabile.


----------



## Saoul

bLux said:


> Appunto per quello ho tradotto con "ma" senza dare importanza a "and"... Mi sembrava tranquillamente trascurabile.



Così facendo però, travisi il senso della frase. Cerchiamo di sincerarci prima con i madrelingua se il verbo "to have something back for something else" abbia un significato diverso da quello che ci sembra avere ad una prima analisi, e poi al massimo valutiamo se ci sia un errore nell'uso di "and" consideranto di modificarlo in "but", no?


----------



## bLux

Sì, hai ragione, è quello a cui stavo pensando anch'io.


----------



## perfavore

Ciao Raf,

I enjoyed those days and wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer. This means he is willing *not to have* them, the memories or the chance to re-live the adventure, if somebody *would offer him* a Pulitzer prize. 

Spero di averti aiutato


----------



## k_georgiadis

This sentence is awkward but perhaps we can make some sense of it if we think of an expression such as "I wish I could take it back," referring to turning back the clock and undo something said or done in the past. I believe he is saying that he has no regrets and that he wouldn't trade those experiences for the greatest journalistic honor.


----------



## perfavore

Saoul said:


> Secondo me no, per via del "and".
> 
> Fosse stato "I enjoyed those days but I wouldn't have the back (even) for a Pulitzer!" allora sarei d'accordo con te, ma con "and" la frase, come dice Raffa è contraddittoria.


 
Hi Saoul,

I think this has a different meaning. It would be wrong to use *but *to mean the same thing as the original sentence.


----------



## raffavita

perfavore said:


> Ciao Raf,
> 
> I enjoyed those days and wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer. This means he is willing *not to have* them, the memories or the chance to re-live the adventure, if somebody *would offer him* a Pulitzer prize.
> 
> Spero di averti aiutato


 
Hi perfavore,
first of all thank you.

Doesn't the sentence sound a bit contradictory to you?
I would expect that he say "BUT I wouldn't have them back.."
If he really enjoyed those days, why doesn't he want to have them back?
And why does he smile over past glories?
Do I have to take that "and" as a "but"?
Thank you so much everybody.


----------



## perfavore

k_georgiadis said:


> This sentence is awkward but perhaps we can make some sense of it if we think of an expression such as "I wish I could take it back," referring to turning back the clock and undo something said or done in the past. I believe he is saying that he has no regrets and that he wouldn't trade those experiences for the greatest journalistic honor.


 
Sorry, I disagree. He is trying to say that he would only give up those days/memories if somebody offered him a Pulitzer "...*for a Pulitzer*." *Yes, he will give them up* for a Pulitzer which to him is more valuable than the adventure or the memories of it as expressed in the original sentence.


----------



## Saoul

perfavore said:


> Hi Saoul,
> 
> I think this has a different meaning. It would be wrong to use *but *to mean the same thing as the original sentence.



Exactly my point, perfavore!


----------



## bLux

Il ragionamento di k_georgiadis mi sembra il più esauriente.


----------



## perfavore

raffavita said:


> Hi perfavore,
> first of all thank you.
> 
> Doesn't the sentence sound a bit contradictory to you?
> I would expect that he say "BUT I wouldn't have them back.."
> If he really enjoyed those days, why doesn't he want to have them back?
> And why does he smile over past glories?
> Do I have to take that "and" as a "but"?
> Thank you so much everybody.


 
Ciao Rafs,

No, the sentence is not contradictory at all. He does want them back and the only thing that would make him stop wanting them is if somebody offered him a Pulitzer. He understands that it's probably an impossibility for him to get the Pulitzer so he used it figuratively to say that that's the only thing that would make him give them up. "I would never have dogs in my house/I would stop loving dogs for a Wimbledon trophy." This is my version of his sentence.


----------



## raffavita

So there's an "only" missing!!!

Should they offer me a Pulitzer, the, and only then would I have them back.

EDIT: "Me li sono proprio goduti quei giorni e sarei disposto a scambiarli solo con un Pulitzer."

So we were all saying the same thing.
Grazie mille.


----------



## pescara

I think K Georgadis' interpretation is the only interpretation that makes sense, given that the sentence uses the word "and" instead of "but."  

It sounds like the speaker is saying that he enjoyed those experiences and if he had the chance to live his life over again and someone offered him a Pulitzer instead of those experiences, he would choose the experiences instead of the Pulitzer.  

Ciao.


----------



## raffavita

Hi Pescara,
don't you think he's saying that since he's sure enough that he'll never be offered a Pulitzer, he's not willing to give those moments back but for a Pulitzer?
Grazie mille anche a te.


EDIT: "what's the exact meaning of "to have them back"? 
Isn't it "tornare indietro"?
If so, "I wouldn't have them back" would mean "non li rivivrei un'altra volta", right?
Then "he wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer."


----------



## perfavore

raffavita said:


> So there's an "only" missing!!!
> 
> Should they offer me a Pulitzer, then, and only then would I *not *have them back.
> 
> EDIT: "Me li sono proprio goduti quei giorni e sarei disposto a scambiarli solo con un Pulitzer."
> 
> So we were all saying the same thing.
> Grazie mille.


 
Ciao Raf, 

This has an entirely different meaning without "not".


----------



## perfavore

Ciao Pescara,

Sorry, I disagree. When somebody says, "*I wouldn't have them back for a* *Pulitzer*" is the same as somebody saying, "*I would stop smoking for a million dollars in the bank."*


----------



## raffavita

perfavore said:


> Ciao Raf,
> 
> This has an entirely different meaning without "not".


 
Yes, you're right. I forgot the "not".
Is my translation correct, though??

Grazie mille a tutti.


----------



## perfavore

Si, Rafs, la tua traduzione è corretta ma non dimenticare la parola "non".


----------



## raffavita

perfavore said:


> Si, Rafs, la tua traduzione è corretta ma non dimenticare la parola "non".


 
Oddio, allora non ho capito niente.
Se scrivo "non" cambia tutto.

Didn't you mean "I would only give them back for a Pulitzer?"
If so, "Li scambierei* solo* con un Pulitzer would be right."

Instead, if I wrote "non li scambierei neanche con un Pulitzer" this would mean "I would not trade it even with a Pulitzer."

Which is which?
Grazie again.


----------



## perfavore

Ciao Rafs,

Mi spiace. Non ho intento di confonderti. Sì, "Li scambierei solo con un Pulitzer" è corretta assolutamente.  Ti ho detto che non dimenticare la parola "non" perche' sto pensando della tua frase che hai scritto come "non li rivivrei un'altra volta."

Buona giornata


----------



## raffavita

perfavore said:


> When somebody says, "*I wouldn't have them back for a* *Pulitzer*" is the same as somebody saying, "*I would stop smoking for a million dollars in the bank."*


 
I knew the positive statement, but I didn't know it could also be used this way in negative sentences.

What I can't grasp is the very meaning of "to have something back".
Grazie mille Perfavore.


----------



## perfavore

È stato un piacere.


----------



## baldpate

"to have something back" = "to re-enact something or re-possess something *now*"
 So ... "I wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer" = "I would not nowadays re-enact the events of those past days, even if I were given a Pulitzer to do so".

There was a lot of discussion in this thread about the apparent 'illogical' use of *and*, rather than *but*.  However, I think the writer has used "and" quite deliberately, in order to emphasise the contrast between the characters enjoyment of past adventures as a younger man, and his lack of desire to re-enact them now as a maturer man.  The *and* emphasises how it is possible to have both feeling : this is not illogical, this is being human!


----------



## raffavita

What I find illogical is that the man seems to be proud of those days.
All the given elements point to that conclusion.
First of all, the sentence that opens the passage: "I enjoyed those days".
Secondly the use of "and".
Thirdly: the smile and the toast over his past glories.
And last but not least, the regret which accompanies the exclamation "Ah, adventure."

I can't see any valid reason to assume that he would never do it again.
Where do you see it?
Grazie mille in anticipo.


----------



## raffavita

perfavore said:


> Ciao Rafs,
> 
> Mi spiace. Non ho intento di  volevo confonderti. Sì, "Li scambierei solo con un Pulitzer" è corretta assolutamente.  Ti ho detto che di non dimenticare la parola "non" perche' pensavo della alla  frase che hai scritto: "non li rivivrei un'altra volta."
> 
> Buona giornata


----------



## stella_maris_74

Raffa, I think he's just being ironic. Oscar Wilde-wise: so resistere a tutto, tranne che alle tentazioni. Appearantly contradictory, but to reach an ironic/paradox effect.

Ciao 

dani


----------



## perfavore

Hi Dani,

I sensed the wishful thinking and the conditional, giving up something for something else, but not irony.


----------



## raffavita

stella_maris_74 said:


> Raffa, I think he's just being ironic. Oscar Wilde-wise: so resistere a tutto, tranne che alle tentazioni. Appearantly contradictory, but to reach an ironic/paradox effect.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> dani


 
Ciao Dany,
ti prego dimmi come lo tradurresti tu.
Sto diventando matta.!
A me sembra che l'ironia ci sia comunque.
Quale delle tre interpretazioni ti sembra corretta?
1) non ritornerei indietro nemmeno per un Pulitzer.
2) non scambierei quei giorni nemmeno con un Pulitzer,
3) li scambierei solo con un pulitzer.

Ha appena detto con rimpianto "Ah, adventure." 
DIce che erano giovani intellettuali che non avrebbero combinato niente nella vita. Poi brinda alle passate glorie.
Grazie mille.
Liberatemi!!!!


----------



## baldpate

Hi raffavita!

I'm not sure I would place so much weight on "Oh, adventure" as an expression of regret.  To me it sounds more like the answer to the question "why he used to climb with the deceased man?": Answer "Oh, just for the aventure".  Had I been wishing to express regret/nostalgia, I would have said "Ahhh!(_long sigh_) Adventure!".

I absolutely agree he looks back on his earlier life with pleasure, even with pride.  I just think he sees it as something suitable and desireable for his past self, but in no way appropriate to his present, older self.

But we may just have to agree to disagree


----------



## raffavita

baldpate said:


> Hi raffavita!
> 
> I'm not sure I would place so much weight on "Oh, adventure" as an expression of regret. To me it sounds more like the answer to the question "why he used to climb with the deceased man?": Answer "Oh, just for the aventure". Had I been wishing to express regret/nostalgia, I would have said "Ahhh!(_long sigh_) Adventure!". He actually say "Ah, adventure".


 
Grazie mille Baldpate.


----------



## brian

Hi, I agree that it is a bit ironic, in the sense of

_I enjoyed those days, AND (ironically enough) wouldn't have them back (even) for a Pulitzer._

Perhaps it's a way of surprising the reader, saying that, well, I really did in fact enjoy those days, and probably would *not* _trade_ them for anything in the world, but nor would I like to relive them at this point in my life, because now they are passed and I am older. I'd say...

_Mi sono piaciuti quei giorni, e (allo stesso tempo) non li riviverei nemmeno per un Pulitzer (nemmeno per tutto l'oro del mondo)._

b


----------



## Memimao

Mi viene in mente: I enjoyed those days and wouldn't *hand* them back for a Pulitzer.

(?)


----------



## brian

Memimao said:


> Mi viene in mente: I enjoyed those days and wouldn't *hand* them back for a Pulitzer.
> 
> (?)


That could work too, but would give the opposite sense of what we were given. Are you suggesting that what we were originally given was transcribed wrong?


----------



## Memimao

It seems to fit with fewer verbal acrobatics. Typos happen


----------



## PRC86

Ho sentito dire qualche volta 'have them back' usato con lo stesso significato di 'give them back.'  Mi sembra una specie di parlare colloquiale.  Mi viene in mente specificamente quando qualcuno prende qualcosa da un altro, e il derebato dice qualcosa tipo 'Come on, have it back!'

It might be a regionalism, and Im not sure from where exactly it comes.  Quindi, with that meaning:

'I enjoyed those days, and wouldn't give them back for a Pulitzer.'


----------



## beauxyeux

Hi everybody, googling I found that "have something back for" something else has the exact meaning Saoul proposed at the beginning of the discussion:
Scambiare qualcosa con qualcos'altro.
Don't you agree on this?


----------



## raffavita

PRC86 said:


> Ho sentito dire qualche volta 'have them back' usato con lo stesso significato di 'give them back.' Mi sembra una specie di parlare colloquiale. Mi viene in mente specificamente quando qualcuno prende qualcosa da un altro, e il derebato dice qualcosa tipo 'Come on, have it back!'
> 
> It might be a regionalism, and Im not sure from where exactly it comes. Quindi, with that meaning:
> 
> 'I enjoyed those days, and wouldn't give them back for a Pulitzer.'


 
It makes most sense.
I'll stick with that.
Grazie a tutti per il vostro contributo.
Grazie davvero.


----------



## Memimao

beauxyeux said:


> Hi everybody, googling I found that "have something back for" something else has the exact meaning Saoul proposed at the beginning of the discussion:
> Scambiare qualcosa con qualcos'altro.
> Don't you agree on this?


 
No problem with this "have back" has alway meeant "riavere". Have back for means "riavere in cambio di..." 

It's contradictory to say "non li vorrei riavere nemmeno per un Pulitzer" of something you recall with fondness, whereas "non li restituirei (= _hand back) _nemmeno per..." works better.


----------



## beauxyeux

... from her own breast to satisfy the greed of her young, but she felt that she should have something back for her blood,—some return for her sacrifices. 

This is one of the examples I found on the net; It seems to me the meaning here is: avere qualcosa in cambio di qualcosa altro.
So, to me, the meaning is what Raffa said at the beginning: 

Non li rivivrei (solo) se mi dessero in cambio un Pulitzer


----------



## raffavita

beauxyeux said:


> ... from her own breast to satisfy the greed of her young, but she felt that she should have something back for her blood,—some return for her sacrifices.
> 
> This is one of the examples I found on the net; It seems to me the meaning here is: avere qualcosa in cambio di qualcosa altro.


 
If the meaning of the expression is "scambiare qualcosa con qualcos'altro" then there's no need of adding a "only" since it would be:
"I wouldn't have them for" = non li scambierei
"a Pulitzer = un Pulitzer."

*Non li scambierei neanche con un Pulitzer.*

Grazie ancora a tutti voi.


----------



## Starbuck

Ciao Raffa e Tutti,

Sorry to jump into this thread so late, but I was at work all day.  I think that Brian8733 is "on the money" with his reading.

*I enjoyed those days and wouldn't have them back for a Pulitzer.*
Translation:
_I had a great time back then and I wouldn't go back there for a second, even for a Pulitzer Prize._
or
_I enjoyed the hell out of my life when I was younger and I wouldn't want to have those days back for all the money in the world._

The use of "and" here is a rhetorical device--one of irony or more likely surprise since the listener would expect perhaps the use of "but" to highlight the contrast.  But depending on the "smile" that might be on the speaker's face when he says this line, the use of "and" sets up the irony or the surprise.

_He's extremely talented, ferociously goodlooking, and an idiot._
instead of the usual
_He's talented and goodlooking, but he's an idiot._

Starbuck


----------



## raffavita

Hi Starbuck,

What do you think of Perfavore's, beauxyeux's and Saoul's  interpretation?
Don' t know why, but it sounded more logical to me, given the context.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't regret having done what he has done.
Couldn't it be a particular structure as Perfavore and beauxyeux pointed out?
Many thanks.


----------

