# Doveva per forza trovarsi in paradiso



## MatrixMNP

Hello 

is it ok if I translate:

"Doveva per forza trovarsi in paradiso"

with:

"It was bound, that he was in heaven"?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Ciao, Mat.
E' necessaria una porzione di testo più lunga per poterci lavorare meglio.
Grazie.
GS


----------



## Gianfry

Ahia, con queste forme non sono molto bravo 
Ci provo lo stesso, in attesa di altro contesto...
_He must have necessarily (found himself / been) in Heaven_


----------



## rrose17

Gianfry said:


> _He must have necessarily (found himself / been) in Heaven_


Necessarily sounds odd here I think. Maybe 
_He was surely in heaven._
_He was sure to be in heaven._


----------



## Memimao

He had to be in heaven

My try


----------



## macforever

Mi sembra che la traduzione di Memimao sia la più vicina al testo proposto da MatrixMNP.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Io invece, Memi, sono convinto che la frase richieda l'uso d'un modale epistemico (logico-deduttivo). Nella fattispecie "must".
GS


----------



## Memimao

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Io invece, Memi, sono convinto che la frase richieda l'uso d'un modale epistemico (logico-deduttivo). Nella fattispecie "must".
> GS



_Must_ doesn't work for the past. You have to use the peiphrastic _had to._

More importantly, you  need to disambiguate the phrase between _past_ and _future in the pas_t:

He had to be in heaven _then/later_

but it works in context


----------



## BarbaraLamb

Why not Memimao? 

Don't you say...

He must have decided wrongly? 
She must have thought he was crazy? 
It must have looked strange to you.

So, why not "He *must have been* in Heaven?"


----------



## Memimao

Two reasons:

Firstly _must_ is used to describe the speakers _interior_ convictions, not usually something which is outside the control/will/experience of the speaker.

Compare: _I must write to her_ (because it's beem a long time since I did so) and _I have to write to the bank_ (because they require written instructions from me).

Secondly (_must have been_ is speculation, and for me is incompatible with doveva _per forza_...


----------



## Gianfry

Memimao said:


> _must have been_ is speculation, and for me is incompatible with doveva _per forza_...


Not necessarily, but we definitely need more context.
Unfortunately matrix deserted us after his/her first post...


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Memi.

Sorry to disagree: "must" can and should be employed for the past whenever it is needed, ie when the speaker strongly believes that something was the case:

"Well, Hugh was writing some novel or other, and he made up his mind he must go abroad".

I believe this is a good example of the performative (inchoative) character of "must". It is easy to see that in this context "had to go abroad" would be impossible.

Best.

GS


----------



## Memimao

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Memi.
> 
> Sorry to disagree: "must" can and should be employed for the past whenever it is needed, ie when the speaker strongly believes that something was the case:
> 
> "Well, Hugh was writing some novel or other, and he made up his mind he must go abroad".
> 
> I believe this is a good example of the performative (inchoative) character of "must". It is easy to see that in this context "had to go abroad" would be impossible.
> 
> Best.
> 
> GS



If he _must_ go abroad then he still today has not gone abroad; if he went abroad after the was writing time (but before today) you would say _had to_. _Must_ puts the action in *our* future in your example.

Think "reported speech".


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Memi.

"Had to" would have been required if the sentence had been "Hugh ... , and suddenly _remembered_ he had to see his boss". 
in other word, some time in the past, Hugh had agreed to meet with his boss at regular intervals. 
In my previous sentence, no such obligation is involved: Hugh suddenly _decides_ that he needs to meet with his boss.

Another example:
"While she was waiting her turn outside the toilet [of a restaurant], the girl passed her fingers through her hair and realized it had to have must have been looking dreadful". 

All the best.

GS


----------



## Memimao

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Memi.
> 
> "Had to" would have been required if the sentence had been "Hugh ... , and suddenly _remembered_ he had to see his boss".
> in other word, some time in the past, Hugh had agreed to meet with his boss at regular intervals.
> In my previous sentence, no such obligation is involved: Hugh suddenly _decides_ that he needs to meet with his boss.
> 
> Another example:
> "While she was waiting her turn outside the toilet [of a restaurant], the girl passed her fingers through her hair and realized it had to have must have been looking dreadful".
> 
> All the best.
> 
> GS



Nothing to do with regular intervals. The modals do not work that way. They are timeless.

I must/have to see my boss can refer to any number of occasions (including 1 now/every Wednesday).

Reported however you say "He said he _had to_ see his boss" though, if the seeing is still future when reported, _must_ is possible.

But I am coming from a different view point.

There was a documentary many years ago about lightning bus tours around Europe with the title "It's Wednesday, it must be Belgium" = Deve essere (per forza) il Belgio. 

You could say _It was Wednesday, it *must have been* Belgium,_ but *It was Wednesday, it had to be Belgium* is perfectly adequate to render the idea and is "punchier" (that "per forza")

Just as _be able_ fits for _can_ so too *have to* for *must*


----------



## BarbaraLamb

Riprovo con un altro esempio:

The other day I walked past your house and saw the lights were on, you _must have been_ at home.

E allora con questa come la mettiamo?


----------



## Memimao

BarbaraLamb said:


> Riprovo con un altro esempio:
> 
> The other day I walked past your house and saw the lights were on, you _must have been_ at home.
> 
> E allora con questa come la mettiamo?



You would say that if you had no firm evidence beyond the circumstantial. 

You would say "The other day I walked past your house and the llights were on, you had to be at home (so if you weren't answering your phone it was because you didn't want to speak to me)

I am trying to render not the Itailan _doveva_ but the _per forza_ (there is no alternative, it had to be so)


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I'm sorry, memi. We do not seem to understand each other. Pity, though.
All the best.
GS


----------



## Memimao

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I'm sorry, memi. We do not seem to understand each other. Pity, though.
> All the best.
> GS



No problem - this is what the Forum is for.

My idea is that *must/must have* draws a conclusion from circumstantial evidence e.g. He left two hours ago, he must have arrived by now.

*Doveva* on its own carries this for me

Adding _per forza_ goes beyond the circumstantial.

We are short of context anyway


----------



## zipp404

La frase _Doveva per forza trovarsi in paradiso._ riporta il pensiero di qualcuno che crede trovarsi in paradiso.

Quindi, io la renderei:

_He had to have found himself in paradise_. 

The sentence means that the person found himself in a place that was so nice that he said to himself: "I must be in paradise!".  

Reporting it in indirect discourse, it becomes:

_He had to have found himself in paradise_

or:

_He thought he must surely be in paradise._

The verb 'must' in English _*does not*_ express obligation *only*.  

It also expresses _conjecture_.

The sentence _Doveva per forza trovarsi in paradiso_ expresses a conjecture on the part of the speaker/writer _*about *_ a thought of the grammatical subject "*He*" (whoever that is)

Ciao!


----------



## Memimao

zipp404 said:


> La frase _Doveva per forza trovarsi in paradiso._ riporta il pensiero di qualcuno che crede trovarsi in paradiso.
> 
> Quindi, io la renderei:
> 
> _He had to have found himself in paradise_.
> 
> The sentence means that the person found himself in a place that was so nice that he said to himself: "I must be in paradise!".
> 
> Reporting it in indirect discourse, it becomes:
> 
> _He had to have found himself in paradise_
> 
> or:
> 
> _He thought he must surely be in paradise._
> 
> The verb 'must' in English _*does not*_ express obligation *only*.
> 
> It also expresses _conjecture_.
> 
> The sentence _Doveva per forza trovarsi in paradiso_ expresses a conjecture on the part of the speaker/writer _*about *_the grammatical subject "*He*" (whoever that is)
> 
> Ciao!




_He had to have found himself in paradise_ doesn't work in English

Firstly, I am making an assumtion about the context, and I think you are too, which is that the doveva and trovare are in the *same time frame*

I.e. There is a new situation as compared to previously, the person was certainly, at the time referred to, in paradise. 

An alternative could be that he was not in paradise and he should have been or, again, was obliged to be in paradise at a time later. As I said this needs disambiguating in Italian as much as in English. Context is important.

Apart from the fact that English does not use *find oneself* as a common equivalent for *Be* the translation, which equates to he had to have *been* in paradise, would refer to a time *prior/anterior* to the time referred to.

E.g. I saw John yesterday, he was very tanned. He must/has to have been on vacation (before I saw him). In reality the _has to_ doesn't fit because the verb of choice is _must_ to draw conclusions from incomplete information.

He _was certainly_ in paradise (at that moment) = He _had to be_ in paradise (at that moment).


----------



## zipp404

First of all, I may be very young but I wasn't born yesterday.  

Your gramamtical and semantic analysis is _wrong_.

He had to have found himself in paradise _*does*_ work in English.   

If the sentence _reports _the thought, atttitude or reaction of the subject, then it is in indirect dscourse and should be rendered _He had to have found himself in paradise_, and the passive voice of the verb _to find_ is very appropriate because presumably the subject _*did not expect*_ to be there (in paradise).

If on the other hand _doveva _expresses _*obligation*_ and not a conjecture, then the sentence should simply be rendered:

_He had to be in paradise._
.


----------



## Memimao

zipp404 said:


> First of all, I may be very young but I wasn't born yesterday.
> 
> Your gramamtical and semantic analysis is wrong.
> 
> He had to have found himself in paradise _*does *_work in English.
> 
> If the sentence reports the thought, atttitude or reaction of the subject, then it is in indirect dscourse and should be rendered _He had to have found himself in paradise_, and the passive voice of the verb _to find_ is very appropriate because presumably the subject _*did not expect*_ to be there (in paradise).
> 
> If on the other hand _doveva _expresses _*obligation*_ and not a conjecture, then the sentence should simply be rendered:
> 
> _He had to be in paradise._



In Italian, esecially written Italian *trovarsi* means just *be*

This happens a lot when comparing Italian and English because the so-called "Latinate" origin terms are used in Engllish to give a more formal tone as compared to the German origin ones. When translating from Italian to English you have to bear in mind the tone of the orginal Italian usage and not slavishly use find oneself, for example, when normal English would use be. _Trovarsi d_oes not belong to the same formal register in Italian as _find oneself_ does in English.

The whole concept is of "modality" in English  has in some ways in replaced what is achieved in Italian through mood (i.e. indicative, subjunctive etc.)

Additionally, dovere in Italian has more uses than just obligation. It is actually also predictive (_Deve venire/arrivare _can mean _he is scheduled to come_ and not _he is obliged to come_)

Context is everything.

The sentence you are looking for is "He had to be in paradise (my original by the way) but yours is closer to He had *to have been* in paradise. That's why it doesn't work. The orginal is _doveva essere (trovarsi)_ and not _doveva essere stato.... (essersi trovato)_


----------



## zipp404

Memimao, I know what _trovarsi_ means in Italian.  I am a native speaker of a romance language (Spanish) and a fluent speaker of French both of which have pronominal verbs with identical meanings in this particular respect.

I'm sorry, but your analysis is wrong with respect to the agreemement of tenses in this particular case.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hey, zippo.
Thanks for coming to my rescue.
You wrote "He thought he must surely be in paradise." This seems to reassure us about the grammaticality of the use of "must" in a sentence about a *past* conjecture.
Best.
GS


----------



## Memimao

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hey, zippo.
> 
> So glad you came to my rescue. You wrote _"He thought he must surely be in paradise."_ as a possible rendering of the original sentence. This seems to confirm my conviction about the grammaticality of (the epistemic use of) "must" to refer to a *past* conjecture.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> GS



First of all _He thought he must..._ is a concept that is different from Doveva essere in paradiso. It is closer to _Credeva di essere in paradiso_.

The _thought_ is in the past, the _must_ is timeless.

And remember the addition of _per forza_ and remember too that I said that I was using _had to_ periphrastically, i.e. to _express_ must but in a form it does not possess.

Must has a single form in English wheraas _can _has _could_, _may _has _might,_ _shall_ has _should, __will_ has _would _etc. When English speakers hear *had to* used like this they *think* must, just as they think *can* when they here periphrastic be able.


----------



## Memimao

zipp404 said:


> Memimao, I know what _trovarsi_ means in Italian.  I am a native speaker of a romance language (Spanish) and a fluent speaker of French both of which have pronominal verbs with identical meanings in this particular respect.
> 
> I'm sorry, but your analysis is wrong with respect to the agreemement of tenses in this particular case.



My point was that find oneself is a very pompous English, nothing like as everyday as trovarsi is in Italian.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

You declare:
"*When English speakers hear had to used like this they think must..."

Afraid not, memi.

If I visit my old pal Victor at the Naval Academy, where he, as Colonel, is the top guy,
I may be tempted to use first names. The Colonel's reaction may be twofold:

1. Sorry, you have to call me "Sir" (rules of behaviour in this institution force us to...)
2. Sorry, you must call me "Sir" (I want/expect you to...)

I believe that an English speaker can tell the difference between the two.

Best.
GS*


----------



## Memimao

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> You declare:
> "*When English speakers hear had to used like this they think must..."
> 
> Afraid not, memi.
> 
> If I visit my old pal Victor at the Naval Academy, where he, as Colonel, is the top guy,
> I may be tempted to use first names. The Colonel's reaction may be twofold:
> 
> 1. Sorry, you have to call me "Sir" (rules of behaviour in this institution force us to...)
> 2. Sorry, you must call me "Sir" (I want/expect you to...)
> 
> I believe that an English speaker can tell the difference between the two.
> 
> Best.
> GS*


*

That is not periphrastic use*


----------

