去目錄頁
回应

"Should have"

从 brodicius, 2011年12月5日

讯息： 58

语言: English

brodicius (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午12:07:44

How exactly does one say something to the effect of "You should have x.". I can't seem to figure this out. The furthest I can think is 'Vi estis esti..' but that doesn't seem quite right.

Scratch (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午12:48:55

Vi devus

cFlat7 (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午1:06:04

Is x a thing or an action?

Thing e.g.: Vi devas havi tiun libron.
--> You should have that book.

Action e.g.: Vi devus esti irinta.
--> You should have gone.

RiotNrrd (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午1:06:42

There isn't really a direct one-to-one mapping of "should" and its variants from English into Esperanto. But the following constructions have become more or less accepted:

devus = should
devintus = should have

"Devus" is in the conditional, which (I believe) in Esperanto always refers to hypothetical situations rather than real ones, whereas "should" is often not used in English in that manner at all: "He should do it, so he BETTER do it.*" So... not precisely the same in theory, but in practice is (mis)used exactly that way, and will be understood.

"Devintus" is basically an abomination, but it turns out to be a fairly useful abomination as abominations go, so people just learn it as-is and try not to shudder when they say it. Some people object to this form outright, and they probably have a point, but this is how it gets used, so there you go.

----------

* One could make the case that "devu" would serve in this case. However, I think of that as a strong "must", and "should" is considerably weaker.

erinja (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午1:19:58

What RiotNrrd says is correct, but some additional details are:

- technically "devus" has no tense, so "devus" would be equally valid for past, present, and future tenses. Therefore "Li devus iri", in context, could mean "He should go" or "He should be going" or "He should have gone". Practically, many people use -us as if it were for present and future tense only.

- "devintus" is used to mean "should have" by many people, but it is frowned upon by some Esperantists due to its unorthodox combination of forms. The form that is impeccably, undoubtedly correct is "estus devinta". Many people avoid it because it's so wordy.

brodicius (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午6:58:16

devintus = should have
"estus devinta"
These are exactly what I was looking for. I've never really been one for listening to language authorities (and I've actually been using forms such as '..antas' for a while now) so I suspect I'll end up using 'devintus'. But I shall attempt to use 'estus devinta'.

Thankyou muchly.
Is x a thing or an action?
Sorry about that, I should have (lango.gif) clarified.

Fenris_kcf (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午10:41:31

I would use the "-u"-form of he verb:

He should do it.
Li faru tion.

Is that wrong?

darkweasel (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午11:04:17

Fenris_kcf:I would use the "-u"-form of he verb:

He should do it.
Li faru tion.

Is that wrong?
that's fine, but the question was about "should HAVE", so a conditional past.

sudanglo (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日上午11:05:15

'Li faru tion' is like the command 'faru tion' but directed not to your interlocutor but to a third party.

'Faru tion' may be considered as a short form of 'Vi faru tion'

'Dio benu vin' means that God should do the blessing but not in the sense that God is obliged to bless you. In English this might be expressed as 'May God bless you'.

Ni faru tion, however, comes out in English as 'Let's do it'

brodicius (显示个人资料) 2011年12月5日下午12:35:04

sudanglo:
'Dio benu vin' ... this might be expressed as 'May God bless you'.

Ni faru tion, however, comes out in English as 'Let's do it'
This is my main issue. I could think of things which made sense, but not for a past conditional sort of tense.

回到上端