目次へ

"I should've brought...?"

roint,2010年1月22日の

メッセージ: 20

言語: English

roint (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 0:07:39

I thought about this while snowshoeing yesterday:

"I should've brought a tissue."

How would this be expressed? The best thing I could come up with was "Mi estu kunportinta naztukon." but would there be a better or more recognizable way of saying it?

Rogir (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 0:12:47

'Mi kunportu naztukon' is in many cases specific enough. Otherwise, 'Mi estu kunportinta naztukon' clarifies that your obligation is, in fact, in the past.

erinja (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 0:21:09

Lots of people today would express that with "Mi devintus porti naztukon", but some people frown upon this -intus construction.

Oŝo-Jabe (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 3:53:23

I might say "Mi forgesis kunporti naztukon!" or "Ve! Mi ne kunportis naztukon!" But Rogir's first suggestion seems pretty good to me.

Languages don't always "draw lines" the same way as each other. The phrase "I should've brought tissues." is the natural compliment to "I didn't bring tissues." People are so quick to go for the literal word-for-word translation, which while grammatically correct is often somewhat contrived ("Mi devintus porti naztukon", "Mi estu kunportinta naztukon") instead of the idea-for-idea translation, which will not always resemble the original phrase ("I should've brought a tissue" vs. "Mi ne memoris kunporti naztukon.")

Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 11:31:48

roint:"I should've brought a tissue."
There is no exact Esperanto equivalent to "should have"; devintus has been mentioned as a commonly used approximation.

Paper tissues usually come in sets, so one possibility might be Estus bone se mi kunportus paperpoŝtukojn.

darkweasel (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 17:34:10

Miland:
roint:"I should've brought a tissue."
There is no exact Esperanto equivalent to "should have"; devintus has been mentioned as a commonly used approximation.
How exactly is "devintus" no exact equivalent?

darkweasel (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 18:53:44

niko-tina:
darkweasel:
Miland:
roint:"I should've brought a tissue."
There is no exact Esperanto equivalent to "should have"; devintus has been mentioned as a commonly used approximation.
How exactly is "devintus" no exact equivalent?
Because generally you don't verbalize participle forms of words that are already verbs. Except for this one I guess...
You only argue that you generally don't use this (which isn't true, but we discussed this somewhere else already on this forum). Not that it isn't exact in some way, so my question stays.

Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月22日 19:24:59

darkweasel:
Miland:There is no exact Esperanto equivalent to "should have"; devintus has been mentioned as a commonly used approximation.
How exactly is "devintus" no exact equivalent?
Devintus means 'would have had to'. That is a stronger expression than 'should have', which expresses only desirability, not something compulsory.

Volatile (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月24日 12:47:07

Why "devintus" and not "devintu"? It expresses a wish, not a conditional, right?

(Also, this verbing of participles is something I've been playing with a lot lately.
It gives one a means of expressing quite complex temporal relationships using rather simple grammar... (Ekzemple la formo "parolontinte"... rideto.gif )

Miland (プロフィールを表示) 2010年1月24日 15:16:47

Volatile:Why "devintus" and not "devintu"? It expresses a wish, not a conditional, right?
The problem is that should have is neither a wish for something in the future, (for which we would use the imperative -u) nor a hypothetical conditional on something else (for which we would use -us). It is a wish that the past had been different, which is impossible since the past cannot be brought back.

However, given that should have has no exact Esperanto equivalent, we may still ask how Esperantists could express the same thought. Possible ways might be Mi volas ke mi kunportis poŝtukon, or Ve! Mi ne kunportis poŝtukon!, and others which have already been suggested.

先頭にもどる