erinja:Regardless of how you feel like translating these "devus" expressions, with which exact words, I have found that "devus" espressions are used by Esperanto speakers in pretty much the same situations when native English speakers usually use "should". That is, Esperanto speakers of any native language at all.

Hmm, the morning after things are looking different

I agree.

Just got confused by the negation of "devus".

Johannes

johmue:

erinja:Regardless of how you feel like translating these "devus" expressions, with which exact words, I have found that "devus" espressions are used by Esperanto speakers in pretty much the same situations when native English speakers usually use "should". That is, Esperanto speakers of any native language at all.

Hmm, the morning after things are looking different

I agree.

Just got confused by the negation of "devus".

Johannes

Phew. I was beginning to have a mini crisis of confidence in Esperanto for a little while there... What with all the confusion about 'devus'!

[quote=Chainy/quote]Phew. I was beginning to have a mini crisis of confidence in Esperanto for a little while there... What with all the confusion about 'devus'! [/quote]Yeah ..., sorry about that. In my first posting in this thread I even agreed on the use of "devus".

erinja:One example of many from tekstaro.com:
"La mensoguloj ne devus havi ilin" - the obvious translation is "The liars shouldn't have them". A translation of "The liars wouldn't have to have them" doesn't make all that much sense.

PMEG has a page describing povus, devus, and volus, which explains that these verbs behave somewhat differently than other -us verbs, so that they can almost be considered special cases with specific meanings.

Good point. I also had the feeling that I was often translating 'devus' as 'should' in my mind, but this had confused me! As Angel also pointed out, the comparison with 'povus' and 'volus' is very helpful - it's easy to forget at times that the '-us' ending does have a different effect on these verbs!

erinja:In my own personal usage, a -u form version of these expressions is stronger than the "devus" form. That is, "Li ne venu" (he shouldn't come) is more forceful in my personal usage than "Li ne devus veni"

Thank you, Erinja, for this good explanation. So, it appears that 'devus' can mean 'should' in the sense of the speaker expressing his opinion about what the person ought to/should do. I was just a little doubtful about this, as PMEG makes no mention of this particular function - it only describes the usage of 'should' in terms of 'this is what I'm meant to be doing now, but I can't be bothered!' Eg. "Mi devus labori. = Ja ekzistas por mi devo labori, sed verŝajne mi tamen ne laboros."

I've just noticed that PMEG does indeed give another example of 'devus':

"La virino promesis, ke ŝi kondukos ilin (la infanojn) al ĝusta vojo hejmen, kaj ili iris, sed ĝuste en la direkto ĝuste kontraŭa al tiu, en kiu ili devus iri; oni tamen ne devas pro tio akuzi ŝin, ke ŝi intencis ŝteli la infanojn." = The woman promised that she would lead them (the children) to the right way home, and off they went, but in exactly the opposite direction to where they should have gone; however, one must not accuse the woman due to this, that she intended to kidnap (lit. 'steal') the children.

A little question about the above - in the section 'oni tamen ne devas pro tio akuzi sxin', am I right in thinking that 'devAs' should always be translated as 'must'. Within the context, it's tempting to think of the word 'should'....! But that would be a bit strange if 'should' could be both 'must' and 'should'!

And yes, PMEG does say that Zamenhof often used 'ne devas' and 'devas ne' to mean exactly the same thing. ie. 'must not'... PMEG states that some people use these two forms differently ie.

ne devas = don't have to
devas ne = must not.

This is rather unfortunate, as it creates bit of a muddle! I suppose in speaking you can understand exactly what's going on by the intonation. In writing, perhaps it would be best to use 'ne bezonas' or 'ne estas necese' for 'don't have to'... - although, this doesn't seem entirely sufficient, as there is a difference between:

You don't need to do the Esperanto course, but you can if you want = you already know Esperanto well enough, so perhaps you needn't bother doing the course! (So for this, 'ne bezonas' or 'ne estas necese por vi' would be good.)

You don't have to do the Esperanto course, but you can if you want = nobody's forcing you to do it, it's your choice (this would be best translated as 'ne devas', with the intonation on 'devas'. You couldn't really use 'ne bezonas' to convey this meaning. Maybe 'ne estas necese' would be ok, but this is less clear, as it doesn't specify why it's not necessary!)

Perhaps, the answer is that one could say 'ne devas' (with the intonation on 'devas') for this meaning of 'don't have to', and when writing I suppose you have to hope that context makes it clear, or you could use an alternative format altogether (Neniu devigas vin... OR Vi ne estas devigita...) This doesn't feel ideal, but I suppose it's ok. Of course, this would be solved if it became accepted in Esperanto that 'ne devas' and 'devas ne' have different meanings... Perhaps we should hope for this, maybe encourage such usage...?

Chainy:A little question about the above - in the section 'oni tamen ne devas pro tio akuzi sxin', am I right in thinking that 'devAs' should always be translated as 'must'. Within the context, it's tempting to think of the word 'should'....! But that would be a bit strange if 'should' could be both 'must' and 'should'!

If I read that right, the use of devas here is sort of stronger than using should, because it's like saying "you MUST, and there are no conditions to do otherwise" (thus the lack of the condition) - possibly a child's way to look at it, but that's how it sounds to me

Ne devas has a peculiar history. Logically it means "don't have to", but, as PMEG (section "Devi + ne") points out, Zamenhof often used it synonymously with devas ne (he used ne bezoni for not having to).

Miland:Ne devas has a peculiar history. Logically it means "don't have to", but, as PMEG (section "Devi + ne") points out, Zamenhof often used it synonymously with devas ne (he used ne bezoni for not having to).

Unfortunately we find illogical usage of ne devi even in the Fundamento (Antaŭparolo: ĝi ne devos forigi aŭ ŝanĝi la diritan formon), which is why it can't be considered incorrect.

I very much recommend using ne devi and devi ne in a logical way: ne devi for "not have to" and devi ne (~ ne rajti) for "must not".

Vi devintus legi tute PMEG

Oh dear, this 'devAs' word is driving me crazy. I really need a nice list of examples so that I can get my head round the pattern of usage...

Every time I see 'devas' I find myself trying to work out, do they mean 'must/have to' or 'should'?! It really does seem that 'devAs' is often used to mean 'should'...

'DevUs' is certainly used for 'should', but only in certain contexts... (so it seems...)