I'm not sure how to express the fact that I should have done some action or whatever in the past (immediate past or not) but that I did not in fact accomplish or even attempt.
Something like:
"I should have done it." (but I didn't do it) or
"You should have done that."

I keep coming up with stuff like:

"Mi devis fari tion"
"Mi devus farinta tion"

But I know they are incorrect and do not express what I want.
Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you

William

The snappiest way of saying that is perhaps 'Mi devintus fari tion'.

You could also use 'Mi devus esti farinta tion', expressing your current regret at not having done something (ie I should have)

Mi devus labori = I should work (but I'm not going to obey the 'devon')

'Mi devis fari tion' would be 'I had to do that' or 'I was supposed to do that'.

Mi malfruas ĉar mi devis preni la buson = I'm late because I had to catch the bus.

Se la trajno estus malfruinta mi estus devinta preni la buson = If the train had been late, I would have had to catch the bus.

For 'I could have' either 'Mi estus povinta' or 'Mi povintus'.

"Devintus" is one of those complex words whose meaning people don't mentally derive from its parts, but instead just memorize as a single "chunk" of meaning.

Normally, the "-intus" construction is one to avoid. While it's grammatical, it's also rarely used, and thus requires some (sometimes a lot of) thought to unravel and work out the intended meaning. Simpler constructions almost always are just as good, while at the same time being... simpler.

But... the "should have" construction is particularly useful to have, and isn't simple. So, "devintus" has become fairly commonly used. People know what it means, so, while it probably irritates some people who promote simpler constructions across the board, people will understand it.

So, "Mi devintus fari tion" is my choice.

Vi devis fari tion.

You should (past tense) do that, implying you didn't fulfill the requirement.

Even more to the Asian (and surprisingly also German) sense I would say:

Vi devis tion.

Thanks, for some reason I've had some trouble with the should's and would's and devis's and devu's.
Thanks for the clarity.

William

You raise an interesting point, Riot, as to whether forms like povintus and devintus are seen in the Esperantist's mind as units or just compounds like say ne-antauxvidebla or nepagipova.

I do remember being surprised by a beginner who said on another forum that they hadn't realised that 'prezidanto' could be analized as prezid-ant-o. In other words it was for them like prezident-o or sekretari-o.

You are probably right that when any compound becomes very frequent it tends to be perceived as single lexical item.

William, there is a general point here that languages vary in the extent that they like to convey meaning within the verb or leave it to context or adverbial qualifers.

The English sensibility is to heavily load the verb with meaning. So we distinguish between I ate, I was eating, I have eaten whereas Esperanto is happy with mi mangxis adding something if more precision is felt to be needed.

Also English has many specific verbs of action. In my French dictionary under 'crier' I can find shout, chant, cry scream, squeal, squeak, screech. You get the point.

The use of 'devi' in Esperanto has probably been influenced by the French usage of 'devoir'. A French native could confirm for us the extent of the correspondence.

It is interesting to note the comment of Lyz (logxlando TW) who feels that just 'devis' will suffice for 'should have'. So for Lyz 'Mi devis acxeti por vi donacon sed bedauxrinde forgesis tion fari' is an appropriate apology.

It would be interesting to hear from a French speaker as to the difference between 'je devais acheter' 'j'aurais dû acheter' and j'ai dû acheter

I wouldn't fuss too much, William, about your should's, would's, ought to's, must's, have to's.

I think you will find that Esperanto is one of those languages that will tolerate a lack of fine precision in the verb. There's usually a way of making the meaning clear outside the verb.

Having said that, I have to confess that in my own Esperanto I tend not to be inhibited in using complex verb forms in order to be precise.

It's a chicken and egg situation as to whether the differences between French and English in the verb have influenced attitudes, or attitudes have influenced the language.

But it is interesting to speculate on the links between the language and films of the two cultures.

English and American films tend to be full of action, whereas a common comment about French Films (by native speakers of English) is that nothing happens - the characters just sit around and talk (or have sex).

There is also a strange inconclusiveness to the ending of French films. Things don't get fully resolved.

I'd like to weigh in on the side of real-world usage of devintus, povintus, and even vekigxintus!

Certainly, when one uses those words, they are just chunks of meaning, as any word is once you're used to it. However, their aglutinated nature means that their meaning can be derived by anyone who hasn't encountered them before.

Mind you, only jerks who care less about what you're saying than how you're saying it will chastise you for using 'devis' instead.

hauxkins:Mind you, only jerks who care less about what you're saying than how you're saying it will chastise you for using 'devis' instead.

Actually I was going to weigh in myself regarding exactly that word (though not as a chastisement, so hopefully you won't think me a jerk ).

I wouldn't use "devis" for this because its meaning can be too strong. The difference is the same as the phrases "I had to do that" and "I should have done that". In English these 2 phrases will convey a different idea. My experience is Esperanto works the same way, in general.

For the life of me I still cannot fathom why anybody thinks the "intus" forms are difficult. But given that simple -us verbs are time neutral, and that in most cases it isn't even necessary to explicitly show the past tense because context usually makes it clear, "mi devus fari tion" should be fine in most cases. Examples abound in the literature of such simple conditionals, that refer to the past. I would use this unless it could be mistakenly thought of as referring to the future, in which case I would make it clear that we're talking about the past by way of either the participle, or time-sense words like antaŭe, tiam etc, according to what feels best in context. I believe PMEG endorses this, if it counts for anything.

"mi devus fari tion" should be fine in most cases

Context will correct all manner of errors!