1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Non ti avrò visto senza occh…

"Non ti avrò visto senza occhiali."

Translation:I must not have seen you without glasses.

January 11, 2014

99 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/GregHullender

This is the conjectural future tense. It really means "I must not have seen you without glasses" or "I guess I haven't seen you without glasses."

https://www.duolingo.com/comment/3997791

August 6, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Uyterschout

"I must not have seen you without glasses." is now the official DL translation. Bravissimo, well done. 28032016

March 28, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dhunteroz

I think this will make sense. If you have seen "Back to the future" (or any time travel movie).

Imagine this: If I go back in time and go to a different school then… I will not have seen you without glasses. So for some reason I caused this future in which I never saw you not wearing glasses.

So if you imagine that you could go back in time and change the past then the future (present time) will be different. Hopefully you can see how this then maps to "I must not have seen you without glasses".

August 21, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

That's awfully complicated. If you go to a different school, I will not have seen you at all, with or without glasses. There has to be a simpler explanation for thisl

January 13, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dhunteroz

In retrospect it's not the clearest explanation.

The grammar explanation is the future tense in Italian (and sometimes in English too) is also used to make a hypothetical statement (a guess that is not yet proven or disproven). E.g. "He'll be happy about this." / "Lui sarà felice di questo". This sentence can either be a statement about the future or it can be what we think about him at the moment. Similarly "He will have been happy about this" / "Lui sarà stato felice di questo" we are making a guess that he was happy before. So you can see "non ti avrò visto" as past tense of the hypothetical.

It could be interpreted as "I don't remember seeing you having/wearing glasses" or more likely "I probably didn't see you because I wasn't wearing glasses".

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

I think the problem is the original English, which makes translation difficult. For the life of me, I do not understand Duo's seeming aversion to context. Context is what makes immersion work, after all, and Duo is a kind of meta-immersion.

Anyway, maybe something like: "I should have recognized you. I must not have ever seen you without glasses." = Io avrei dovuto riconoscerti. Non ti avrò visto senza occhiali.

Reverso.net gave Io non ti ho dovuto vedere senza occhiali for "I must not have seen you without glasses."

I still don't understand exactly why the use of future perfect to translate "must have" is an idiom in Italian. There must be some nuance it provides which only time and exposure to the language will reveal. But at least by giving it the context of "I should have recognized you", I think it's more clear that in this instance avrò means "must have" rather than "will have".

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/hughcparker

I was thinking about this earlier today. We sometimes use the same tense the same way in English: "Why is this here? Oh, it'll have been used at the meeting this morning."

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/hughcparker

You can have an answer to that question right now :)

It's correct grammar in both languages. In most (all?) languages there are several different ways of saying things.

In English it's valid to use the future perfect to express a conjecture, such as the example I gave. As the tips and notes for this skill make clear, it's valid to use the same tense for the same thing in Italian.

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

Is that good English or not? It's a substitute for, "It was probably used earlier today" or "it must have been used earlier today".

Which brings up a question: future perfect is used to express "must have" in Italian, but is it really good Italian grammar, or just an accepted colloquialism which everyone understands but which doesn't actually make sense?

I don't think I'll ever know the answer to that.

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

I really have to disagree that, as written, it is good grammar, mainly because it makes no sense to use a future tense to describe a past action. It's used and accepted because people understand what is intended - it's just that what is actually said is not a complete or sensible expression of the intent.

"It'll have been used" is actually a statement something like "It will prove to have been used" or "we will find out (in the future) that it was used (in the past)". But all the referential information is left out. Good colloquial English, but very bad syntax for accurate description. "It'll have been used fails a formal logic test" - but we all know what it means, so there's no problem. Writing a short-story? Great! Writing my dissertation, it's red-pencil time.

But all of our discussion doesn't answer the question as to how the Italians got from future perfect to something that looks like it ought to be handled by past tense modal verbs. Seems like it would parallel English, where we're saying that we will definitely find out that something happened in a certain way in the past, and, like us, they just leave out all the understood information.

January 15, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Nonna602151

I'm still not certain whether "I" or "you" might be the person w/o glasses. Is this a case of "I didn't recognise you w/o my glasses" or "...because you weren't wearing your glasses." How does Italian distinguish between these? Thanks!

August 4, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Nonna602151

Yes! Is the speaker w/o glasses, or was the person seen unrecognizable w/o their glasses? It seems ambiguous in both languages.

August 15, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Rob676803

One more lesson where we learn the English nonsensical version of an Italian expression that does not seem to be useful. I'll just try to test out of this before I lose more hearts in DL and more neurons in my brain.

March 26, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MartinWyser

Yes, the clumsiness of the sentences and the fact that the set of accepted answers is probably too small causes difficulty, it raises my blood pressure, but not my Italian. Not being a native English speaker makes it worse. I'll write the worst sentences down, and then "cheat" out of the lessons in the future.

February 7, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/KenColatru

For not being a native speaker of English you sure do have a good grip on the language. Complimenti!

July 25, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MartinWyser

Thank you for the flowers, but my English is not really that good. In fact, I still learn some English here in the Italian course, though I have to look up the details elsewhere. I just wish the Italian course was geared more towards explaining Italian, and less on "testing" peoples English.

August 2, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Berto29441

For explaining a language, it's necessary to know it. Who wrote "Non ti avrò visto senza occhiali" has an incomplete knowledge of Italian. The future perfect is an indicative tense, "expressing facts projected to the future, but that occurred before others" (Treccani). So, to use it, it's necessary to have at least two facts: "Non ti vedrò (1st fact) se non avrò indossato gli occhiali (2nd fact)"; "Non ti avrò visto (1st fact) perché ero senza occhiali" (2nd fact); "Inizieremo a pranzare (1st fact) quando Giorgio sarà arrivato (2nd fact)". But perhaps the author was willing to say simply " Non ti avrei visto, senza occhiali".

August 3, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dhunteroz

So are you saying that Duo's Italian translation here is completely wrong? Could it be part of a sentence?

The English is fine and could refer to either you or the other person not having glasses.

But then if I were talking about my glasses, I would probably say "I wouldn't have seen you if I wasn't wearing my glasses" or "I must not have seen you because I wasn't wearing my glasses" or "I must not have seen you without my glasses".

August 3, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Berto29441

For dhunteroz: Not the Italian translation: the Italian sentence. The future perfect, that we call "futuro anteriore", cannot be used without a correlation ("anteriore" means that comes before, understood another future. Your "perfect", which means done until the end, is misleading), and that "senza occhiali" does not say who is wearing/not wearing the glasses. A language does exist to express ideas, not doubts. As I guessed, the right tense could be "avrei" that not only clearly expresses a possibility (I can see you only in the case I had glasses"), but cancels the dilemma (glasses of whom? The speaker's glasses): "Posso vederti solo nel caso io abbia gli occhiali" (or "Potevo vederti (....) se avessi avuto gli occhiali"). Of course, what I am saying starts from the idea that who teaches a language is willing to teach a good language. For learning "what can be heard on the street", we have a lot of other possibilities....

August 4, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SarimaFaus

...Sono arrivata alla stessa conclusione anch'io

April 26, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SarimaFaus

I am a native Italian speaker and the sentence "non ti avrò visto senza occhiali" does not make sense to me... therefore It's even more difficult to attempt to translate in English! A sentence in Italian which make sense to me is: "non ti avrei visto senza occhiali" meaning that without glasses I wasn't able to to see...

April 26, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/hughcparker

"I wasn't expecting to be so startled by what you look like without your glasses. I must not have seen you without glasses before."

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mzmalvina

Bravo!!

July 17, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/epic_matt

Surely, "I would not have seen you..." Sounds better. "I will not have seen you..." doesn't sound right in my opinion.

February 23, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Domleschg

"I will not have seen you" makes perfect sense to me.

"I would not have seen you" is conditional - it would be used to refer to an event in the past or at a hypothetical time. For example:

"Even if you had been at the park, I would not have seen you without my glasses.")

Future perfect is used to refer to an event that has not happened yet, in the present moment, but that will happen before a particular moment in the future. If "I will not have seen you" seems odd, another sentence might make more sense. For example:

"I still have the book, but I plan to return it Monday. By Tuesday I will have returned it.

Hope that helps. [Native US English speaker]

April 29, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/secretgardener

Yes---The problem is only that English speakers have dropped all nuance in speaking---THAT is what leads to nonsense. I've noticed those temporal subtleties disappearing over the years---But what's so frustrating is that I was never taught grammar in school---so I didn't have the vocabulary to name what I was experiencing, and my grasp of what was happening became foggier as more layers disappeared---The saddest part for me is that-- not wanting to sound too elaborate, I've tried since I left school to just stick to simple--simplistic, really, and sometimes not entirely correct--language, and have become unaccustomed to all these options. You can hear, even on sophisticated programs, that no one says, "will not have"; no one even uses "had". For instance someone will say, "I was going to, until things changed" Never: "I had been going to". I often have to stop and adjust my understanding of what's being said. I'd been kind of asking myself about it, and trying to pinpoint what was going on, when I began Duolingo---And there they were, the full, rich array of verb possibilities . . . tenses? categories? I read these comments and so envy people who are conversant with the terminology, because they can clarify ---or at least clearly express--what I feel I am just kind of swimming around in. Well, drowning, really.

September 22, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

I took grammar in grade school, learned basic parts of speech, learned to diagram sentences, to break them down into clauses and modifying words and phrases, I took 4 years of French in High School and 2 in College - but I didn't really understand grammar until I took a course in German. It all came alive then.

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Italiano1234567

I agree

December 18, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/shemp

I agree with you and Garibald1, I'm giving the answers that I think Duo wants but they are so clunky in English. Can a native speaker comment on the use of future perfect?

April 29, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Garibald1

This requires the English conditional 'would have'. The future perfect in Italian makes no sense when translated literally.

April 12, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/RobynConnolly

D'accordo, "would not have" would be the correct translation

December 11, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Reefspal

how can it mean both "will not have seen you without glasses" and also " will have seen you without glasses"

May 1, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/callsharon

I read this to mean that "you" didn't have glasses--but perhaps it makes more sense if the speaker didn't have his glasses on. How can this be made clearer in an Italian sentence?

March 21, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Derek3262

So who is without the glasses - you or I? Imagine a situation where you have a work colleague that always wears glasses who suddenly announces that he /she will be getting contact lenses. You might say "That will be strange, I will not have seen you without glasses" However you are more likely to say "I have never seen you without glasses" A lot of DL sentences are theoretically possible although its unlikely that anyone ever actually says them.

June 13, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/safibta

why not senz'occhiali?

October 9, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

I don't think you elide articles and determiners with plural nouns.

January 13, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

The literal translation here is 'I will not have seen you without glasses.' You might utter such a sentence (in Italian) in the following scenario: Your friend asks why you didn't stop and say hello yesterday when you passed each other on the street. You say, 'I wasn't wearing my glasses, and XXX." You can translate XXX as follows (ranging from the most literal translation of the Italian to the most idiomatic English):

  1. I will not have seen you without glasses.
  2. It will have been the case that I did not see you without glasses.
  3. It must be the case that I didn't see you without glasses.
  4. I must not have seen you without glasses.
March 31, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MissNCastle

It is marking mine as wrong because I wrote "glasses" not "eyeglasses". Seriously? That is ridiculous. We do not say "eyeglasses" in English, we just say "glasses".

July 8, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/spqrchic

Me too. I reported it.

August 10, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/kulmatiski

eyeglasses should be accepted.

April 30, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Rompip

I have never heard the word eyeglasses used in English so I must disagree with you, sorry. We always refer to them as 'glasses' or (more old fashioned) 'spectacles'.

September 30, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

Quite common, actually. Helps distinguish them from drinking glasses, after all.

January 13, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ALKinNYC

In New York City, they're called eyeglasses much of the time. Spectacles are reserved for Radio City Music Hall or Madison Square Garden.

September 3, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/wendyhannett

The correct answer was given as " I'll haven't seen you without glasses". That ain't English and it doesn't make sense. I may have got it wrong but, in this case, so did duo!

July 12, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/KeithStanton

I won't have seen you without glasses.

July 22, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DotAElliott

I will have not seen you without glasses. Isn't this the same?

January 22, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Soglio

No. You would put the negative after the first auxiliary verb - "will."

March 3, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/rosstripi

Is "senza di" also acceptable, or just "senza"?

August 4, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Fabiowolfis

Just senza

January 2, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Rafatrebino

I agree with Greg... "I will not have seen...

January 28, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/vanishingspray

This sentence does not make sense in Italian either. It should be: non ti avrei visto senza occhiali. or: I would not have seen you without glasses. Another example of an incorrect DL task.

September 27, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/m.tastic

"will haven't"? Is that even correct?

December 19, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

No.

July 12, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/BorisChenn

would t'avro be acceptable too or it can't be abbreviated that way?

January 28, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MrRobMerc

"I'll have not seen you without glasses" has never been said by an English-speaker in the history of the English language!!!! (Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.)

March 26, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Berto29441

...and never said from an Italian-speaker either. "Ti ho visto perché avevo gli occhiali, non ti avrei visto se non li avessi avuti"" (more or less: I saw you because I had glasses, I would not have seen you if I had not had them) could have been an Italian sentence...

April 29, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/secretgardener

Actually, it sounds close to what someone might have said in British literature in the 19th or 20th century----"I'll not have seen you without glasses; I hope I recognize you when you get off the train."

October 9, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/egregor1

Where is the 'must' in this sentence?

March 31, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

See me earlier comment on this page. Also, check the Tips and Notes for this lesson.

July 12, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Keith352848

I wonder if Duo might consider a focus on teaching me all of the things that make simple literal sense in the language first. I'm sure one could amass quite a sufficiently serviceable mastery of the language with that... THEN start in with all that is colloquial, idiomatic, and just generally nonsensical. This is just a bad teaching model... I wonder if any one from Duo actually ever reads this...

November 12, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

Keith, I believe that the Italian sentence here does "make simple literal sense" to an Italian. The problem begins when we try to find a good idiomatic translation into English.

This particular grammatical usage is mentioned in the Tips and Notes to this lesson, and indeed it is one of the reasons for the lesson, so I don't fault DL for exposing us to it. Indeed, I'm glad to know about it.

November 12, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/PennyMannel

I put "I have not seen you without glasses". Where is the 'must"? How would you say what I said?

August 30, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

The literal translation here is 'I will not have seen you without glasses.' You might utter such a sentence (in Italian) in the following scenario: Your friend asks why you didn't stop and say hello yesterday when you passed each other on the street. You say, 'I wasn't wearing my glasses, and XXX." You can translate XXX as follows (ranging from the most literal translation of the Italian to the most idiomatic English):

I will not have seen you without glasses.
It will have been the case that I did not see you without glasses.
It must be the case that I didn't see you without glasses.
I must not have seen you without glasses.

Instead of "I will not have seen (English future perfect), you wrote "I have not seen" (English present perfect). In Italian that would be "Non ti ho visto" instead of "Non ti avrò visto".

August 30, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Gwyllem

Who didn't have glasses?

January 14, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jae633849

It's actually ambiguous! But it probably implies that the speaker wasn't wearing glasses (just because of logic).

November 18, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Chris953935

I'm still confused about "must not". The literal translation "will not have seen" makes perfect sense to me as a native speaker. I can imagine saying that. Speculating about some future time when we would meet and before then I will never have seen the person with glasses. I don't even care about the ambiguity in who normally wears glasses. But if I were given the English translation and told to look for an Italial equivalent, I would be looking for an Italian phrase like "non ti dove avuto visto senza occhialli" or perhaps something with "posso", but something that specifies requirement or impossibility. I just don't see how you get there (to "will have") from here ("must") or vice versa.

February 26, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

The DL statement here, in the future perfect, is not really about the future, but about the past. A friend comes up to you and says, "Why didn't you stop and say hello to me yesterday in front of the school?" You reply any of the following:
1. I must not have seen you yesterday.
2. It must be the case that I did not see you yesterday.
3. I will not have seen you yesterday.
4. If we look into the matter, we will find that I did not see you yesterday.

Do you see how 3 and 4 use the future tense to make a statement about the probability of a past event?

Here is another example. You are sitting at home with your wife and you hear the sound of a delivery truck coming and going. Without going to the window, you say to her
5. That will have been the postman.
You are using the future perfect to make a statement about the probability of a past event.

February 26, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Chris953935

I would never say 3, but the other 4 make sense, but they don't use the future tense in English to refer to the past event, even 4 which uses the future tense, doesn't use it in the phrase talking about the past only in the phrase "we will find" (in the future we will find, in the past x happened (or not)). I'm just going to mark this up to a difference in the Italian concept of time and my American one. However, I still find it hard to imagine translating 1 into a future perfect clause. There must be a version of Italian that uses a "must" (dover). It must be the case, that I did not see you yesterday. "deve essere il caso che non ti ho visto senza occhialli.

This makes me feel like the parent correcting their child "Can I have some please?" "No, you *MAY" not."

"Will I have seen her without glasses?" "No, you must not have."

I'm really straining to see it....

February 28, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

Not only Italian, but also German and English use the future perfect to make statements about the probability of a past event. See my #5 in my earlier post above. In English this usage sounds a bit old fashioned or formal, but it is more common in some other languages.

February 28, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Chris953935

Thanks, #5 does really help. I didn't see that before. It means to me, when you check (which will happen in the future) you will find that it was the postman, so future perfect makes sense to talk about a pust event and you could say somewhat synonymously "that must have been the postman", implying certainty without actual knowledge. In any case, I will accept that Italian (and German although I haven't encountered it yet in that language, but I'm only mildly conversational and certainly not fluent in it) use the construct in that fashion. At least I now know what DL is looking for, and that's the point. They have people who presumably have studied both languages and linguistics and come up with examples to try and show how the language is used by native speakers and what those speakers mean.

February 28, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Carol47070

What's wrong with "will not ha e seen you"

March 29, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

Carol, I'm not sure what you're smoking, but it's stronger than anything I've ever tried.

March 29, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Keith352848

Wow... That's really not what that says...

July 1, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dumark53

The "avere" verb seems to resemble the Spanish use of "tengo que ..."

September 14, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/zibowawa

this translation shows how illiterate the translator is. Indeed, it is shameful and for a school that teaches and advertises for languages the issue is so revolting.

September 24, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Sionel

I do not understand how we get "must not have" from this one.

"I would not have seen you without glasses" is a failure.

Anyone?

November 1, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

The DL statement here, in the future perfect, is not really about the future, but about the past. A friend comes up to you and says, "Why didn't you stop and say hello to me yesterday in front of the school?" You reply any of the following:
1. I must not have seen you yesterday.
2. It must be the case that I did not see you yesterday.
3. If we look into the matter, we will find that I did not see you yesterday.
4. I will not have seen you yesterday.
Do you see how 3 and 4 use the future tense to make a statement about the probability of a past event?

Here is another example. You are sitting at home with your wife and you hear the sound of a delivery truck coming and going. Without going to the window, you say to her either 5 or 6 as follows:
5. That will have been the postman.
6. That must have been the postman.
In 5 you are using the future perfect to make a statement about the probability of a past event.

The literal translation of the DL sentence here is 'I will not have seen you without glasses.' You might utter such a sentence (in Italian) in the following scenario: Your friend asks why you didn't stop and say hello yesterday when you passed each other on the street. You say, 'I wasn't wearing my glasses, and XXX." You can translate XXX as follows (ranging from the most literal translation of the Italian to the most idiomatic English):

I will not have seen you without glasses.
It will have been the case that I did not see you without glasses.
It must be the case that I didn't see you without glasses.
I must not have seen you without glasses.

Do you see how "must not" is related to "will not have"?

November 1, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Nicola_Hall

This is, at last, a superb explanation. I’ve been waiting years for it...thank you

November 1, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DEREKJONES931829

It cannot be 'must' or it would be: Non devo averti visto senza occhiali

November 8, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

Derek, you are mistaken. Read the rest of the posts in this thread!

November 10, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mjkw

whose glasses? Does it make a difference in Italian?

November 10, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Jeffrey855877

Maybe the trick is to change senza occhiali to finché tu avrai portato gli occhiali= "until you will have worn your glasses", leading to "I [do not now and] will not have recognized you in the future until you will have worn your glasses. That awkwardness gets transposed idiomatically to "I must not have recognized you with glasses

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ChristosPa469131

when i type the correct answer it comes the wrong message, it is a little be crazy

September 25, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/hughcparker

When that happens, it pretty much always turns out to be a typo.

September 25, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Randonneur3

Yes but whose glasses? I take it she is coming to a rendezvous with new contact lenses ! Those who prefer 'must' are suggesting the alt scenario of my glasses being missing.

October 4, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/hughcparker

Not necessarily. Maybe I've seen someone without glasses, and I'm surprised by how odd I find the way they look.

October 4, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dusics95

why so many exercises about this strange tense?

March 16, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

Probably because many English speakers have trouble understanding what it means and/or how to use it.

March 16, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Gwyllem

who didn't have glasses?

January 14, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

The person doing the seeing (here "I" in the English) is the person without glasses.

January 14, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/gordon_gregory

Clumsy English, probably clumsy Italian too. Where's the conditional?

January 11, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/egregor1

Is this tense really useful in Italian - it is non sensical in English

March 6, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HRHowell

this is more of an expression than translation. A translator returns: "Do not I have seen without glasses."

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/hughcparker

Whichever translator you used must not have been able to deal with the sentence properly.

"I must not have seen you without glasses" is a correct translation of "Non ti avrò visto senza occhiali".

It's not an expression.

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/TanyaBella76

This tense is hard! #Have brain ache! #sounds more like the past tense

January 16, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/JamilHilal

There is no must in the Italian sentence

January 19, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ion1122

Jamil, read the rest of the posts in this thread!

January 19, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Kotza

You virtually have an infinite number of possible sentences and this nonsensical crap is what they come up with?

December 2, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DominiqueB19

Another nonsensical sentence. Is this tense much used in Italian, apart from in literature?

March 17, 2014
Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.