How to translate: "I would have done that."
The Esperanto tree doesn't seem to teach the past conditional tense, so how are they formed?
Some ideas: (I doubt they're correct.)
Mi farusis tion. Mi farisus tion. Mi estis faru tion. Mi estis faruta tion. Mi estis farunta tion.
Thanks in advance,
You can just say "Mi farus tion." Context often makes it clear if you are referring to the past. Or, as Dave said, you can say "Mi estus farinta tion." to clarify.
The -us mood does not express time, so "farus" is fine. If the context is not clear, then it should be made clear.
Note that the estus in Mi estus farinta tion also doesn't express time, so that could mean "I would have been in the state of having done that" or "I would be now in the state of having done that " or "I would be at some future time in the state of having done that."
So "mi farus tion."
"I would have done that."
I would translate it something like:
Mi estus farinta tion.
No, that's even worse than Dave's answer. Zamenhof spoke out against that kind of word building - and even broken out (as Dave said) it's wrong for the same reasons I specified elsewhere in this thread.
I suppose I did say that. You certainly gave a common and reasonable answer. However, my take is that it's wrong.
I should have pointed out that I'm sure you have a number of redeeming qualities.
Vere, vi ne ofendis min, samideano.
Mi daŭre klopodos kaj iam sukcesos.
One of which is that lately I don't try to directly translate such convoluted English thoughts. In everyday speach, I'd likely just say, 'mi farus tion.' But the OP asked a specific question. Translating Mihm films has got me thinking along the lines of telegrams instead of encyclopedias. Vere, vi ne ofendis min, samideano.
I can't find farintus, but I have written elsewhere about devintus. Specifically I wrote:
Devintus and estus devintaj are errors and do not belong in this course. I've made my recommendation to the course authors. It's my understanding that (these words) can't be removed at present due to how Duolingo works under the hood. I've written more about this in other threads, such as this one.
There has been some discussion of the new sentences like this in the course. It is my opinion that they have been added in error and it is now my recommendation to the team that they not be included in a future tree. A few other fluent speakers (including members of the akademio) have suggested similar alternatives to what I'm about to suggest below.
A better sentence would be: - Ili devus esti pagintaj
The sentence breaks down as follows: - They obligated-not-fulfilled to-be paid-in-the-past. - There is obligation for them which they did not fulfill for them to have paid. - They should have paid.
Devus is a special case and can have two meanings - hypothetical obligation ("would have to"), or obligation which hasn't been met. Also note that all expressions with -us are timeless and don't indicate past, present, or future. They only indicate contrary-to-fact, hypothetical.
The problem with ili estus devintaj pagi is that it breaks down as follows. - They would be in the state of having been obligated to pay. - They would have had to pay.
It doesn't specify that they actually were in that sate. It also doesn't say whether they actually paid.
Devintus contains all the problems with "estus devintaj" and compounds it by treating the verb ending as a form of estas, which, as has been explicitly stated since the early years of Esperanto, it is not. My sense is that the people who use it are carrying over national language habits and they don't really understand how the -us ending words. I recommend not using it.
- Ili devus pagi = they should have paid / they would have to pay
- Ili devus esti pagintaj = they should have paid / they would have to have paid.