Kiel esprimi sekvantajn esprimojn?
Karaj amikoj, mi havas demandon kaj bonvolu helpi min. Kiel esprimi en esperanto : 1. "You should do ..." 2. "You would better do ..." 3. "(someone) should have done (something)..." 4. "(something) must have (happened , taken place etc.)" 5. "(someone) have to do ..." 6. "(someone) must do ..." ...
Cxu la vorto "devi" povas kovri cxiujn okazojn kaj ne kauxzi miskomprenon ? Dankon!
I don't think the "fari" in "(Iu) devus fari..." is the correct way to express the present perfect (to have done something). IIRC, (Iu) devus fari..." ="(someone) should do ..."
Likewise, (Io) okazis = (something) happened", not "(something) must have happened".
Isn't the "have done" in that sentence present perfect, which therefore is partly an expression of time (the present)?
Would it be incorrect to phrase, "should have done" as "farintu" or "estu farinta"?
Rewording what I said above: the conversation would be a lot more useful and a lot more interesting if we had an actual idea to express. What's a real situation that you really lived or will be likely to live, that you would like to tell someone about. Let's talk about that.
Farintu is not good Espearnto.
Estu farinta is good Esperanto and means "Be in the state of having completed doing".
Mi tute ne estas sperta, sed mi provas traduki :
- You should do that -> Vi faru tion
- You would better do that -> Estus bone, se vi faras tion
- Someone should have done something -> ...
- Something must have happend -> Io estis okazita (not sure at all, I did not do that lesson, and I always spend time on these phrases in books)
- Someone have to to it -> Iu faru ĝin.
Bonvolu, ĉu oni scipovas korekti miajn erarojn ?
If I remember correctly:
I think "Estus pli bona" would be better than "Estus bone". Estus bone = it would be well.
Io estis okazita = something had been happened (you combined past perfect with passive voice). "Has/have happened" = the present perfect, active voice, which = estas okazinta.
Iu faru gxin = "someone should do it"/ "someone do it!". To have to = devi + verb, so it should be "iu devas fari gxin"
These are some really good questions, thank you for asking them! Though I think we need https://www.duolingo.com/salivanto to check our answers here haha
1.) "Should" can be translated with the conditional ("-us") form of "devi" (devus) + an infinitive verb, or a verb in the volitive ("-u") form e.g.
- you should read that book = "vi devus legi tiun libron" or "vi legu tiun libron"
2.) Even though I'm a native English-speaker, I've never heard the phrase "you would better do", only "you had better do". Assuming this is what you mean, that = "should", so as aforementioned, you can use either devus or the volitive e.g.:
You had better read that book = vi legu tiun libron / vi devus legi tiun libron
"you had better!" (as in a threat/strong suggestion that the aforementioned action should occur) = "vi devus!"
3.) "(someone) should have done (something)..."
Literally, that sentence could be expressed in four ways:
- A) "(iu) estu farinta (io)"
- B) "(iu) farintu (io)"
- C) "(iu) devus esti farinta (io)"
- D) "(iu) devus farinti (io)"
All of them work by combining one of two different ways of saying "should" with one of two different ways of expressing the "present perfect" (have done, have read, have seen, have walked etc.)
4.) "(something) must have (happened , taken place etc.)"
- A) (io) devas esti okazinta
- B) (io) devas okazinti
Both work by combining the present form of the verb, "to must" (devi), which is "devas" with the infinitive perfect form of "to happen/occur (okazi), which can be either "esti okazinta" or "okazinti".
5.) "(someone) have to do ..."
Devi = to have to, fari = to do, therefore your sentence = "(iu) devas fari ...".
6.) "(someone) must do ..."
Devi = must/to have to, so the answer is the same as the answer to 5 e.g. "(iu) devas fari ..."
Oh man, don't say that. I'd been watching this thread thinking "how will @salivanto answer?".
I'm learning more and more that when given some text in one language, there simply may not be a 1:1 in another language. So the answer might be "well, you wouldn't say it like that, you'd say...". That, I think, why I initially struggled with the original questions, there's not enough context to accurately answer.
Dankegon amikoj por viaj profesiaj respondoj. Cxar mi ne lertas je la angla, do cxu vi povas klarigi kaj korektigi la sekvantajn komentojn por mi ?
- should have done= devis fari ion pasinttempe, sed ne reale faris tiam. (kaj eble la parolanto nun sentas iom bedauxrinda.) Cxu?
- could have done= povis fari ion pasinttempe, sed ne faris tiam ( cxu havas humoron de bedauxro? )
- would/should/could have done: havas saman sencon, cxu? kaj per kiaj nuancoj?
- must have done= diveni aux rezoni ke io okazus pasinttempe, sed la parolanto ne scias ekzakte. Cxu?