Seems like this could also be translated "You did not have to drink like that". Thoughts?
You did not have to drink like that = Usted no tenía que beber así. I believe "should not have drunk" is the best expression.
It accepted for me: You weren't supposed to drink like that
I figured if deber in the conditional is "should" then deber in the past is "was supposed to"
According to my grammar book, both the imperfect and conditional of deber express that something should not have been done. You weren't supposed to means more or less the same in this case, so it may be that "you weren't supposed to" could be translated as either conditional or imperfect also.
Modal Auxiliary Verbs 21.3.1
Actually, no. If you are using the verb "to drink" with the auxilliary verb "to have" (which is the correct usage with could, should, would, ought, etc. in the past) then you should be using the past participle form: "drunk". If you do a Google search on "past participle drink" any result would tell you that. See for example, this university site: http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/ESL/answer3.htm
So drank/drunk debates aside, could the powers that be at Duolingo consider accepting both drank or drunk? I am with dltallan that it should be drunk, but I wouldn't flinch if I heard someone use drank either. This is more about English speakers learning Spanish translation rather than knowing the correct past participles to use in English.
On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to get one's English corrected as well. :) For many on DL, English is their second or even third language and they can learn both at the same time! And IMO it's always best to learn things right.
True and false. "Drunk" is the "correct" version as handed down by generations of grammarians, and probably also the more common version across English dialects; however, "drank" as the past participle (in certain usages) is quite common in some regional American dialects. Some slightly more targeted searching brought up this:
Unfortunately it's mostly hidden behind a paywall, but if you can get to it, it also contains a brief but solid exposition on descriptivism.
In short: survey sez 44 of the Americans surveyed used "drank" exclusively under certain conditions, whereas 109 used "drunk" exclusively. New England, Pennsylvania, and Ohio all used them about equally, and West Virginia used "drank" much more.
(It's hard to piece together from this information what might be the position of a "midwestern media" accent, and there are no representatives at all of the California accent; both of these have had quite a bit of influence on American English in the half-century since this was written. Also, it somewhat distressingly neglects to cite any data from the roughly 90% of respondents it considered "uncultured.")
In response to jbm345, (can't hit reply there) grammar is born from language and not the other way around. So its a bit more complex than "IN NO WAY alter[ing] the fact that it is grammatically inaccurate." Very firm words on what most people don't realize is a slippery subject!
As little as thirty years ago, "agenda" was plural. You would have to say "my agenda are..." "The agenda were..." Nowadays these statements are grammatically incorrect. In short, grammar always loses eventually to usage.
Nowadays people are out there fervently using "data are"/"data were" and they are in the minority, and fail to realize that history is on the precipice of repeating itself :)
Same thing applies to drank/drunk -- Now that drunk is a common adjective and a rare past participle, it feels wrong to many, and is slowly becoming more and more commonly replaced by the familiar form "drank." Is it the majority now? No. Is it accepted now? No. May it ever reach a majority? No, maybe not.
But if it does, you will no longer be right. And it begs the question, why exactly are we out there correcting each others grammar in the first place then?
Quick addendum (or should I say addenda because its singular???): "drank" would actually more "regular" in english than "drunk". Usually the past participle matches the imperfect -- "I walked"/"I had walked". If english one day accepts "I drank"/"I had drank" I could get behind that in the name of lessening irregularities.
I have got to think that with drunk being correct, the use of drank happens when a person or group of people (for the most part) choose to use it to put a mark of personality into the intonation of what they are saying - whilst knowing it (for the most part) to be wrong.
And thus colloquial usage. How much people actually come to believe the wrong usage is right? ... I don't know. And how much they actually do believe it is right, I don't know.
All of you who are so adamant that drunk is the only proper answer, seem unable to understand that language is dynamic and ever changing. There's no language God sitting in an ivory tower somewhere mandating grammar. If major English speaking populations use "drank" as a past participle, it should be accepted. I don't see any of us practicing vosotros here on Duolingo. . .
The real issue of this forum is how to translate deber, not the old chicken-or-egg argument about whether "drunk" or "drank" is right.
No, "drank" is improper. "Drunk" is the past tense, and therefore should be used in this case.
Nice response, dltallan. I appreciate the source.
"Drank"is the past tense, "drunk" is the past participle. I drink. I drank. I have drunk.
To spikypsyche, even in places like New England, English learning books will tell you the participle is "drunk," not "drank." Most of the time, when we are discussing what is correct and incorrect, we are discussing whether it fits the standard or not. In Standard English, the participle is, without a doubt, "drunk." Unless you immerse yourself specifically into cultures which speak dialects of English, you might as well stick to learning the standard variety.
The sentence has to translate into the past perfect because deber dose not translate into English with the past tense, so it is 'should have drunk'.
I'm an English teacher. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. "Drunk" is indeed the past participle of "drink" which makes it perfectly correct in following "should have." Señor Coayuco is correct.
Native English speaker here who says 'drank,' not 'drunk' in this instance.
After reading about the negation of "deber" in various places, I've concluded that it cannot be translated at "did not have to". This is one of those really peculiar differences between English and Spanish. In English, if you put "don't" or "didn't" in front of an obligation (like "should" or "have to"), the negation merely removes the obligation (eg. "don't have to verb"). In Spanish, with "deber", the negation retains the obligation, but it becomes an obligation to do the opposite (eg. "have to not verb"). Deber is the only verb I've noticed this with (i.e. "tener que" works like English speakers expect), and it does it in the indicative and conditional forms, too:
"debes leer" - "you must read" (reading mandatory) "no debes leer" - "you must not read" (reading prohibited) "deberías leer" - "you should read" (reading suggested) "no deberías leer" - "you should not read" (reading discouraged)
"tienes que leer" - "you have to read" (reading mandatory) "no tienes que leer" - "you don't have to read" (reading not mandatory... contrast this with "no debes leer", which prohibits reading)
Now, in this case, I still think there might be something a little off in the translation. The conditional form of "deber" softens it from an obligation (must/mustn't) to a recommendation (should/shouldn't). However, in this case, deber was in preterite, so I would think it would be the past tense of an obligation. However, as someone else pointed out, English doesn't have a past tense of "must", so "shouldn't have" is as close as we can get, but I think the phrase, in Spanish, might mean something more like "it was the case that you must not drink that much".
There was once a cartoon character who would say:
"You shouldn't have ought to done that"
That comes to mind everytime I see something like "no deber hacer algo"
I myself would translate "No deber hacer algo" as "Ought not to do something" or "Shouldn't do that." This Spanish sentence, as you wrote it, seems to be missing a subject. Making it reflexive would probably make the subject understood, as in "No se deber hacer algo"/"That (something) ought not to be done by someone"/"One ought not to do that."
You have made an eloquent argument for my proposition that "ought not" is the best translation. No deberías beber = You ought not to drink.
Mine was similar, but I used "need." It seems like a good translation to me.
lol yet again drank sounds better (dont try to correct me, I know its incorrect.. but still)
I dunno man, drank sounds good by itself but after "have" it just... lol it almost hurts my ears.
Also this could mean as well "You didn't have to drink it like that", yes?
ill blame it on the privilege of living in the south... i think we just never say "have drunk"... ive just "been drunk"
Yes, I grew up in California, Oregon, and Nevada, and have been living in Florida now for the last few decades. I have also traveled about 1/4 of the rest of the country. It is seldom that I have ever heard "have drunk". To my ears it sounds primative, like someone that never learned to talk correctly. Drunk, to me, is about having had too much alcohol, as in, "you are drunk", it is a state of being, arising from past action, but is not itself an action. "have drunk" may be technically correct, but it is functionally wrong. It is at best an antiquated usage.
I tried " you didn't have to drink like that " -- duo says this is not a correct translation.
Deber is "should" (in a conjugatable verb form). "You didn't have to. .." would have been "No tenías/tenía/tenían ..." (depending on which form of "you" is used) or "No tuviste/tuvo/tuvieron ..." depending on the verb tense.
Yes, because English has only the only form of the word "ought." See my other posts on this page for more details.
I have a feeling that this is a correct translation. I hope a native speaker would comment on this.
Meriam-Webster's Spanish-English Dictionary under Irregular English Verbs page 49A the second to last entry is drink. Infinitive - drink; Past - drank: Past Participle - drunk or drank. So, it is really a matter of preference which you use, whether have drunk, or have drank. Have drank probably hurts the ears of those who live in a part of the country that uses have drunk; but it also hurts the ears of those who are accustomed to hearing have drank to hear have drunk. I was always taught that have drank was more commonly used because of the word "drunk" being used to describe one who has "over imbibed".
don't know about southern or not, from England here I wrote drank so who knows
yeah... I think no matter where you live it's correct to say "drunk" but it's one of those grammatical points that no one uses correctly in conversation, so it sounds strange. It's like "whom" which barely anyone ever uses even though "who" still isn't a grammatically correct replacement.
'even though "who" still isn't a grammatically correct replacement.'
and for you, poor lost soul, I come preaching the gospel of linguistic descriptivism.
Yeah, but how about concentrating on the translation of "deber" instead of preaching?
this is very funny; the South is the one American region polled in the paper http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/453165?sid=21105790223641 that almost never uses "drank" as the past participle
I grew up in the south and while I have heard "I have drank" it hurts my ears. To me, it's on a par with "I seen him yesterday". Painful.
North Carolina aqui. have drank is common here--and it's usually liquor. For example, We had a great time at the football game. My brother must have drank a half bottle of scotch.*
Wisconsin here....I swear these people don't know there is any different form of liquids. ;)
Have drank is common here. I think the word "drunk", well it's only used to describe drunk people.
I understand southern dialects tend more often to change the vowel in past tense forms rather than adding '-ed', for example, so that may be.
Oh dear Yerrick. Im sure all the above discussing drink drank drunk would cringe at drinked.
I'm also from the South. "Have drank" and "have drunk" sound equally right to me, depending on who is saying it. I would expect my friends and relatives to say "have drank", but would expect a professor or coworker (in a professional context) to say "have drunk". It sounds more formal to me - I guess that means it's the correct one.
Well, as others have pointed out, Miriam-Webster's claims that "drunk" and "drank" are valid as past-participle. Usually, the past-participle is the same as the past tense (eg. "remind" -> "reminded"/"have reminded"). I think that explains why people gravitate to using the past tense of "drink" ("drank") as the past-participle. I imagine that enough people used that form that Webster just accepted it as part of the language.
I keep thinking of a certain saying. "They have drank the Koolaid". I have never heard anyone say "They have drunk the Koolaid".
LICA98--your post is extremely offensive. I hope you wouldn't say that to somebody's face. Please refrain from being so rude and, in the future, give your input politely. If you don't have anything helpful to say, please keep your thoughts to yourself.
I am not in the habit of ignoring problems when they arise. I think it's a mark of cowardice when you let something hurtful to someone occur without doing anything about it.
Nice streak and competence in eight languages. It's cool to see someone who cares that much and is that committed to learning languages.
Deber is used as meaning 'must' in all the other examples. Why must I say 'should' for this one in particular??
"Must" is a weird word in English because it changes meaning in the past tense. In the present tense it means something that has to be done, like a duty or necessity: eg "You must go to work [we need the money]." But, in the past tense it instead represents certainty or high probability: eg "You must have gone to work [because we have some money]." To hold the meaning of duty or necessity in the past tense we therefore have to use "should": eg "You should have gone to work [we need the money]."
Wow! Great explanation. I was wondering why it was translated as "should" even though it's not in the conditional tense. Again, great explanation.
Yep, it's practically synonymous here and fine grammatically. Perhaps DL has just ignored it because "ought" can come across as archaic, and in the negative the "ought not to" structure sounds strange to some, despite being correct.
None taken. "Can come across as archaic" reflects nothing of my personal opinion.
In my other posts on this page, I explained that "must" is a defective verb and, thus, is English present tense only. Because the word "must" is a modal verb, it is used for "mood" rather than for "time." That is, it has NO TENSE per se and blends well with ALL English tenses.
That being said, I agree with you absolutely that "must" has the two meanings that you mentioned.
I'm told that the conditional conjugations of deber (eg. deberi'as), although literally translating to something like "you would be obligated to...", Spanish has a special meaning for it; something more like "you should".
I don't agree with this translation at all. Anything translating to "have drunk" would need to include "haber", as we're dealing with a perfect tense. I think the translation should be "You didn't have to drink that way". Deber is "to be obligated to" and it it conjugated in the preterit; no past-perfect or present-perfect. So, I don't know where the "have drunk" is coming from.
I would say "usted no debió haber bebido así." It is perhaps more grammatically correct, but the way it is stated by Duolingo flows more easily and is commonly used. If you say "usted no debería", you are no longer talking about the past but rather an ongoing, perhaps habitual, activity. "Usted no debería beber así" = You should not drink like that.
So, "Usted no debío haber bebido así" = "You ought not to have to drink like that?"
It's an auxiliary verb - Should, however it shouldn't be "debio beber asi" sino "deberias beber asi"
Constructed by: the subjunctive "deber + infinitive"
Jemenke, you're not dealing with Spanish perfect tense. OneVerce gave the example of how the regular Spanish verb "deber" is conjugated in Spanish Conditional tense: "Deberías beber así."
This skill is wearing me out! should is must, must is should etc "you must not drink like that" WRONG
think of it as there is no "have" in spanish, but to translate "should" to the past in english you've got to put it there
i mean in this particular context but yeah we have tener and also haber but it usually means: there are, is, were, have, had
We can't say most modal verbs in simple past, and Spanish can. So when you go from simple past in one of those cases in Spanish to English, you're stuck making it present perfect.
The truly equivalent sentence would be something like "You shouldn't drank like that," except that's not proper English.
English has no way to express the past tense here, so the next best thing is the perfect
It was just that one time, DuoLingo! One time! Can't we all just move on? I said I was sorry!
Sounds alright to me :o) But what do I know? I still think saying "You shouldn't have drank like that" should be ok too.
Seems right to me in and of itself, and at this early stage of learning deber it seems most practical to learn deber with, i.e. more so than must for the various conjugations.
On the other hand, for a person doing the reverse tree, I imagine it sounds a bit too proper and formal for common usage as something to be learnt.
Given that preterit deber + infinitive can mean "should have" or "must" (I think), how would I know not to use "You must not have drunk like that." here?
"you must not have..." means "apparently, you didn't." It isn't an obligation like most forms of "must" or "should," it is a statement of implied fact like "You must have left the oven on" after a house burns down. In Spanish, that sort of thing is constructed as "deber+de+infinitive."
My doctor said to me, "You must not have any chocolate." I think he meant that I couldn't eat it because he was putting me on a diet. When I went to see him again, I said, "I must not have had any chocolate because I lost ten pounds."
What this little story illustrates is that "you must not have" can be either a description of what you didn't do OR a request/command/comment about what you should do. "Must not have" indicates that the doctor is talking about the present and presumably the future. The word "had" in the concatenation "must not have had" indicates that something (that I did) in the past is being discussed.
Thank you for the Spanish construction. No matter what the language, those prepositions are so tricky!
I tend to think of it, based on other comments I've seen as "ought", with that sense of obligation. But I never see that in the possible answers, so I may have t completely wrong.
I would agree with that, "You ought not to have drunk like that" surely is exactly the same as "You should not have drunk like that"
There's a lot of overlap but they are not exactly the same. "Should" covers a lot more territory than "ought". For example, one might say "I shouldn't have done it; I knew it was the wrong thing to do." or "I shouldn't have eaten that; it tasted terrible." We might replace the former with "ought" but we wouldn't replace the latter.
In fact, if I am obligated to do "X" but the best outcome will emerge from "Y", I might be tempted to say "I ought to do X but I should do Y." :-)
Deber is a regular Spanish verb that has two meanings. The first is "to owe," as in the sense of being obliged to do something. The second is "must," which is the meaning when "deber" is used as a helping modal (mood) verb. These meanings are conjugated with various endings in the Spanish present, preterite, imperfect, conditional, and future tenses of the indicative mood. The verb "deber" is also conjugated in the subjunctive, imperative, continuous (progressive), perfect, and perfect subjunctive moods. In short, because "deber" can be conjugated in all of these moods and tenses, it is a "regular" verb, as opposed to being an "irregular" and "defective" verb. (However, not all irregular verbs are defective.) So, the issue here is that the regular Spanish verb translates to the irregular and defective English verbs "must" and "ought."
The English word "owe" is NEVER used as a helping verb. Also, the word "owe" now has the past participle of "owed," rather than the archaic past participle "ought," which is no longer used as a participle but is still used as an English helping modal verb: I must wash the dishes/Debo lavar los platos); I ought to/should wash the dishes/Debería lavar los platos). In other words, the "mood" of coerced obligation has been retained in the use of the defective verb participle "ought" as a modal helping verb, while the mood of voluntary obligation has been retained in the use of the modal helping verb "ought" and the modal verb "should," which is used to speak of expectations, obligations (whether voluntary or coerced), advice, and suggestions.
"Must" is the modal helping verb that expresses coerced rather than voluntary obligation. The "I must + verb" formula can be used to translate any tense. What's harder is when the helping verb best translates as "ought to." Because there are only these two usages in English to serve all the present tenses and all the past tenses, several Spanish tenses (preterite, imperfect, and future are, in my opinion, better translated with the "ought to" definition, rather than the "should/could/would" definitions. Also, given the right context, some sentences that are preterite or imperfect tense seem easier to translate with the "ought to" translation.
If anyone can devise some additional examples of "ought to" translations from English to the Spanish conditional, subjunctive, continuous, and perfect tenses, please do! (At this point, I'm too tired from researching this to come up with more specific example sentences.) }:^D
Where I come from it would mean something close to "I'm going to form a strong opinion that you didn't drink like that."
Yes, it does make sense:
"He really had a good time at the party last night, but he looks sick as a dog today. You don't look like he does. YOU MUST NOT HAVE DRUNK LIKE THAT. Do you even have a headache?"
LoL. You'd think I'd learn, but I consistently miss these types of questions.
If I saw someone suffering the following day after drinking heavily, I would not say - You shouldn't have drunk like that. There's nothing wrong with the structure - it clearly defines the action has occurred in the past; it indicates... shall we say, a chastisement over last night's excess.
What I would say is: You shouldn't drink like that. It's still talking about an action(s) in the past but is more encompassing, as in: not just that one time last night, but you shouldn't drink like that ever.
That is how I consistently translate these modal sentences and obviously get them wrong. Any tips on how to read/hear the above distinction as they occur in Spanish would be appreciated.
Is it just me im struggling to know my debo from debria etc. Has this section got mixed tense in it. Maybe i should go back to sleep. Maybe i should have gone back to sleep. I should go to sleep. Can anyone give me a clue.
I think half the problem is that English does some really strange things with its modal verbs. We may not realise this until we try to translate Spanish modal verbs, which seem to follow rules better than our own. Since the inconsistencies seem to lie more with our language than Spanish, perhaps a good learning strategy in this section would be to understand the Spanish structure first and foremost, then apply the English usage that seems to fit best.
Great advice, Jellonz. Totally agree with you too. The problem with trying to directly translating this sentence lies with the English, not with the Spanish, because "must" doesn't have a past form (to form the negative), and so our only resort is to go for the "should not + have + [past participle]" construction, the present perfect.
I don't think Spanish got it any more "correct" than English did; it's just a design decision they made about the language. Both English and Spanish have a way of conveying an obligation (must, have to, deber, tener que). The difference is that, in English, when we negate that with "no", it usually negates the obligation ("don't have to") whereas Spanish keeps the obligation and negates what the obligation is for (like "must not" in English).
In fact, you could argue that English is a little more flexible because it can do either, depending upon placement of the negation. The negation operates on whatever immediately follows it (compare "I do not have to go out in the rain" with "I have to not go out in the rain"). Now, given that "have to" and "tener que" are so similar, maybe they work the same way in this respect.
Likewise, "must" and "deber" seem to work the same way. English doesn't support something like "I do not must go out in the rain", but it still holds true to its rule of placing the negation in front of that which it negates: "I must not go out in the rain". I think that's where deber trips people up, because the placement of "no" is out in front of "deber", but it doesn't negate the obligation. English would expect something like that to be "deberías no beber...".
I'm a little confused because when you click "conjugate" Duolingo does not put all the verb forms from this lesson together... so can someone just remind me, how do you say "should" and "should have" for the usted form, are the endings the same for deber, and what are the technical names for these tenses, like in the verb conjugation tables?
Poor??? Pobre??? How can you call yourself that when you have SEVEN languages stacked up?
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
so beber can be past also? no real clear lines here even in these advanced stages
Beber is the infinitive - to drink. Debió is the verb in the sentence that moves the action to the past. When there are 2 verbs in a sentence you only conjugate 1 of the verbs. Yo voy a beber. (I am going to drink). Yo fui a beber. ( I was going to drink.)
Yo fuí a beber -- I went to drink Yo iba a beber -- I went (habitually) to drink, or I was going to drink (but i didn't)
(Annoyingly DL keeps my keyboard from automatically capitalizing i when it should be I)
Wouldn't "Usted no ha debido beber así." pop out with the same English translation or is there a rule about not using "haber" aux verbs with debir?
The rule has to do with the irregularity of the English once the translation has happened. "Ought to" is a colloquial translation, albeit the closest one. However, if you choose to use the "should" translation, then you can use "había."
No worries Il-2. The Spanish here is more logical than our English, which suddenly employs the present perfect :)
@Il-2 Gracias a tu pregunta aprendí algo nuevo, que entiendo es un poco raro verlo en sentido del español.
Creo que podría verse de esta manera "usted no debió haber bebido así" Tiene sentido.
Perhaps past tense in Spanish, but there is no past tense of "ought" in English. It's a defective verb.
Quizás el pasado en español, pero el no es el pasado del "debe" en inglés. Es un verbo defectuoso.
DL is harsh on contractions so I'd expect them to be doubly harsh on double contractions. That said, for learners of English, double contractions are a good representation of casual spoken English, but like DL, I wouldn't encourage them to be used in written English unless it is a deliberate representation of the way something is being spoken.
As a native speaker, I've never seen a contraction with two apostrophes. I don't believe it's correct in formal writing, although I hear it all the time. It's more like an elision than a deliberate grammatical choice. (If you're wondering why I write in contractions, I find it helps me learn more natural translations into Spanish. I would never write this informally in school or on the job, though.)
I say that too, haha. Technically "drunk" is the participle though. I feel like both should be accepted.
Well, Robert, how else would you translate the past tense of "must?"
In Spanish, the preterite conjugation of deber describes something in the past that should have happened.
English and Spanish are generally pretty similar, but literal word for word translations don't always work.
ese/esa/eso = that
aquel/aquello/aquella = that (over there)
este/esta/esto = this
asi = like so/like this/like that/that way
Thank you for clearing that up. Geez, I always fail eso/ese part of the practice exercises. Ten lingots for you!
Thanks a lot, Nancy! I like your last name, by the way. My real name is Austin.
Also, specifically related to "eso" vs "ese," "ese" is the masculine form, and "eso" is the gender neutral form.
Basically you just use "eso" to refer to an idea or an unknown object. It's used when the gender of what "that" refers to can't really be determined.
Thanks again. Spain, here I come!!!! I can't wait. I am trying my Spanish with my pre-school students. I don't dare try it on adults. It would be very embarrassing!! To think I had 24 credits of Spanish in college!
As a native English speaker, I can definitely say that you're mistaken. Not to be mean, but what you're talking about is when the verb "to drink" is used intransitively, as in "He's drunk." However, if used transitively, then it's clear that he is not a drunk. Rather, he is drinking something. For example, "He has drunk his share of orange juice."
Ok, let's clear this up.
"He's drunk" is not an example of the verb "drink" being used intransitively. "Drunk" in this usage is an adjective. "Drunk" can also be a noun, as in the sentence "He is a drunk."
"Drunk" in verb form is the past participle, not the past tense, of "drink." As such it should be used in perfect constructions: has drunk; had drunk etc. Transitive or intransitive only describes whether or not the verb takes an object and has no influence in this.
"Drank" is the simple past tense of "drink" and should be used as such. It should not be used in perfect constructions, but commonly is in certain dialects.
Your response was succinct and 100% correct, jellonz, while mine was the result of my misreading JosephBurnedup's comment and then focusing too much on refuting the idea that that the word "drunk" is seldom used. I should not have tried to write while my family repeatedly kept distracting me!
That being said, in the sentence "He is drunk," the predicate verb, which is the word "is," is a copula. Copulative verbs do not take direct objects, but they do take adjective complements, otherwise known as predicate adjectives. By definition, copulative verbs that link a subject to a predicate adjective are intransitive.
For reasons that elude me, the point that I wanted to make is that there are two types of verb complements: 1) direct objects, and 2) predicate adjectives. Perhaps it was because–in the sentence "He is drunk"–the irregular English past participle functions like the second type of complement, an adjective complement.
Finally, the word "drunk" is often heard in English past perfect tense sentences that are in passive voice. For example, "The wine would have been drunk last night, because we knew it was going sour." It is true that this is not a simple past tense sentence, but the action is still set in the past. IMO, this sentence falls under the "umbrella" of "all past tenses." <);^D
This translation just doesn't sound right. I think it is better translated as: You should not have been drinking like this.
(Please just ignore this; I'm just leaving this post so I could go back to this page later. I'm currently on the app and there's no way for me to follow this forum. Thanks!)
This website begs to differ:
However, this website does support your colloquial use of "drank" (that's how I'd say it too, personally):
In English, "should" and "would" are modal verbs, which are defined as helping verbs that express necessity or possibility. Neither of these verbs are concerned primarily about time. Instead they are concerned about how the subject is feeling. English modal verbs include must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might. So, if you want to indicate that someone feels under an obligation, whether voluntary or mandatory, you can use "should." "Would" is a modal verb that indicates willingness at some uncertain time, even if that uncertainty only lasts for a few seconds. For example, "I would be willing to help you once I finish what I'm doing right now."
From a grammar standpoint if there is a verb phrase negated by "not" then the "not" should follow the first verb. Your sentence would be understood just fine, but shifting the "not" in this way can potentially cause ambiguity, or worse, not jokes :)
From the grammar standpoint of Spanish. In English there is a lot more flexibility, and "You should have not drunk like that" is acceptable.
It was English I was referring to Linda. If you shift the "not" to where you have it then you are negating the second verb. This may not change the overall meaning of a sentence, but potentially it could.
You've taught me something, Jellonz. Thanks. I don't think that it changed the meaning of "You should have not drunk like that," but you're right, the meaning of a sentence could be changed.
Also, I think we both agree that this sentence is very awkward written English, and the only context I can imagine it in is a dialogue: You should've NOT drunk like that!
So was I incorrect when I assumed that this is not a Spanish grammar point? If so, my bad!
This whole discussion is turning into a series of "not" jokes. ;-)
It has to do with what function the infinitive is serving in the sentence. If the infinitive is serving as a noun substitute, then "not" should absolutely precede the preposition "to." For example, in the sentence "Not to be late is my goal," "not to be late" is an infinitive phrase acting as the subject. Because the whole phrase is the subject, the adverb "not" precedes the entire infinitive phrase because, syntactically, that phrase is considered one discrete unit of English acting as a noun substitute. The adverb "not" must precede it all, just as the adverb "not" cannot be placed between a Spanish helping verb and its participle (example of this error: he no comido).
However, if the verb phrase in question is acting as a predicate verb rather than acting as some other part of speech, then there is more flexibility as to where the adverb "not" can be placed. In the sentence "You should have not drunk like that" the adverb can be placed anywhere in the middle of the concatenation of helping verbs + stem verb, which is acceptable in English, albeit somewhat odd in this sentence. (I just said it would squeak by, not that it was used very much.)
I have a fabulous English grammar book that has a whole section on "ought." Some of the points it makes about the word "ought":
"Ought" is a defective verb used only in present English indicative. "Ought" is followed by the infinitive to express obligation, necessity, or expectation. "Ought" has no other form, as it was originally the imperfect of "owe." From this, I deduce that, unlike the verb "deber," the English verb "ought" never takes an auxiliary.
What this means is that any conjugation of "deber," no matter what the tense is in Spanish, translates into a tenseless English when translated as the modal "must" or "ought to." This also means that if you want to translate "deber" as "should," then you need to translate it to "should" + a stem verb because "should" is a helping verb and needs a main verb in the concatenation in order to have meaning. Backing this up, this grammar book elsewhere reads, " 'Have' or 'had' cannot be used as helping verbs for 'can,' 'may,' 'must,' shall,' 'will,' or 'ought.' " What this means is that if you choose to use the "should" translation of "deber," then–if the Spanish has an auxiliary verb like "he" or "había"–you must use "would have" + a past participle in order to denote a translation of Spanish conditional tense; for example, I should have left.
Maybe the speaker is trying to say that 'Hey you drank to much LAST NIGHT'
Then he says "Usted no debió beber así" You should not have drunk like that.
OH MY GOD, i think i know why i use Drank instead of Drunk. The south uses it more, i think. Im from Texas.
That would need to be in the present tense (and the pronoun is wrong, but I'm guessing that's a typo): No debe beber así.
It's just due to the way modal verbs work in English. Compare something similar in Spanish that doesn't require a modal verb in English:
Usted no necesitó beber así - You didn't need to drink like that.
As far as drank or drunk goes, since both are used very frequently in the English language, and not all of Duolingo translations are literal or proper, especially when translating "common phrases" adapted to English, drank should be acceptable. Culturally, in my region of the USA, "drank" would be the chosen word, and is a Merriam-Websters defined past participle of "drink". It should be allowed.
Drank, drunk, and have been drinking are not the same in English. While drank and drunk are often interchanged, "have been drinking" doesn't reflect the same way. More appropriate is "have drank" or "have drunk".
I know that grammatically this is correct BUT no one speaks English like that...especially Americans...