"I have yet to go to Overijssel with you in order to visit those museums."
Translation:Ik ben nog niet met u naar Overijssel geweest om die musea te bezoeken.
The preffered translation is WRONG. The sentence (the preferred translaton) "Ik ben nog niet met u naar Overijsel geweest" would be translated as: "I have NOT been to Overijsel with you YET" Refering to the past and things that did not happen, while the sentence "I have yet to go to Overijssel with you in order to visit those museums" would be translated like: "Ik moet( have to go) NOG (=yet) met u (jullie) naar Overijssel (gaan) om die musea te bezoeken. More refering to the future.
I see your point here, but I don't think it is at all wrong. The 'have yet to' part in english does not have the same meaning as '(still)have to [of 'moet nog']' even though it sort of looks like it. 'Have yet to' basically just means 'have not...yet'.
So the 'must, or moet' part actually doesn't belong in the translation. The sentence only describes something that hasn't been done yet, not something that still needs to be done.
I don't agree. I think the preferred translation is fine. Nog already conveys the meaning you explain. The wish part probably isn't as clear as in English, but then it's indeed hard to translate. To me including steeds would imply some delayed plan or annoyance that the thing hasn't happened yet.
Yes. It is definitely acceptable. All the following are correct Dutch sentences with some difference in emphasis on different parts of the statement:
- Ik ben MET U nog niet naar Overijssel geweest [which puts some emphasis on 'with you' as opposed to 'with others']
- Ik ben nog niet MET U naar Overijssel geweest [a little less emphasis on 'you']
- Ik ben nog niet naar Overijssel geweest MET U [some emphasis on 'Overijssel' as opposed to 'somewhere else']
- end the sentence with MET U [some emphasis on 'visiting the museums together' as opposed to 'visiting Overijssel together'
Mind you, many native Dutch speakers might not even pick up on these differences.