I don't understand why isn't it present subjunctive (faccia) here instead of imperfect subjunctive (facessi).
All the replies to this are correct: it's probably not technically "agreement", but that's just the way it is! Thinking about the English grammar will confuse you. I'm paraphrasing the following from an Italian grammar book as it will also help me remember: For the subjunctive mood: If the main clause is present, future or imperative, the subordinate (dependent) clause is present subjunctive (for a simultaneous or future action), or past subjunctive (prior action). If the main clause is any past tense OR THE CONDITIONAL, the subordinate clause is in the IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE (for a simultaneous or future action) or the pluperfect subjunctive-"trapassato congiuntivo"- (for a prior action).
Examples relevant to this lesson: Vorrei che tu seguissi i miei consigli (I would like you to follow my advice-imperfect subjunctive). Contrast that with: Vorrei che tu avessi seguito i miei consigli (I wish you had followed my advice-pluperfect subjunctive).
Faccia doesn't agree with vorresti. You should say "cosa vuoi che faccia ?".
I was thinking that the translation of facessi should denote the past in some way, so i tried
What would you like for me to have done.
It was accepted, but the suggested translation is
...me to do.
If i told you i don't understand most grammer jargon, could someone elaborate on this?
'would like' is conditional, and in Italian imperfect subjunctive when conditional is used the English translation uses present. I suppose you could think of it this way, because you are 'hoping' (would like / could / etc. ) it is something yet to happen, so in English we use present, not past, to express the dependent clause. Your sentence 'What would you like for me to have done.' seems to me the literal translation which also makes some sense, because 'to have done' implies a future action will occur; of course it just sounds strange and wrong to our ears :-) No doubt that I am having to do a 'shift' in my mind for this tense .. I am sure many others are as well.
The literal translation, "what would you want that i do", is accepted. FYI. :-) "What would you like me to do" sounds much better though.
vorr- stem for volere for future and conditional (would + verb) So, would want is Indep clause : that I Next fare uses stem face- fare's Imperfect Indicative. (beve - vo for bere and dice-vo for dire) So, face-ssi is I did. Past as Imperfect. I do is faccia. if indep clause is past , dep must be past. What would you want that I did? OK, so it is Rejected. Why have this Imperfect Subjunctive not expressed in its past?
Well, your logic is faultless... if only languages were logical, you'd be absolutely correct. But, unfortunately your sentence doesn't scan in English. There is a difference in the way the tenses are expressed in the two languages as well. To express your sentence, I would say "What would you have wanted me to do?" or "What would you want me to have done?" I cannot think of a way to construct that sentence using 'did'.
That may be a dialectical choice in some regions, but I've never seen it written like that in contemporary Italian. You have to be careful to not go crazy with elision.
I understand there is a difference between tense and context. "Would" is a past tense but can be used both in a present and a past context. "What would you like to eat?" is a polite form of "What do you want to eat. " so here a past tense is used in a modal form ( modus of being more polite) but in a present context. Now my actual question: does the Italian sentence "Cosa vorresti che io facessi? refer without any doubt to a present context?
If they accept "did" and not "made" in that sentence, then it's an error. But honestly, I don't think that either should be accepted. That's extremely stilted English phrasing.