Translation:I would have given you everything I have.
Hi, I am a little confused re skulle and whether to use should or would. Sometimes the intention is clear from the context - but in this case the meaning would be quite different depending on which of the two translations is used. "I would have given you everything I have" is quite different from "I should have given you everything I have." Regards
Basically I would have given you = 'Jag skulle ha gett dig' (this would have happened if …) but I should have given you = 'Jag borde ha gett dig' ('I ought to have …'). The English should isn't exactly unambiguous either.
I believe AnCatDubh is correct. Ion1122's first example would require that the words "have given" be changed to "give." For example, "If you asked me (right now), I would give you (right now) everything that I have (right now). The past perfect "had asked" in the example and the past infinitive "have given" in the sentence at hand can only occur in the past, not right now, so the end verb must be in the past also.
The English tenses aren't right, surely? It would be "I would give you everything I have", so if you set back the first verb in time, you need to do the same with the second. So it should be "I would have given you everything I had."
I understand your point and you may be right (about the English). On the other hand, notice the tenses in the following examples:
1. I would have given you everything I had then.
2. I would have given you everything I have now.
Let me clear about my example #2. You and I are having a conversation now, but I am talking about the past. In the past I had $N, but now, let us say because of business reverses, I have only $n, a smaller amount.
I say to you: "I'm telling you now, back then I would have given you everything that I have now". In other words, back then I would have given you $n.
Really? Consider two points.
First, perhaps it is possible to make a grammatical statement (or an ungrammatical one) even about a logical impossibility.
Second, I'm not so sure my second example is impossible. If I have more now, or different things now, than I had then, then perhaps. But suppose that now (because of business reverses), I have less now then I had then. I think I could utter, logically as well as grammatically, statement #2 above.
@ion1122 & @HW - Ion in your example of having less now, I would not say your #2 example. 'you would have...' does not go with '...now'. It is not logical. You would not say ' The sandwich moved', because a sandwich cannot move by itself.
"To move" is an ergative verb, meaning that it behaves differently depending on whether it's transitive or intransitive, so you actually would say "The sandwich moved" even though the sandwich cannot move itself. It's just like "The water boiled" even though water cannot boil itself.
@Yetanotherdrew I can't 'reply' to your comment. I guess it just messin with my head. I like things to be simple. Have a great day. Tack.
You're right, there's very little difference, if any in casual speech. When voiced and voiceless consonants meet in Swedish, everything tends to become voiceless. So the d in dig can pretty much melt together with the t that goes before it.
In some dialects the ä/e sound is different between those two cases, but you can't be sure of that either.
That's understandable, "gett dig" sounds like "jättej" so it is very close. You can hopefully guess what it says from the context though :)!
Ah well,Swedish gets us used to paying attention to the context.(Talking about you de/dem)
"everythng I've"? that's an odd choice. It makes the sentence seem incomplete.
It's because the machine creates contractions automatically, and sometimes it gets it wrong. Nothing we can fix, I'm afraid.
Took me a while to figure it out, but it's like this: we write everything without contractions, and then Duo generates them automatically. One accepted answer is for instance: I would have given you all I have. So I guess there is some rule in there that can make it contract that you all into y'all, then? Haven't seen that one myself, but I have seen some other weird ones so it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Why is "I would have given you everything I had" incorrect? Does it really mean something different? I know har means has and haft means had. But still. I would have given is past tense, no? I guess that maybe, in the past, you would have given everything that you knew would have (maybe knowing the future amount you had would be different) making it har, now that the future is hear. But still. No one thinks about that kinda ❤❤❤❤ before speaking. So I return back to. I think "Everything I had" should be accepted as a translation. Takes some thinking.
"I would have given" can indeed be about a past event, in which case you use "had", but it could also be about an hypothetical event, in which case you use "have". Granted, though, there's considerable overlap in how natives use the two - in English as well as in Swedish.