Lost in Translation (7)

Hmmm… sto sbagliando qualcosa?

[ intermediate ]
Se pensi che ci sia qualche errore, scrivi la tua versione nei commenti.
Non tarderò a rispondere.

APPUNTI GRAMMATICALI
QUI

Author: Tony

Born and raised in Malaysia between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. Educated at Wycliffe College in Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, England. Living in the foothills of Mount Etna since 1982 and teaching English at Catania University since 1987. View all posts by Tony

32 thoughts on “Lost in Translation (7)”

eleonoramaria says:

31/05/2017 at 20:58

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for long.

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  31/05/2017 at 21:17
  
  Good idea, but you’ve changed the tense…
  
  Reply
roberta says:

31/05/2017 at 08:43

uhmmmm you wrong

Fortunately,we didn’t have to wait for long.

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  31/05/2017 at 10:45
  
  Ah! I had a feeling there was something wrong. Thank you, Roberta!
  
  N.B. You’re wrong / You’ve made a mistake
  
  Reply
  1. roberta says:
    
    31/05/2017 at 11:32
    
    ..my pleasure 🙂
    
    nahhhh I made it on purpose…:)
    
    Reply
    1. Tony says:
      
      31/05/2017 at 11:34
      
      Ahem… “I DID it on purpose.” oops… What, again?
      
      Reply
      1. roberta says:
        
        01/06/2017 at 08:01
        
        oh my God !!!! I’ve always said “to do it on p..” but today NO ,today I had to say it wrong!!!!!
        
        Reply
        
        Tony says:
        
        01/06/2017 at 08:22
        
        It happens…
        
        Reply
Gianna says:

30/05/2017 at 18:57

Hi, it’s possible to say ” Fortunately we didn’t wait for long. Thanks.

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  30/05/2017 at 19:38
  
  Hi Gianna. Yes, it is possible but you lose the sense of “dovere”.
  
  Reply
Patrizia Bacchetta says:

30/05/2017 at 17:18

I’m sorry.
We didn’t have to wait for long.
I confused with the past perfect.

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  30/05/2017 at 17:28
  
  Okay! Now you’re talking.
  
  Reply
Patrizia Bacchetta says:

30/05/2017 at 17:11

Fortunately, we hadn’t waited for long

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  30/05/2017 at 17:12
  
  Così, però, perdi il senso di “dovere”…
  
  Reply
Antonino Fenucciu says:

30/05/2017 at 12:27

we haven’t had to wait for so long. Or we didn’t to wait for so long.

Reply
1. Antonino Fenucciu says:
  
  30/05/2017 at 12:28
  
  we didn’t have to or we haven’t had to sorry
  
  Reply
  1. Tony says:
    
    30/05/2017 at 12:39
    
    Hi Antonino. Well, both forms are possible but I think the simple past is much more probable in this kind of construction. The present perfect variation would only be possible if the person speaking is still in the place where the waiting happened and the waiting has just finished.
    
    Reply
    1. Antonino Fenucciu says:
      
      30/05/2017 at 15:22
      
      Thank you Tony.
      
      Reply
      1. Tony says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 15:30
        
        😀
        
        Reply
        
        Antonino Fenucciu says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 20:43
        
        Hi Tony, and speaking of “dovere” I’ve just found out another form of conditional other than “should” that is “where to”. Have you already discussed it?
        
        Reply
        
        Tony says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 20:48
        
        I’m not sure what you mean by “where to”. Can you give me an example?
        
        Adesso ho capito. Dai un’occhiata qui:
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv103.shtml
        
        Reply
        
        Antonino Fenucciu says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 20:51
        
        sorry I mean were to
        
        Reply
        
        Antonino Fenucciu says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 20:52
        
        Obviously, if this were to get out…
        
        Reply
        
        Antonino Fenucciu says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 20:54
        
        se non ho capito male si traduce “dovesse” ma non ho capito se si coniuga o meno o quando si usa.
        
        Antonino Fenucciu says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 21:27
        
        Thank you very much Tony. (comunque lo trovo spesso usato dai giornalisti, credo anche che devo aumentare i gradi dei miei occhiali)
        
        Reply
        
        Tony says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 21:29
        
        Journalistic English is a special category!
        
        Reply
        
        Antonino Fenucciu says:
        
        30/05/2017 at 22:55
        
        quindi è una contrazione giornalistica di be going to (The Prime Minister is to make a further visit to..) Oppure si usa per dare ordini formali (credo che sia una attenuazione di must) oppure nelle if clause. Le forme passive Be to + passive infinitive o be to + perfect infinitive le ho lasciate perdere troppo avanzate per me adesso. Grazie di tutto Tony.
        
        Reply
        
        Tony says:
        
        31/05/2017 at 06:09
        
        Non è prettamente giornalistico, ma in realtà forse viene sfruttato maggiormente in quel campo. Come he detto non si usa quasi per niente nell’inglese parlato. È un modo di riferirsi formalmente ad un ordine senza fare riferimento alla fonte dell’ordine. “Have to” fa lo stesso lavora ma è informale.
        
        Reply
Sandro says:

30/05/2017 at 08:41

HI prof,
Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait for long

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  30/05/2017 at 12:37
  
  Very good, Sandro.
  
  Reply
sandro says:

29/05/2017 at 21:05

fortunately we didn’t have to wait for a long time

Reply
1. Tony says:
  
  29/05/2017 at 21:27
  
  Good work with the verb, Sandro. However, “for long” is used a lot in negative and interrogative sentences.
  
  Reply