I shall have had to buy the car.

Forero

Senior Member
I find it fascinating that the word order that works so well in German fails in English and vice versa.

I shall have had to buy the car.
Ich werde das Auto haben, kaufen müssen. [I think the comma is normal for writing this in German, but there is no pause - the rhythm is the same as for "spielen können müssen". Nicht wahr?]
Ik zal de auto hebben moeten kopen. [Nederlands, just for comparison]

The translation process is difficult, but the order in each language seems natural.
 
  • starrynightrhone

    Senior Member
    Austria, German
    I shall have had to buy the car.
    Ich werde das Auto haben, kaufen müssen. [I think the comma is normal for writing this in German, but there is no pause - the rhythm is the same as for "spielen können müssen". Nicht wahr?
    I'm sorry, but that sentence really doesn't work in German. :confused: :confused:
     

    Whodunit

    Senior Member
    Deutschland ~ Deutsch/Sächsisch
    I shall have had to buy the car.
    Ich werde das Auto haben, kaufen müssen. [I think the comma is normal for writing this in German, but there is no pause - the rhythm is the same as for "spielen können müssen". Nicht wahr?]
    Ik zal de auto hebben moeten kopen. [Nederlands, just for comparison]
    In German it would be "Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen." I don't know about the Durch sentence.
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    Thanks Whodunit for "Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen." Sounds much better.

    However I'm still not seeing why my "habben, kaufen müssen" doesn't fly.

    If I try to do what Aurin did but starting with "Ich habe das Auto kaufen müssen" and moving it to future, I still get "Ich werde das Auto haben, kaufen müssen."

    This is kind of a Noam Chomsky approach to translation, but it allows the process to be broken down into very manageable bits. Here's my whole "derivation" (feel free to correct):

    I am buying the car. = Ich kaufe das Auto.
    Add "have to" = "muß":
    I have to buy the car. = Ich muß das Auto kaufen.
    Add perfective "have":
    I have had to buy the car. = Ich habe das Auto kaufen müssen.
    [Or is it "Ich habe das Auto kaufen gemüssen."? That would be more logical, but is it correct?]
    Add "werde" for future:
    "Ich werde das Auto haben, kaufen müssen."
    [Or is it "Ich werde das Auto kaufen gemüssen haben."?]

    When I see "gekauft", I look for a "bought" somewhere in the English, but the participle in the English is "had to". ("Must" has no participle.)

    Taking Whodunit's smoother version and reversing the process, I get:

    "Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen." =? "I shall have had to buy the car."
    Delete "werde" = "shall":
    "Ich muß das Auto gekauft haben" [Did I do that right?] =? "I must have bought the car." or "I have to have bought the car."

    Does either of these last two English sentences mean the same as "I have had to buy the car"?
     

    Aurin

    Senior Member
    Alemania (alemán)
    Thanks starrynightrhone for the workable version of "... to out of up for".

    And thanks Whodunit for "Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen." Sounds much better.

    However I'm still not seeing why my "habben, kaufen müssen" doesn't fly.

    If I try to do what Aurin did but starting with "Ich habe das Auto kaufen müssen" and moving it to future, I still get "Ich werde das Auto haben, kaufen müssen."
    If you want to move the sentence to future: Ich werde das Auto kaufen müssen.
    "Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen." is future perfect.
     

    Aurin

    Senior Member
    Alemania (alemán)
    I´m trying to understand why you want to put an infinitive instead of a participle. Maybe it is because of the modal verb. If a modal verb is together with another verb, it doesn´t have the participle with ge- (e.g. gemusst) but the infinitive form. I will say the sentence wrong: Ich habe das Auto kaufen "gemusst". Gemusst is wrong because there are 2 verbs and you have to say müssen. But so you can recognize that "müssen" does the role of a participle. (It´s very hard for me to explain it in English, I hope I don´t confuse more.)
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    Thanks Aurin. Your English is much better than my German. Is there such a word as "gemüssen" or "gemusst" at all, or is it always replaced with "müssen"? You probably know, but English modals often have to be replaced by other wording and some things just can't be said conveniently. English "must" simply lacks everything but present tense - no participle, no infinitive, no past tense. What a bother!

    I am asking if "Ich habe das Auto kaufen müssen" is equivalent to "Ich muß das Auto gekauft haben"? and what the effect of adding "werde" to these sentences should be.

    I was trying to move the auxiliary "haben" from present to future ("habe ..." to "werde ... haben") by analogy with your changing "musst ..." to "wirst ... müssen" in the other sentence. Where I tend to get lost is in the requisite changes to word order and form needed to keep the sentence idiomatic.

    The combination "werde gekauft haben müssen" looks to me like the future tense of "müssen" and a perfect infinitive of "kaufen", whereas "shall have had to buy" is the future perfect of "have [to]" = "müssen" and a simple infinitive of "to buy".

    Is the meaning the same?

    In my imagination, if I may use a little Spanish:
    "I shall have had to buy it" = "habré tenido que comprarlo".
    ¿"Ich werde es gekauft haben müssen" = "tendré que haberlo comprado" o es lo mismo?
     

    Aurin

    Senior Member
    Alemania (alemán)
    What a challenge!
    Thanks for understand my English.
    Many questions, some easy to answer, others even difficult for Germans.
    There is the participle of müssen=gemusst. It is only used if there is no other verb. E.g.:
    Warum bist du dorthin gegangen? – Ich habe gemusst. But: Ich habe hingehen müssen.
    Or with another modal „können“:
    Seit wann kannst du Klavier spielen? – Das habe ich schon als 5jährige gekonnt. But: Ich habe schon als 5jährige Klavier spielen können.
    Looking for grammar for supporting my assertion now I got confused. You had been right with “Ich werde das Auto haben kaufen müssen“ (only without comma).
    See: http://www.deutschlernen-blog.de/Grammatik/GR%20-%20Uebersicht%20alle%20deutschen%20Verbformen.pdf
    I´m too tired to find out now if my sentence also is possible or if it had been my false analogy from “Konjunktiv 2, Futur 2: Er würde das Auto gekauft haben können.”
    Futur 2: Er wird das Auto haben kaufen können.
    Thank you for persisting. So I had the chance to learn something.

     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    I have no trouble at all understanding your English, Aurin. You should use the gerund "understanding" though.

    Thank you for the link. Do you have a link to the main page of that website?

    I would assume that "werde" would be just as correct as "würde" in "Er würde das Auto gekauft haben können.” But the meaning would probably be different.

    I have heard things in English like "I will have had to have bought the car", but that sounds like overkill to me.
     

    Aurin

    Senior Member
    Alemania (alemán)
    http://www.deutschlernen-blog.de/

    That´s the main page.
    Before I found it, I wanted to propose "I will have had to have bought the car" trying a literal translation. These forms in German are little (few?) used and as you see - even I (I´m a teacher) have problems with them.
    Thanks for the encouragement and the correction.
     

    Acrolect

    Senior Member
    German, Austria
    To adopt the step-by-step approach you suggested:

    (Have to) + (buy a car)
    (Future tense) + (perfect aspect)
    (will have to) + (to have bought a car)
    = I will have to have bought a car
    (werde müssen) + (ein Auto gekauft haben)
    = Ich werde ein Auto gekauft haben müssen


    (Future perfect) + (non-perfect aspect)
    (will have hade to) + (buy a car)
    = I will/shall have had to buy a car
    (werde gemusst haben) + (ein Auto kaufen)
    (if modals take an infinitive in the perfect, they normally appear in an alternative participle form, which corresponds to the infinitive - in some grammars you also find that under the heading of Ersatzinfinitiv).
    (werde müssen haben) + (ein Auto kaufen)
    = Ich werde ein Auto haben kaufen müssen.

    I think your translation works fine (even though this is an area where my own gut feeling as a native speaker deserts me and as a non-German studies specialist I would not be able to explain why it is this word order rather than kaufen haben müssen - but there are experts who can explain this). The only problem in the original was punctuation (we do not normally use commas before infinitive constructions dependent on modal verbs).

    The more difficult part is semantics here. The more I think about the example, the more complicated it gets and I am not really able to tell the difference between I shall have had to buy a car and I shall have to have bought a car (at a certain point in the future there will be a past obligation - one that will have begun to be effective before this point - to buy a car vs. at a certain point in the future there will be an obligation to have already bought a car [is this conceivable]). This cracks my brain.
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    Thanks Aurin for the wunderbare link! In your English, the correct phrase is "little used", where "little" is an adverb modifying the passive participle. "Few" is never used in this way.

    In a context where "few" or "little" modifies a noun or stands for a noun, "few" would be used for a plural construction and "little" for a non-count or partitive construction. It would be correct to say:

    . These forms are of little use. ["use" meaning "usefulness", never plural]
    . These forms have few uses. ["uses" meaning "ways they can be used", plural]
    . Very little of this apple is edible. [I call this "partitive" because it refers to part(s) of the apple referred to as a quantity (like a mass noun)]

    I see a difference in meaning between the two English constructions, but am not sure the same thing goes for the German:

    A. I shall have had to buy a car.
    B. I shall have to have bought a car.

    Future perfect is to future as present perfect is to present, so removing "shall" from both sentences should not hurt the distinction between them, but it can allow us to imagine we are already at that point in the future when one or the other applies:

    A. I have had to buy a car.
    B. I have to have bought a car.

    Sentence A says that the need to buy has already presented itself and the car has already been bought because, presumably, I needed the car for some past or ongoing purpose.

    Sentence B says that, regardless of whether the need existed before, there is now a need to have a car, and that car must already have been bought - maybe it is too late to buy a car now, but I need one now.

    Sentence B also has another interpretation: I must have bought a car. In other words, it is impossible to believe that I did not buy a car. Need or no need, evidence (such as the car's presence and condition) shows that my not having purchased it is not a logical possibility.

    For some reason, sentence A cannot have a "logically must" interpretation. It seems that logic, examination of possibilities, is always (or at least normally) performed in present indicative. If this is true, it really fires up my inner linguist. Is this why "must" (along with "may" and "can") has no "past" (perfective) participle? Is this why French and Spanish do not permit present subjunctive in an "if" clause? - But then why does English allow "Be he alive or be he dead, ..." or "if he be found, ..."?

    Pardon my straying off topic, but what about German? Can "müssen" be used as "logically must"? Can a subjunctive like "sei" be used in a "wenn" clause? Do the German versions of A and B have the same interpretations?
     

    Acrolect

    Senior Member
    German, Austria
    A. I have had to buy a car.
    B. I have to have bought a car.

    A. Ich habe ein Auto kaufen müssen.
    B. Ich muss ein Auto gekauft haben.

    Same interpretation for sentence A. in German, probably also for B. For the deontic modality interpretation (concerned with obligation), I imagine a scenario where people talk about the obligation to buy a car and the first person says it is too late because s/he has to have bought it already (even though other formulations seem more appropriate). For the epistemic interpretation, well, there is a pragmatic problem. have to/must indicate present evidence available to the speaker. Now if the deliberate action of buying a car is concerned with the first person herself/himself, s/he obviously knows whether s/he has performed it or not. :) It is a bit like a nightmare sentence for me as someone a bit anti-car: I wake up in the morning and suddenly see a car parked in front of my house (well, I do not have a house, but let's pretend) and it is obviously mine. So my conclusion is: I must have bought a car while I was asleep.

    Why does sentence A not allow an epistemic reading? Well, I would have to think about this one, but seemingly it has something to do with the presence of evidence from which you draw your conclusions. And perhaps it does not make sense to speak of evidence as having been available if all you are interested in is the conclusion. But logics does not always explain things very well.

    Can "müssen" be used as "logically must"? Can a subjunctive like "sei" be used in a "wenn" clause?
    Müssen in German can be deontic/logical.
    Sei is not normally used in conditional clauses (apart from embedded ones, e.g. in reported speech or thought) because either the indicative or the second subjunctive is used (the difference is similar to English if-clauses).
     

    Aurin

    Senior Member
    Alemania (alemán)
    Thanks Aurin for the wunderbare link! In your English, the correct phrase is "little used", where "little" is an adverb modifying the passive participle. "Few" is never used in this way.

    In a context where "few" or "little" modifies a noun or stands for a noun, "few" would be used for a plural construction and "little" for a non-count or partitive construction. It would be correct to say:

    . These forms are of little use. ["use" meaning "usefulness", never plural]
    . These forms have few uses. ["uses" meaning "ways they can be used", plural]
    . Very little of this apple is edible. [I call this "partitive" because it refers to part(s) of the apple referred to as a quantity (like a mass noun)

    Thanks for the English lesson.
     

    Arrius

    Senior Member
    English, UK
    I have enjoyed reading through this thread and feel inclined to put in my two cents' worth although a latecomer:

    In response to Forero: it was a brave attempt to find a solution through Chomsky's generative grammar, but he long since abandoned his convoluted theories, repudiating some, much to the undying gratitude of many a bemused contemporary student, and like another intellectual who caused far worse headaches but whose name escapes me at the moment , "beschloß Politiker zu werden".
    English "must" as you say, does not have a derived past tense, but "had to" is used instead, or the present form often serves in the past, including in literature:"When I reached the river,I found I must wade across, because the bridge was down."/ He said he must (had to) be home by six".
    "Habré tenido que comprarlo" is the same as "tendré que haberlo comprado" except that the second version flows rather better.
    You rightly say that French "si" does not take a subjunctive (in fact, not even a conditional) but Spanish "si" often does have a subjunctive after it as in the old tango: "Bésame, bésame mucho. Bésame como si f u e r a la última vez."

    Just loved Arcolect's philosophical approach in an earlier posting !
    Tschüß allerseits!
    Arrius
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    Thanks for your input, Arrius.

    This transformational approach does serve me for these particular sentences (A and B), though I know that better theories no doubt exist for the "big picture" of sentence construction.

    If the two Spanish sentences mean the same thing to you, what of the German version? Or the English version? I think I am quite fixed in my opinion of the English sentences, but what do the German ones mean to you?

    I used Spanish just to have other words to explain what I think the difference is between the two German sentences but now my Spanish sentences are getting the same reaction as my German ones originally did. I wonder why. The English versions seem to be the "odd man out" in that, if they are taken to be synonymous, the first is the one that flows better - contrary to both the German and the Spanish.

    Still, I don't feel that the two sentences have exactly the same meaning in any of these languages.

    About "must", it looks to me like it does serve for both present and past, but it is ambiguous in your second example: "He said he must (had to, or has to?) be home by six". Whereas I might use "did put" or "was putting" to get around the ambiguity with using "put" in past tense, neither construction is possible for replacing past tense "must".
     

    Arrius

    Senior Member
    English, UK
    To Forero
    Chomsky makes my head spin and though, undoubtedly, a genius, he seems to have made an excellent living, like so many, saying what is basically simple in the most obscure, long-winded and turgid way possible. As Goethe once said, "Zertretener Quark schmeckt nicht besser", but my allegedly humorous remarks on him here would have been perhaps better unsaid.

    Regarding the sentences:
    A. I have had to buy a car.
    B. I have to have bought a car.

    A. Ich habe ein Auto kaufen müssen.
    B. Ich muss ein Auto gekauft haben.

    Since you ask, to me, English sentence A does not mean the same as B.
    A is quite straightforward: the speaker has been obliged for whatever reason to buy a car, and said vehicle has been purchased by him. In Eng. B, the speaker is telling us that there is a pre-condition, say, to the offer of a job as a sales representative, to buy a car. He may not have bought the required car yet or he may be explaining to a friend the reason for the presence of a new car in his possession, viz. " I have to have bought a car before the company will take me on". To me, as a Brit, the two English sentences are quite clear, but I can foresee some possible difference in interpretion the other side of the Atlantic where I know that "have to" is used to imply certainty in contexts where in the UK, at least among the older generation less influenced by Americanisms, one would use "must": e.g. Amer. "You have to be joking"/ Brit. "You must be joking"; Amer. "This has to be the biggest mistake you ever made."/ Brit. "This must be the...etc.". If, after a night of excessive alcoholic consumption a car were unexpectedly to be brought to your house by a deliveryman who presented you with the associated documents and a receipt, we Brits would normally exclaim, "*@*# it! I must have bought a car ( in my drunken stupor)".

    German A., Ich habe ein Auto kaufen müssen, means, to me, "I have been obliged/ found it necessary to buy a car" and the car has accordingly been acquired. German B., Ich muss ein Auto gekauft haben, expresses astonishment at the now forgotten purchase of a motor car, whether yesterday or fifty years ago. No other acceptable interpretation of the latter occurs to me and no obligation to purchase is implied here. To render the meaning of pre-condition (Vorbedingung) mentioned in connexion with Eng.B, I would say "Ich werde ein Auto gekauft haben müssen" , or even more simply (and why not?) "Ich muss vorher/ zuerst ein Auto kaufen". Bin aber kein Volksdeutscher.

    In my example " He said he must (had to) be home by six" - which I still do not find ambiguous - I inserted "(had to)" as a synonymous alternative to show that a past idea was intended by the use of the present tense form "must". I could equally well have written, "When I met him yesterday, he said that he must be home by six, and it was already half past five then". I was incredulously surprised many years ago when I first encountered this use of "must" doing service for the past tense, as in both my examples. It was in a good British author, I can't remember who for certain but probably Aldous Huxley, and I have met it several times since. I don't think formal grammarians have noticed it yet to shoot it down in flames, assuming that it is at all suspect, as they have the practical and ubiquitous use of "their" to express the politically correct but clumsy "his or her" (her or his?). Admittedly "put", which you use as an anology, like "cut", "set" etc., has identical forms, except in the 3rd person singular, for present, simple past and past participle, but surely one does not have to add "did" or any other marker to indicate the past: the context will see to that. After all, in Chinese, I hear, they do pretty well without any tenses at all!
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    Thanks, Arrius.

    Interesting how the language affects the meaning. I really can't fathom how U.N. translators manage to be accurate so much of the time.

    Usually the context of "put" does take care of the tense, but I have needed sometimes to use "did put" or "was putting" to avoid the ambiguity. I think lawyers do the same thing: "The defendants did intentionally and wrecklessly put ...".

    The Chinese have their own devices for expressing what we do with past tense - usually by using the "suffix" le, which denotes a perfective aspect. You could say that the French have also dispensed with past tense. Still it does seem evident that past tense is not really as necessary as our Germanic languages make it appear.
     

    Arrius

    Senior Member
    English, UK
    " I think lawyers do the same thing: "The defendants did intentionally and wrecklessly put ...".
    True: lawyers have to used fixed terminology and repeat everything ad nauseam, because any ellipsis or personal pronoun could be accidentally or deliberately misinterpreted by those deciding the antecedent or supplying the missing words. Hence legalese is among the most practical but least aesthetically pleasing forms of any language.

    "You could say that the French have also dispensed with past tense."
    I honestly cannot imagine why I should say that. Perhaps you might enlighten me by private message, as even this posting risks being expunged for irrelevance.
     

    Janpiet

    Senior Member
    Flemish - Belgium
    In German it would be "Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen." I don't know about the Durch sentence.
    ------------
    Meines Erachtens gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen :
    - Ich werde das Auto gekauft haben müssen.
    und
    - Ich werde das Auto haben kaufen müssen.

    Der zweite Satz drückt aus, dass ich an einem gewissen Punkt in Zukunft, verpflichtet worden sein werde das Auto zu kaufen.
    Der erste Satz hingegen drückt die Annahme aus, dass ich an einem gewissen Punkt in Zukunft das Auto gekauft haben werde.

    Im Niederländischen besteht derselbe Unterschied:
    - Ik zal de auto gekocht moeten hebben.
    - Ik zal de auto hebben moeten kopen.

    Eine gewisse Vorstellungskraft zum Finden eines zutreffenden Kontextes ist hierbei erforderlich.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top