O uso de "Would" é correto em "A statue that he would have received"?

"Uma estátua que ele teria recebido." Eu traduziria como "A statue that he would have received." Isto está correto? A frase em português passa a ideia de que "ele" supostamente recebeu a estátua, mas não é algo concreto, mas sim uma possibilidade de que isso aconteceu no passado. "Would have" expressa que algo possivelmente aconteceu no passado? Se uso dele na frase mencionada estiver errado, quais são as outras alternativas?
13 respostas
Ordenar por: Data

Resposta aceita Resposta aceita
2620 8 72
In English, this idea is usually expressed by the adverbs "supposedly" or "allegedly". Would/should are not typically used like this.

A statue that he supposedly received from his grandfather.
MENSAGEM PATROCINADA Faça um teste de inglês e descubra seu nível em 15 minutos! Este teste foi desenvolvido por professores e linguistas certificados. O resultado sai na hora e com gabarito.

Iniciar o Teste Online!

11945 1 19 241
Sim, a frase está correta.

Ex.: People suggest that this sculpture is a statue that he would have received from his grandfather.

10
O uso de "would" na sentença está incorreto!

A ideia em foco na mesma é possibilidade ( ... Ele teria recebido... ). Would leva outros sentidos, não o de possibilidade como os modais "should", "may", "might", "could, "must" e "ought to". O uso de cada um destes depende do grau de possibilidade que se deseja exprimir ( must > should, ought to > could > may > might ). People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he should have received from his grandfather.

10
Bryan Philpott escreveu:
26 Jan 2020, 00:27
In English, this idea is usually expressed by the adverbs "supposedly" or "allegedly". Would/should are not typically used like this.

A statue that he supposedly received from his grandfather.
I disagree. The use of the modal "should" to express possibility is current. "She should be here at any moment now." / "Mary is late. She should be stuck in the traffic." One is free, though, to use an adverb that expresses possibility such as the ones you mentioned above : "Allegedly, Julius Caesar was given demigod status."

10
O uso de "would" na sentença depende do sentido da mesma.

Se a ideia é possibilidade ( ... Ele teria recebido... ), o uso de "would" seria incorreto já que este modal não tem esse sentido e sim os modais "should", "may", "might", "could, "must" e "ought to". O uso de cada um destes depende do grau de possibilidade que se deseja exprimir ( must > should, ought to > could > may > might ). People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he should have received from his grandfather.

No entanto, a frase "A statue that he would have received" pode ser correta se for parte de um condicional: "A statue that he would have received as a tribute should he have fulfilled his promises to the community."
MENSAGEM PATROCINADA Você já ouviu dizer que para dominar o inglês é preciso pensar em inglês? Aprenda alguns métodos no guia Como Pensar em inglês da English Live. Ele tem dicas que ajudarão você a melhorar o vocabulário e leitura.

Download do Guia em PDF - Grátis!

2620 8 72
I disagree. The use of the modal "should" to express possibility is current. "She should be here at any moment now." / "Mary is late. She should be stuck in the traffic." One is free, though, to use an adverb that expresses possibility such as the ones you mentioned above : "Allegedly, Julius Caesar was given demigod status."
To be more clear, I don't think should/would alone sufficiently translate the conditional tense when the conditional tense is being used in a reporting/deposition context to convey a piece of information about which the speaker has doubts or believes to be uncorroborated. Should/would themselves do not clearly carry this connotation of doubt or uncertainty.
People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he should have received from his grandfather.
To my ears, this is saying that people think the statue was owed to him by his grandfather; should has the force of ought. It implies that his grandfather should've (ought've) given him this statue, but didn't. This ambiguity in denotation is one reason people don't use should to express probability when reporting information, even if it's theoretically permissible.

"People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he received from his grandfather."

This conveys Jimin's idea, that people think (but don't know for sure) the statue was given to him by his grandfather, and the connotations of "suggest" convey the sense of supostamente without needing should/would.

2620 8 72
Redseahorse escreveu:
24 Jan 2020, 17:48
Sim, a frase está correta.

Ex.: People suggest that this sculpture is a statue that he would have received from his grandfather.
The implication here is that he would have received (=was going to receive) the statue from his grandfather, but didn't. Something happened and his grandfather was not able to give it to him, or his grandfather was not the person who ended up giving it to him. So if that is the sense that is desired, then it's absolutely fine.

50435 6 42 916
And perhaps yet in another context, Jimin´s sentence could be expressed by "a statue that supposedly/seemingly he was given by his grandfather".
Still under the assumption of that "people think but don´t know for sure" situation. Let´s say, his grandfather was a statue collector, he (the guy-not the grandpa) works for an institution and then one statue is missing... Again, it would be in a reporting/deposition context.
My question would be whether we could use the boldened words in such a situation? I think so, but I am not a hundred percent sure of it. The ball is in your court guys.

2620 8 72
PPAULO escreveu:
26 Jan 2020, 19:07
And perhaps yet in another context, Jimin´s sentence could be expressed by "a statue that supposedly/seemingly he was given by his grandfather".
Still under the assumption of that "people think but don´t know for sure" situation. Let´s say, his grandfather was a statue collector, he (the guy-not the grandpa) works for an institution and then one statue is missing... Again, it would be in a reporting/deposition context.
My question would be whether we could use the boldened words in such a situation? I think so, but I am not a hundred percent sure of it. The ball is in your court guys.
Yes, supposedly would work well there.

"Seemingly" would be more like aparentemente; you could say it that way if you had seen the event yourself or seen some evidence that makes you think it's a little more likely than "supposedly", but you are still without 100% certainty, and you want to make it clear that you still don't have clear enough information to be comfortable reporting it as fact.

10
Bryan Philpott escreveu:
26 Jan 2020, 18:44
The implication here is that he would have received (=was going to receive) the statue from his grandfather, but didn't. Something happened and his grandfather was not able to give it to him, or his grandfather was not the person who ended up giving it to him. So if that is the sense that is desired, then it's absolutely fine.
Bryan, I disagreed with your previous statement:
"Would/should are not typically used like this.

A statue that he supposedly received from his grandfather."

Since the adverb "supposedly" expresses possibility, "should" can be used to convey the same idea as long as the phrase is extended into a sentence that makes clear the idea of possibility: "A statue that he should have received from his grandfather, but no one knows for sure as it is yet to be placed in the garden."

Now you say: "To be more clear ( clearer? ), I don't think should/would alone sufficiently translate the conditional tense." No, they don't. And I didn't say they do. Just reread my comment.

Then you go on: "People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he should have received from his grandfather." It implies that his grandfather should've (ought've) given him this statue, but didn't." ( ought to have? )

The title of the post asks if "a statue he would have received" is correct. Whether it is or not depends on how that phrase is extended into a sentence. You did that by creating the example "People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he should have received from his grandfather."

In this case, your assumption that "he didn't" is not necessarily correct. If you want to make it clear that he actually didn't, you must then add "but didn't." If you don't, the meaning of your sentence is ambiguous as one could also interpret it as "People suggest that this sculpture is a statue he should have received from his grandfather ( but they're not sure as they're yet to see it displayed in his garden ). There is a fifty-fifty chance he received it, therefore, a possibility.

Back to the phrase in the title, I could extend it into "A statue that he would have received from his grandfather should he ( had he ) fulfilled his duties accordingly as the administrator of the property" ( a conditional ).

Again, the correctness of the phrase relies on how it is extended to build longer expressions.

50435 6 42 916
Thank you Bryan, for clarifying my question.

2620 8 72
M001, my main point is that should/would have other implications or ambiguities not present in the original Portuguese that can be avoided by using adverbs instead of modals.

Specifically, "should" has the ambiguity that it could be expressing probability or duty, and I was simply stating that, in fact, to my ears, the phrasing of this idea with "should" invokes much more the denotation of duty rather than probability. Anyone thinking to use "should" in this situation must beware that they will have a very good chance of being misunderstood, if they don't include any clarifying remarks later on.

We are in agreement that the true best way to translate in this situation will depend on the extended meaning the speaker would like to convey. The use of "would", for example, could easily be appropriate, as I mentioned in another post.

As to some finer points:
Now you say: "To be more clear ( clearer? )
Both are common, clearer perhaps slightly moreso.

To be more clear: Houston Chronicle / NY Times

To be clearer: Houston Chronicle / NY Times
( ought to have? )
Yes. Ought've may be a southernism or just colloquial, but I was sure I wouldn't be misunderstood.
In this case, your assumption that "he didn't" is not necessarily correct...There is a fifty-fifty chance he received it, therefore, a possibility.
In contexts such as this, "should have" is not really a fifty-fifty thing, neither in probability nor in duty:

"I should have been there for you" - the implication is that I was not, in fact, there for you. "He should have been here by now" - the implication is that he's not, in fact, there. "He should have received the statue from his grandfather" - the implication is that he received the statue some other way, and not, in fact, from his grandfather.

That said, I am open to be convinced otherwise with counter-examples.

-

This reminds me of a joke by Mitch Hedberg: "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."

One could make a similar play on words: "I should have been there for you. And so I was."

Just like saying "I used to do something" implies you are no longer doing it, so also does "should have" imply that something ought to have been a certain way, but wasn't.

1910 8 42
I disagree. The use of the modal "should" to express possibility is current. "She should be here at any moment now." / "Mary is late. She should be stuck in the traffic." One is free, though, to use an adverb that expresses possibility such as the ones you mentioned above : "Allegedly, Julius Caesar was given demigod status."
Sorry for intruding here but I don't think you're very clear on what the original poster truly meant by that sentence. Check out these hypothetical headlines which you can see on newspapers and things of the sort which is where this sentence structure is very commonly used:

O bandido teria entrado na casa e levado tudo.
A mulher teria sido assassinada pelo marido por uma traição.

"Teria" here doesn't really imply possibility or a potential scenario where you would typically use "would" or "should" but something that SUPPOSEDLY/ALLEDGELY happened, regarding a fact that was reported to happen but has yet to be officially confirmed, so Bryan was nothing but right. Props to him for picking up on the true meaning of the sentence in portuguese and the idea intented to be conveyed while you as a native speaker apparently failed to do so. "A statue the he would/should have received" and "a statue the he alledgely/supposedly received" both convey completely different ideas,with the latter being the sentence the OP was looking for.

MENSAGEM PATROCINADA Quer treinar o seu inglês com professores nativos por 7 DIAS GRÁTIS? Na English Live isso é possível! Com um método que funciona e ótimos professores, seu aprendizado de inglês ficará completo.

Quero começar agora!