Tradução "would be the day"

Na minha opinião, acho que um "foi" fica melhor.

Eu prefiro o "seria".
Vejamos o que vem depois então:

She’d been telling me that since we were fifteen years old.
Ela tem me dito isso desde quando tínhamos quinze anos.

“They’re freaks,” she said. “Hippie weirdo freaks.”
"Eles são hippies esquisitos" ela dizia, Hippies esquisitos e muito estranhos.

I couldn’t argue with her. She did live with hippie weirdo freaks.
Eu não podia deixar de concordar com ela. Ela sim vivia com Hippies esquisitos e muito estranhos.

Pelo que está na leitura subsequente, eu interpreto que tudo "acontece" no passado (embora a narrativa esteja acontecendo no presente.). Isto é, no momento em que "ela" fala (falava - ou que primeiro falou) dos pais, ainda não havia terminado (ou até iniciado a faculdade) pois os personagens da história tinham quinze anos. Então não "foi" o dia em que ela foi embora pra sempre.

Ellie heffner told me that the day she graduated would be the day she left her family and ran away forever.

Como você traduziria este trecho, então?

Ellie Heffner disse me que no dia em que ela se formasse, seria o dia que ela iria deixar a família (dela) e iria embora pra sempre.

Na parte "would be the day she left" pode levar a uma certa confusão por parte do (estudante) iniciante em inglês, pois há a elisão do "que" (that) antes dessa parte (porém aparece na tradução - em português).
Não precisa nesse caso, isso é do tópico pronomes relativos em inglês, não vou me estender agora, mas é isso, é como se tivesse o "that" lá.
O "would be" é a chave, esse parte diz para nós que Ellie Heffner falou no passado de algo que iria acontecer no presente, por que o relato é feito no presente sobre algo anunciado no passado, e que (já) aconteceu.
Apesar que se a frase fosse minha, eu usaria "...would be the day she would leave", mas cada autor tem seus estilo.

PPAULO escreveu:Ellie Heffner disse me que no dia em que ela se formasse, seria o dia que ela iria deixar a família (dela) e iria embora pra sempre.

Na parte "would be the day she left" pode levar a uma certa confusão por parte do (estudante) iniciante em inglês, pois há a elisão do "que" (that) antes dessa parte (porém aparece na tradução - em português).
Não precisa nesse caso, isso é do tópico pronomes relativos em inglês, não vou me estender agora, mas é isso, é como se tivesse o "that" lá.
O "would be" é a chave, esse parte diz para nós que Ellie Heffner falou no passado de algo que iria acontecer no presente, por que o relato é feito no presente sobre algo anunciado no passado, e que (já) aconteceu.
Apesar que se a frase fosse minha, eu usaria "...would be the day she would leave", mas cada autor tem seus estilo.

Eu tb traduzi assim, mas leave e ran away não teriam que vir precedidos de Would, pra ficar deixaria e fugiria, respectivamente?

Tanto faz, Igor. Um "iria deixar/fugir" ou um "deixaria/fugiria" vão bem na frase.

It´s implicit that the "would" that comes before "be the day" serves to the subsequent bits "she let her family" and "run away forever".
Same goes to "she left her family and ran away forever." One doesn´t need to say that "...she left her family and (she) ran away forever, let alone "(she would) ran away forever." Just one "she suffices", so just one "would" too, as they reffers to the same semantical level (same bit).

English is a very sophisticated language, one can easily underestimate it, though. Thus, it shorten and makes use of pratical usages (e.g. Omissions, metaphorical language, what you have.), in such a way that it assumes that the reader knows how to "fill the gaps", so they don´t elaborate some sentences in lenghty ways.
The very question you are making, shows that you are learning English, because we (that think in Portuguese or Spanish) are prolific writers, we try to explain everything. In a way we like the drama, they are terser in style.

PPAULO escreveu:It´s implicit that the "would" that comes before "be the day" serves to the subsequent bits "she let her family" and "run away forever".
Same goes to "she left her family and ran away forever." One doesn´t need to say that "...she left her family and (she) ran away forever, let alone "(she would) ran away forever." Just one "she suffices", so just one "would" too, as they reffers to the same semantical level (same bit).

English is a very sophisticated language, one can easily underestimate it, though. Thus, it shorten and makes use of pratical usages (e.g. Omissions, metaphorical language, what you have.), in such a way that it assumes that the reader knows how to "fill the gaps", so they don´t elaborate some sentences in lenghty ways.
The very question you are making, shows that you are learning English, because we (that think in Portuguese or Spanish) are prolific writers, we try to explain everything. In a way we like the drama, they are terser in style.

Se o would serve pra left e run away, o left por exemplo não deveria estar em sua forma básica:"to leave"

Yes, your reasoning is right. To my thinking it should be "it would be the day she would leave...and (would) run away."
What we can deduce from that is, when there´s an elision of the word "would" in such case, then the verbs are put in their past forms.
In pratical terms, it´s as if we had used the "would" reffering to all verbs immediately close it.

Perhaps it has something more to it, that is, that the events happened: she did graduated, then she left and ran away! But she told that at other time, hence it´s where the perceived incongruence of verbs come from.
That´s more, the author may (or may not) have sent the writing and it wasn´t proofread in the whole, and it passed through it without being corrected. Sometimes we have to give the author some slack.
Anyway, the translation seems like being the one I thought to be.

"To cut the author some slack." I meant.

Me esclareça outra dúvida, por favor.

Uma menina está conversando com o pai, ele acaba de dizer que vai ser pai, e ela diz: does not a father make.

Isso é um trecho dé um livro que já foi traduzido para português, ao ver a tradução notei que a última frase: does not a father make, ficou"não torna ninguém um pai", minha dúvida é onde está o "ninguém" na frase original?

It is "doesn't make a father", as in "DNA doesn't make a father. The guy who stays, and cares for you and the baby is a father."
But inversion is a technique used for effect, to give a sentence emphasis.

Ref. learn-english-today

Example 1: I have never seen such a beautiful rose.
Example 2: Never have I seen such a beautiful rose.

PPAULO escreveu:Yes, your reasoning is right. To my thinking it should be "it would be the day she would leave...and (would) run away."
What we can deduce from that is, when there´s an elision of the word "would" in such case, then the verbs are put in their past forms.
In pratical terms, it´s as if we had used the "would" reffering to all verbs immediately close it.

Perhaps it has something more to it, that is, that the events happened: she did graduated, then she left and ran away! But she told that at other time, hence it´s where the perceived incongruence of verbs come from.
That´s more, the author may (or may not) have sent the writing and it wasn´t proofread in the whole, and it passed through it without being corrected. Sometimes we have to give the author some slack.
Anyway, the translation seems like being the one I thought to be.

Então quer dizer que se houver necessidade do uso do would mais de uma vez na mesma frase, eu posso omiti-lo depois da primeira vez e colocar os verbos subsequentes na forma passada?

E pra saber se os verbos nas formas passadas se referem ao passado ou estão apenas com o Would omitido, preciso ver o contexto, é isso?

Yes to question #1.
To question #2, let's split it in two:

A) "would" can be left out when it is referring to another verb close to it, that is not a monopoly of this word, though, we do that with pronouns, etc.

B) As for the second part, it seems to me that the author could well be thinking in terms of "hypothetical statements", in which present unreal events (at the time "she told") the verb got back one step back - to the past.
So, the condition part is what I meant with context.

So, it's possible, used and makes sense; although I would use "it would be the day she would leave...and run away." Both could be used.
It comes from the thought of the author at the time, I think.

Anyway, this is a tricky subject, so my answer is an educated guess. I am not going to be categorical about it, I'll leave it open to further comments explanations.

...further comments and explanations, I meant.