Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Altre frasi da S&S (ci siamo quasi)

Ecco una frase da "Sense and Sensibility":
"And after all, what did it signify to my character in the opinion of
Marianne and her friends, in what language my answer was couched?--It must
have been only to one end."
Perché "must have been"? Io avrei scritto "It must be only to one end"
(doveva tendere a un solo scopo). Cosa non capisco?
Subito dopo la Austen continua:
"My business was to declare myself a scoundrel, and whether I did it with a
bow or a bluster was of little importance."
La traduzione che ho è (Superbur, Beatrice Boffito Serra):
"Lo scopo era uno solo (It must have been only to one end): far capire che
ero un furfante, e poco importava raggiungerlo con un colpo o con una
frustata".
Un colpo? Per caso "with a bow or a bluster" è una fraseologia per dire "in
qualunque modo fai questa cosa, l'effetto sarà spiacevole"?
Io ho pensato subito a "poco importava raggiungerlo con un inchino o una
<<bluster>>".
Non sapevo cosa volesse dire "bluster" (spacconata, a quanto mi risulta
ora), ma nel contesto pensavo che colui che diceva questa frase intendesse:
"Lo scopo era uno solo: far capire che ero un furfante, e poco importava
raggiungerlo facendo bella figura o no, tanto sempre mascalzone sarei
risultato".
Chi ha ragione?
Ciao, FB

 Ecco una frase da "Sense and Sensibility":
Cavolo! Ci sono spoiler? Spero che non li consideriate tali.
Ciao, FB

 
AmEng Joe here.
It's because the sentence is framed in the past tense to begin with.
"..what *did* it signify...in what language my answer *was* couched...--
It must *have been* only to one end."
If it were present tense, your version would be correct.
"..what *does* it signify...in what language my answer *is* couched...--
It must *be* only to one end."
-- 
Un-not my address if you wanna reply.

 It must *be* only to one end."
But "must have been" is not simply the past tense of "must", is it? Doesn't
"must have been" translate "deve essere stato" (maybe also "ha dovuto
essere", in some cases, I really don't know...)?
Bye, FB

Chi ha ragione?
IMHO tu. Io conoscevo bluster e la frase l'ho interpretata come ho
scritto. Ho cercato sui vocabolari e non ho trovato riferimenti a
idiom strani con bow e bluster.
Sebastiano
-- 
No wonder people say "gesundheit" when you say "Tchaikovsky".

 essere", in some cases, I really don't know...)?
I'm not sure of the translation into Italian; I think it varies based on 
the context. I believe you are right: it can be "deve essere stato" or 
"ha dovuto essere." Or even "doveva essere"?
I think if you remember that "must have ... something" generally refers 
to probability than past obligation to do something, it might be clearer.
"I must have been crazy to go out with her." (I wasn't *necessary* for me 
to be crazy; it must be that I was crazy.
"It must have been fun to spend the summer at the beach." (It wasn't 
obligatory that you have fun; most likely you did.)
Also, consider that Austen's language is quite a bit outdated (or just 
"dated" -- by American standards, anyway :-) and is rather stylistic. 
When I read "I Promessi Sposi", incontro usanza diversa di oggi


 che io lo facessi con un inchino o dando in escandescenza.
Lapsus calami: 'dare in escandescenze', si dice (e scrive :)).
-- 
Ciao,
Anna

 When I read "I Promessi Sposi", incontro usanza diversa di oggi
O.K.
Bye, FB

 something to be happy"? Or does probability have anything to do with it?
Forget it:
<<Interesting. What does this sentence exactly mean? "They have had to do
something to be happy"? And does probability have anything to do with
it?>>.
Bye, FB

 When I read "I Promessi Sposi", incontro usanza diversa di oggi
Secondo mia figlia, Manzoni le avrebbe rovinato la vita. Odiava quel
romanzo. Io ci sono riuscito solo a tornare le prime pagine.
[1] months or months'    He he.
-- 
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water"  Ibn Khaldun
My .
mac.com
 address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

 romanzo. Io ci sono riuscito solo a tornare le prime pagine.
Lo trovi difficile?
Ciao, FB

 something to be happy"? Or does probability have anything to do with it?
To say "they *had had* to do something..." implies that they *did* 
something.
"they must have done something by way..." is a probability: "(I don't 
know for sure why they're happy): they must have done something by way of 
being happy."
It doesn't mean "they were required (or forced or otherwise made) to do 
something..."
I feel reasonably safe in saying that this construction "..must have 
<past participle of verb> almost always leaves a doubt; expresses 
probability, rather than a past obligation, which is more likely to be 
expressed as "they had to"
Spero di spiergarmi bene...


 expressed as "they had to"
It's identical in Italian:
A: "Ho mal di pancia".
B: "Devi aver mangiato troppo".
A: "Ahi che male!".
B: "Dovevi pensarci prima".
<grin>
-- 
Maria Luisa C - 03/04/04 10.43.38, here.
(please, point out my English errors)

 Spero di spiergarmi bene...
Very well. But how can that apply to the sentence we're discussing?
"And after all, what did it signify to my character in the opinion of
Marianne and her friends, in what language my answer was couched?--It must
have been only to one end."
The man who says it means "the letter should be only to one end" ("la
lettera era destinata ad avere un solo fine, un solo obiettivo"), he does
not only suppose it. In the present tense the sentence would probably be:
"And after all, what does it signify to my character in the opinion of
Marianne and her friends, in what language my answer is couched?--It must
be only to one end".
How come that, in the past tense, it becomes "must have been"?
I have found another interesting example:
"You consider the matter," said A, "exactly as a good mind and a sound
understanding must consider it; and I dare say you perceive, as well as
myself, not only in this, but in many other circumstances, reason enough to
be convinced that your marriage *must have involved* you in many certain
troubles and disappointments, in which you would have been poorly supported
by an affection, on his side, much less certain"
"Must have involved you" in this case means "would certainly have involved
you", for the person to whom A says it has not married any one.
Bye, FB

 you", for the person to whom A says it has not married any one.
I believe this also expresses probability rather than "assertion of an 
obligation" (scusa l'inglese; non so spiegarlo in italiano. La settimana 
prossima, magari, ma oggi, no.:-( 
L'abbiamo discusso qui e' siamo d'accordo che:
"Must" nel presente = obbigation
"Must have" (passato) = probability, condition, suppposition. (But not 
obbligation.) 
I think you are understanding the meaning exactly, but are just confused 
about the past of "must be" (in the first example, first post.)
Ci arriviamo fra poco...


 about the past of "must be" (in the first example, first post.)
I write the original sentence down again not to lose the thread:
"And after all, what did it signify to my character in the opinion of
Marianne and her friends, in what language my answer [a letter] was
couched?--It must have been only to one end."
If it meant "It is likely/I suppose that the letter was only to one end"
I'd understand, but my hunch, based on the context, is that here "must"
does not express probability. 
I think the meaning is "the letter [was meant to be/should be] only to one
end". The person who says this is the same who's written the letter, so it
seems unlikely that he should say "Well, the letter must have been only to
one end but, after all, what do I know?".
Would you mind if I asked alt.usage.english, too? Maybe "must have" is used
in an odd, old way here.
Bye, FB

 Se dici "it must be", la traduzione e' "deve tendere."
Non necessariamente, credo.
1) "He said it *must be* true". 
2) "She thought we *should come* back earlier, and so we did.".
"Must be" and "should come" are past tenses here, or at least they carry an
idea of past (future in the past, in the second example).
In the original sentence, "(I knew) the letter must be only to one end"
would have been possible, wouldn't it?
Bye, FB

 
I agree, that can be a valid interpretation.


 (future in the past, in the second example).
Niente "future in the past", scusa. Una mia invenzione, capita.
Ciao, FB

 I agree, that can be a valid interpretation.
Do you?! I'll take the liberty to ask a.u.e., and if they agree I'll demand
the Nobel prize. (witty face)
Bye, FB

 
YES! SI'! Ma come no! VBG
Maybe it would be better to express it as a direct thought ("I thought, 
'the letter must be only to one end.'")
The meaning is the same, but in your example you would be breaking the 
tense of the paragraph by introducing the present tense.
(((And frankly, the more I read it now, the more difficult it gets to 
understand what the @$%#@^ she meant.
Curses. Now I have to go and read the whole thing myself! :-) 
Just when I was thinking of trying Busi's "Decamerone - Da Un Italiano 
all'Altro.")))


 all'Altro.")))
What? Austen vs. Busi, and you still have doubts? Get away! (witty face)
Bye, FB