Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: "Pensa se non avesse potuto parlare cosa avrebbe fatto!"

"Pensa se non avesse potuto parlare cosa avrebbe fatto!"
Io tradurrei:
"Think what if he couldn't have spoken what he would have done!"
oppure
"Think what if he hadn't been able to speak what he would have done!"
Ma sia per "if he couldn't have spoken" e "if he hadn't been able to 
speak", Google mi dà meno di 20 occorrenze, ed essendo una frase 
comunissima quindi mi aspetto sia errata...
Dove sbaglio?

 "Think what if he hadn't been able to speak what he would have done!"
Il primo what non ci vuole.

):

Think what he would have done if he couldn't speak.
(IMHO the inversion of phrases is better in English.)
-- 
Joey from NY

 if he couldn't speak.
Why?
Isn't it a third conditional?
http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/thirdconditional/menu.php

):

"Could" is conditional, unless I'm misinterpreting your question.
You could have said
"Think what he would have done if he hadn't been able to speak" but IMO it's 
using more words than necessary.
As for reversing the phrases, (IMO again) it's more significant to think 
about what he would have done, rather than to "think if he hadn't been able 
to speak."
"Think if he hadn't been able to speak what he would have done." sounds 
awkward.
-- 
Joey from NY


La seconda frase va bene senza il "what," e con virgola dopo il "think" 
e dopo il "speak."

 "Could" is conditional, unless I'm misinterpreting your question.
Quello che non comprendo è il tempo di "could".
Per un condizionale del terzo tipo, non ci vuole il PAST PERFECT? 
"Could" non è simple past?

):

Adhering to the sequence of tenses is rather more relaxed in AmE. Your way is 
not wrong... don't misunderstand. These "rules" are quite relaxed in all but 
the most formal of situations. 
As a point of interest -- for what it's worth, and that's not really much -- 
"if he couldn't speak" yields over 22 million hits in Google, in a variety of 
contexts.
-- 
Joey from NY

 contexts.
Yes but as you were saying, the problem with english is that now is 
indeed an american language, and no more a british language.
I would like to learn the real english, the british one, which I 
consider the footing of all the others.
Few years ago I heard Obama saying "We were in Iraq for 7 years", 
instead of "we have been in Iraq for 7 years". This is not english I 
think, this is an evolution (or an involution).

 years
days, obviously.

):

It's not English?
In that case you should ignore my posts.
-- 
Joey from NY

On tryin' to stay in step with AmE thinking, I guess the answer is:
keep on shootin'till the weapon runs out of ammos
:-)
<spam>
www.omaha-beach.net/omaha/betatester/blackjack.htm
</spam>
-- 
"I bit portano i caratteri.
I caratteri le parole.
Le parole, l'anima."
www.6502.4000.it

 </spam>
FYI:
ammo (singular, not plural)
ammo=ammunition, collective noun, singular
and
'til, not 'till ('til = until) or till, a preposition in itself
(Rumor has it that 'till is a valid British preposition, but you favor AmE.)
Maybe I'm just picking nits, but that's me...!
Keep on truckin' 'til you run out of problems :)
-- 
Joey from NY

 Keep on truckin' 'til you run out of problems :)
Exactly! keep on fixin' bugs, in the long run may be I'll get it right!
what about the small robot blackjack?! does it sound quite Ame? I hope
yes!
www.omaha-beach.net/omaha/betatester/blackjack.htm


Jan ha scritto:

The word order is important.
Think what he would have done if he couldn t speak.
Think what he would have done if he hadn t been able to speak.
Why is the Italian phrase "se non avesse potuto parlare", 
instead of "se non avesse parlato"? Se avesse parlato, avrebbe 
per forza potuto parlare.
Whenever my friends who have studied the French language for a 
year or two drive the few hundred miles up to Québec for a 
visit, they invariably return complaining that the Québécois 
speak an incomprehensible variety of French, which does not 
resemble the "true French" as spoken in Paris. Of course, I 
reply to them that they would find the French as spoken in Paris 
equally incomprehensible, since their knowledge of the French 
language is minimal, and inadequate. Having spent time in Paris 
as well as in the province of Québec, I know there are 
differences between the French spoken in these two locations, 
but most of the differences are in accent, not in the content of 
the language. Similarly, American English and UK English also 
have some differences, but I have always been able to 
communicate quite well with both groups. When I was in Italy, an 
English friend of mine, who was a teacher in a language school 
in Vicenza, invited me to speak before his class, and the 
students were amazed that they could actually undertand me.
I think there are many dialects in the UK which are 
unintelligible to me (and to many inhabitants of the UK as 
well), but we are not speaking of dialects here.
If you are looking for the "real" English, and think that the 
differences between American English and UK English are as great 
as you seem to think, I have to come to the conclusion that your 
foundation in the English language is as minimal as my friends 
who take great delight in deriding the language of the Québécois 
as inferior.
Joe from Massachusetts
-- 
Postato da Virgilio Newsgroup: lo usi da web ma con le funzioni del newsreader 
http://newsgroup.virgilio.it
Gerarchie it, italia, it-alt, tin, it.binari. Unico!