Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Re: Thank you for being my friend

 asiatica. dei cesari e non dei ciceroni.
I think this applies especially to American English.
Simplify simplify simplify :)

[domanda da ignorante]
ho trovato questa frase; è un tale che dice di averle dette seppellendo (put
down?) il proprio cagnolino
"Thank you for being my friend"
Those were my last words to my doggie when I put her down ten months ago.
in italiano sarebbe "grazie per essere stato il mio amico"; non si poteva
dire "for being been"? o è giusto come ha detto?

 Fabio
è vero. infatti qui tradurre in italiano viene male, perché se "thank you
for being" può essere usato sia con riferimento al presente (lo puoi dire ad
un tuo caro amico, ad esempio "Thank you for being my friend"), che con un
riferimento al passato ("thank you for always being there for me"). Il
significato è ambiguo solo perché si cerca di tradurlo in italiano, dove
bisogna per forza scegliere se usare "per essere" o "per essere stato".
Traducendo in italiano, si sceglie quello che ha più senso in relazione al
contesto.
Tang.

 Esatto.
"Per essere stato mio amico", senza l'articolo davanti a "mio".
[...]
Ciao, FB
-- 
"The doctors found out that Bunbury could not live, that is what I mean—so
Bunbury died."
"He seems to have had great confidence in the opinion of his physicians."
("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde)

Giň
A man has dreams of walking with giants,
to carve his niche in the edifice of time.
Before the mortar of his zeal
has a chance to congeal
the cup is dashed from his lips,
the flame is snuffed aborning.

 news:%LT%d.1097486$35.40...@news4.tin.it...



 non si poteva dire "for being been"? o è giusto come ha detto?
Si sarebbe potuto dire "for having been", che è meno comune.
Bye, FB
-- 
"Enjoying yourself, Elfine?"
"It's going to be such fun!"
"No, it's going to be amusing or diverting, not such fun, darling."
(Cold Comfort Farm, the film)

Giò


 being been.
Certo che si usa, ma meno.
[...]
Ciao, FB
-- 
"Suppose I say I'm not interested."
"Does five hundred dollars interest you?"
"Very much."
"Then bring it: it's an expensive restaurant".
(The Cheap Detective)

"oops" <no@spam.__> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%LT%d.1097486$35.40...@news4.tin.it...

no, thank you for being si può tradurre in "grazie per essere"
per essere stato, sarebbe invece "having been".
being been non esiste :)

Being been non esiste che io sappia o almeno io in 40 anni non l'ho mai
sentito.  Il verbo "to be" ha "have" come ausiliare:  have been, has
been, had been, will have been, having been, ecc.
bye
ari

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1111557474.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

non si tratta di avere "have" come ausiliare di "be" - è facile fare
confusione con l'italiano dove i verbi, al passato prossimo, hanno o essere
o avere come ausiliare.
in inglese il verbo "to have" si mette come ausiliare SEMPRE, con tutti i
verbi, nei PERFECT tenses. Present perfect, past perfect, future perfect, e
present, past e future perfect continuos.

 (put down?) il proprio cagnolino
... "sopprimendo" il proprio cagnolino, se non sbaglio...
... si usa anche "put to sleep" (abbr. "PTS"), credo...
FWIW
--
Gnomo
(...any way the wind blows...)

come sarebbe a dire non si tratta di ausiliare?  Io ho commentato sul
fatto che being been non esiste (o almeo io no l'ho mai visto ne
sentito) .  Having been, d'altro canto, esiste.  Quindi la differenza
tra "being been" e "having been" e' l'ausiliare.  Being non e'
corretto.
Per quanto riguarda "in inglese to have si mette come ausiliare SEMPRE"
mi viene in mente la voce passiva: is read, was read, were read, will
be read, has been read, had been read, will have been read, to be read,
ecc.  What's the auxiliary there?
bye
Ari

...e appena  finito di scrivere il post precedente mi sono venute in
mente le forme del present, past, future ..ecc...continuous:  I am
reading,  I was reading, I will be reading, ecc.
bye
Ari

put down is a kind way to say "euthanize".  
bye
Ari

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1111591773.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

no, la questione era che tu hai detto "to be prende come ausiliare to
have" -
al che ci ho tenuto a precisare che non si tratta di stabilire quale verbo
ausiliare vada con quali altri verbi (così come si fa in italiano), ma bensì
che a seconda del tempo del verbo esiste un *solo* ausiliare che si utilizza
per tutti.
Vi sono diversi ausiliari per diversi verb tenses - solo per fare qualche
esempio (sicuramente li conosci già, ma tanto per chiarire quello che
intendo dire):
to be  viene usato:
    nei verbi riflessivi (he was placed in a foster home)
    nei continuous tenses (he was having lunch - we will be eating at
three - John was thinking of joining us)
to have viene usato nei perfect tenses
    He has been everywhere
    we will have read the entire book by tomorrow
nei perfect progressive, infatti, si usano entrambi:
    I have been lurking on this ng for weeks
    Next month I will have been living in Norway for a year
    She had been waiting for hours when we finally met
Tang.


Well , that's a bit misleading  :
I AM reading
I WAS reading
I HAVE BEEN reading
I HAD BEEN reading
I SHALL BE reading
I SHALL HAVE BEEN reading
In all these tenses (and the same applies to all passive tenses , including 
the passive continuous) , the auxiliary  is the verb 'to be' ; some tenses 
of 'to be' in turn require the verb 'to have' as an auxiliary .
Mike

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3aefmoF...@individual.net...

Of course sometimes "to be" requires the verb to have as an auxiliary! But
not because it is the verb to be (needing a specific verb as an auxiliary),
but because in certain *verb tenses*, *certain verbs* are required as
auxiliary.
Let's look at yuour examples:
I am reading - present continuous (requires *always* the verb to be,
accompanied by a verb ending with -ing)
I was reading - past continuos (requires *always* the verb to be,
accompanied by a verb ending with -ing)
I have been reading - present perfect continuos (requires *always* the verb
to have, accompanied by the past participle of the verb to be and the verb
ending with -ing)
I shall be reading - future continuous (requires *always* the verb to be -
in the future form, which can be either will or shall - accompanied by a
verb ending with -ing)
I shall have been reading  - future perfect continuous (requires *always*
the verb to have - in the future form, which can be either with will or
shall - accompanied by the past participle of the verb to be and the verb
ending with -ing)
If, therefore, you say that the verb to be sometimes requires the verb to
have as auxiliary, it is *partly* correct, and very misleading. It is not
the verb to be requiring a certain verb as auxiliary, but rather a certain
*verb tense* which requires the verb to be or to have as auxiliaries. And
sometimes both (present perfect continuos).
Tang.

 wrote in message 
news:42426a71$0$6297$5fc...@news.tiscali.it...

You misunderstand me - perhaps owing to insufficiently meticulous phrasing 
on my part . I didn't 'say the verb to be sometimes requires the verb to 
have as an auxiliary' ; I said '...the auxiliary is the verb 'to be'; some 
tenses of 'to be' in turn require the verb 'to have' as an auxiliary' - that 
is , it is the tenses (not the verb) that determine the auxiliary .
My (small) point was that is it is misleading to assert (as you do again at 
the end) that some tenses require both the verbs 'to be' and 'to have' as 
auxiliaries . The tenses I referred to (including all continuous tenses) 
require the verb 'to be' as an auxiliary . Certain tenses of the verb 'to 
be' (as do all cases of such tenses) in turn require the auxiliary 'to have' 
. In the case of , say, 'I was being stalked' , the auxiliary verb is 'to 
be' ; in this particular tense , the auxiliary 'to be' itself requires 'to 
be' as an auxiliary ('I was being') , but you wouldn't refer to the past 
continuous passive as requiring two auxiliary verbs , both 'to be' ; in the 
same way , you wouldn't normally refer to the present perfect continuous as 
requiring both 'to be' and 'to have' as auxiliaries ; you would say that it 
is formed using the auxiliary 'to be' (specifically , the past continuous 
passive is formed from the past continuous of the auxiliary 'to be' + the 
past participle , and the present perfect continuous is formed from the 
present perfect of the auxiliary 'to be' + the present participle ) . A 
fortiori , you wouldn't say that the past perfect continuous passive 'I had 
been being stalked' required three auxiliaries , one 'to have' and two 'to 
be's ; you'd say that this tense is formed from the past perfect continuous 
of the auxiliary 'to be' + the past participle . To generalise , you'd say 
that all  active continuous tenses are formed using the appropriate tense of 
the auxiliary 'to be' + the present participle ; all passive continuous 
tenses are formed  using the appropriate continuous tense of the auxiliary 
'to be' and the past participle . It is these regularities that make the 
structure of English verbs (only the structure , mind) so easy to master ; 
and it seemed to me that to say a given tense required both 'to be' and 'to 
have' as auxiliaries tends to obscure these simple patterns  .
Mike 

 Mike
It's all the same. I just wanted to make sure that things weren't getting
confused. I'm happy you explained your point to me. It was a bit unclear
before :). Or, rather, I'm dense.
Still, I don't think my way of putting it is wrong. :)
Tang.

 it very easy and logic to say that perfect continuous require both.
Very illogic, therefore very difficult and not worthwhile.
[...]
Bye, FB
-- 
After a year of speculation, inventor Dean Kamen unveiled his mysterious
"It", which is a battery-powered two-wheel people mover. Many believe it
will completely revolutionize the way people get hit by cars.
(Saturday Night Live)