Hypothesis about the past using deber de
Hey, so I thought it was the same as in English but it seems as though it´s not.
So if I make a presumption about the present I say "He must be + infinitive" I.e. He´s falling around the place, he must be drunk.
Debe de estar boracho. ¿No?
And if it was yesterday I´d say "he must have + past participle". He must have been drunk.
Debe de haber estado boracho.
(I know the de is optional, but it´s much easier for me to include it than to leave it out)
That´s how I understood it, is that wrong?
I ask because I saw this in a book about the statues on Easter Island:
Debío de construirse alrededor del año 800 de nuestra era.
They must have been constructed around the year 800 AD.
So I used the auxillary "have" in English but not in Spanish.
(feel free to correct my spelling errors in both languages, there´s no spell checker in the library)
If anyone has a link to an explination about this, or could give me examples of all the different ways of making this kind of hypothesis and what their differences are... I´m asking too much again aren´t I?
thanks!
4 Answers
Here is what my friend Normita (who is from el DF) thinks.
I had asked her the following:
Si has hecho un examen hace una semana y acabas de conocer la nota, es natural decir:
Debes de haber estudiado mucho.
En cambio, si la persona hizo el examen hace 3 años, y le cuenta a otra la historia de cómo aprobó el último examen de la carrera (por ejemplo), entonces sería mejor decir:
Debiste de haber estudiado mucho
o incluso: Debiste de estudiar mucho.
Y con respecto con las ultimo dos, son iguales, o es la ultima no correcta?
Her reply:
En mi opinión en las dos situaciones puedes usar 'debes (de) haber estudiado mucho'. Ambas son situaciones en el pasado, no importa si fue ayer o tres años atrás.
'Debiste de estudiar mucho': no es correcta, suena raro, en todo caso diríamos 'debiste estudiar mucho' "Seguramente, debiste estudiar mucho para pasar el examen".
You can definitely use either construction for deber de + inf in the past. However, as to which you should use, here is an opinion (different example but completely analogous) that I found elsewhere:
Depende de qué pasado. Para mí, si el examen lo has hecho hace una semana y acabas de conocer la nota, me resulta mucho más natural decir:
Debes de haber estudiado mucho.
En cambio, si la persona hizo el examen hace 3 años, y le cuenta a otra la historia de cómo aprobó el último examen de la carrera (por ejemplo), entonces sería mejor decir:
Debiste de haber estudiado mucho
o incluso: Debiste de estudiar mucho.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2341725&p=11762412#post11762412
Got a bit more information to add from here, but the fellow wasn't really sure himself.
I guess the thing is that in English must does not have a past tense, so in order for it to be clear you´re talking about teh past you need to include "have", but in Spanish, because deber exists in the past tenses, it´s not always needed? - rabbitwho
But then why use "haber" at all, does it have a perfective meaning here? - rabbitwho
I think it's just one of those things that doesn't translate well between languages, for the reason you point out, that we don't construct "should" in the past tense. Until someone suggests anything different, I'm going with the suggestion I linked to, that deber de haber + pp is for more recent events, and debiste de haber + pp (or debiste de + inf) for events further back in the past. I don't know if there's a difference between the two ways of saying it "further back in the past."
