Is this a correct usage of the conditional past perfect to translate “I would have had it! Without you always ruining everything!”?
Je l'aurais avait! Sans toi toujours en train de ruiner tout!
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
No. As I see it it could be what would say a villain seeing his plan failing. He could say:
"Je l'aurais eu, sans toi à ruiner toujours tout !"
Splitting the sentence is weird in French, keep it as a single sentence.
"Je l'aurais eu, sans toi à toujours ruiner tout !"
Is correct too, but sounds less like the nasty guy whining, and a bit weirder too.
-
Oh okay. Can I ask a tiny out of topic question? Is "J'ai été étudier beacoup de français" french for "I've been studying a lot of french"? Or is that wrong grammar? Commented Apr 6, 2016 at 14:06
-
Oh, and can you explain the structure of something like "Without pronoun verb-ing"? It's very confusing Commented Apr 6, 2016 at 14:08
-
Sorry if that was vague, the structure of a thing like "Without you dying..." Without them having" or "Without her cooking" Commented Apr 6, 2016 at 14:15
-
1I'd put "tout, next to "toujours", "Je l'aurais eu, sans toi à toujours tout ruiner !"– WebsterCommented Apr 6, 2016 at 14:46
-
1
I would change the previous sentences slightly.
I'd much rather say "Je l'aurais eu, sans toi pour toujours tout ruiner !"
So "pour" instead of "à" and the order of the next words makes more sense.
As for "Without +pronoun verb +ing" it translates to "présent du subjonctif" e.g. "Sans que tu ne fasses" ("Without you doing") -> Sans + que + pronom + verbe (au présent du subjonctif).
I'm mostly surprised by the numerous bad translations proposed: "pour toujours tout ruiner", "à toujours tout ruiner" : this sounds obscure in good French. The correct French verb, here, is not "ruiner", but "gâcher": "Je l'aurais eu, sans toi qui gâches toujours tout".
-
1I totally agree on the use of "gâcher". I'm not upvoting your answer, not only because you are not answering directly the question which is about the use of tenses, but also because of the superfluous remark that should not be there. Why not edit and reword your answer after you have read this part of the Help Centre.– NoneCommented Apr 12, 2016 at 8:52
-
1Bien que je ne réponde pas à la question principale, en effet, il est néanmoins important de réfuter les mauvaises traductions qui ...ruinent la bonne volonté de l'anglophone qui les lit en croyant qu'elles représentent la langue française, alors qu'elles ne font qu'illustrer la difficulté de la traduction, dont le mot à mot est le principal piège.– BBBreizCommented Apr 12, 2016 at 12:45
-
I read what you said haha, pls I'm listening and I appreciate your answer. But I have a question, can you use that format for "without you always ruining everything" for everything? Like is "Je me peux pas faire ça, sans vous qui mourez" correct? Commented Apr 14, 2016 at 10:16
I would say: "je l'aurais eu sans toi qui ruines toujours tout !" It's less literary though more elegant (it's an alexandrine...).
In french i would say
"Je l'aurais eu si tu n'avais pas tout gâché, comme d'habitude."
I am not english native, then I might have misunderstood your sentence. I understood "Without you always ruining everything!" as, if the subject used to ruin everything he tries to manage
If "Without you always ruining everything!" means, that the subject ruined this business in particular, simply write :
"Je l'aurais eu si tu n'avais pas tout gâché."
"Ruiner" is an old use to translate "to ruin", moreover if the speaker is angry or excited. You can also replace gâché (gâcher) with bousillé (bousiller) or pourri (pourrir) in a familiar use, or with anéanti (anéantir) or saboté (saboter) for a more formal use.
