avoir - aurait

This extract appeared today in my inbox from Le Figaro: "Dans un interrogatoire devant la FIA, publié jeudi par un site spécialisé, Nelson Piquet Jr. aurait affirmé avoir délibérément provoqué un accident lors du Grand Prix de Singapour 2008 sur ordre de son équipe !"

If 'aurait' = 'should have', do I take it that 'aurait affirmé' is more felicitously translated not as 'should have affirmed' but as 'is reported to have affirmed'....?

But if so, why use the conditional tense?

Could someone provide the best English translation of the extract?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frank on September 11, 2009 at 6:37pm

Hi Pete,

The conditional tense can indeed mean "should" with the verb "devoir" (devrais, aurait dû...)

But another use of this tense is to describe something that you're not 100% sure of. They think Piquet said that, but you have to take it with a grain of salt, they didn't back up their claims. Or they know their source might be unreliable.

This use of the conditional tense is very common in articles (online and newspapers), because it somehow protects their authors against a lawsuit if what they wrote happens to be wrong. Lawyers always use the conditional tense when describing the bad things their client might have done. Using the present implies that it's a confession, and it closes the gate to any further discussion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Laubscher on September 11, 2009 at 7:00pm

Hi Frank,

Thanks.

So would the most appropriate English be "is reported to have said'? That covers all contingencies, I would have thought.

In English to say: "A site reported on Thursday that NP should have said X..." sounds a lot like he was instructed to say X and hence should have done as instructed. Hardly cover for a law suit, and probably inviting one.

But putting it as suggested: 'is reported to have said' would provide cover if belief in the accuracy of the the report was not ironclad. Thus: "According to a specialist site publiashed on Thursdsay, NP is reported to have said...."

N'est pas?

Or would you still suggest that the English be: "A specialist cite reported on Thursday that NP should have said....."?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Coffey on September 11, 2009 at 7:12pm

As you say, the intention is essentially "is reported to have said". It's a common use of the conditional in journalese.

Note that the conditional by itself doesn't carry the meaning of English "should" in the sense of an obligation. For this, the verb devoir is usually involved. So the equivalent of "should have said..." is usually aurait dû dire que....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Laubscher on September 11, 2009 at 7:19pm

Thnks! So I take it that the conditional 'should' is more of an 'if'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Coffey on September 11, 2009 at 7:34pm

Originally I think the association between the conditional and English "should" was because of some speakers' preference for using "should" with first persons (so we should... is effectively a formal drop-in replacement for we would...). Personally, I think this usage is somewhat archaic or at least very formal, so it doesn't make much sense to use it as the normal gloss for the conditional. But many grammar books have nonetheless persisted with glossing the conditional as would/should instead of just would.

To begin with, I'd really recommend just avoiding the association between should and the conditional-- in nearly all cases where English uses should, something other than just the conditional is more appropriate as a French translation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Laubscher on September 11, 2009 at 8:02pm

Thnks very much. Great exposition.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank on September 11, 2009 at 7:12pm

Hi Pete,

Yes, "is reported to have said" is certainly the appropriate translation.