would have spend

19:16 Nov 30, 2013 

Dobry kompromis, mike23. Podoba mi się też dobrze rozumiemy. You have a future in this business.

18:58 Nov 30, 2013 

I think this change to 'must' is just in Polish to make it sound smoother. If we put it like "Dobrze rozumiemy, że zajęło ci to sporo czasu i [...]" - we could be much closer to the original without twisting it into 'must have spent'. Perhaps it could be a good compromise here

18:32 Nov 30, 2013 

Interesting proposition. "would have" and "must have" change the meaning of the sentence completely.
1) "would have spent" - to jest nagana że Ci to zajeło tyle czasu,
2) We do understand that you "must have spent" - tylko teraz my rozumiemy że to musiało Ci zajęć tyle czasu

17:16 Nov 30, 2013 

To jest taki zaawansowany angielski, aspekt czasu 'future perfect' wyrażający przypuszczenie na temat przeszłości. e.g. I thought you would have finished by now.
"We do understand that you would have spent considerable time". Zamień 'would' na 'must', jak sugeruje Lilian i wszystko będzie jasne.

@MacroJanus mam gdzieś książkę od gramatyki angielskiej na poziomie zaawansowanym napisaną przez anglików i tam tez podają takie zdania jak w zapytaniu, bez poprawki na czas przeszły. Może to taka brytyjska gramatyka... I am sure they would have spent plenty of time thinking it all up :)

12:38 Nov 30, 2013 

There is more than one error in the sentence. It should open in the past:
We did not understand (in the past) that you would have spent (future past perfect) considerable time..

10:54 Nov 30, 2013 

grammatical error? would have spent or would have to spend?

10:44 Nov 30, 2013 

translate it as "spent" into Polish, or you must have spent".