# subjunctive - general discussion



## Bilbo Baggins

Hello,
I started learning about the subjunctive mood yesterday. I read descriptions of the subjunctive's uses that seemed rather broad to me. For example: to express doubt, negation, desire, hope, etc. It occurred to me that there are "grey" areas as to which mood to use. For example, what if I walk into a room and see a table with nothing on it. I might say: "There's nothing on the table." "No hay nada en la mesa." Technically that's a negation but I don't feel that the subjunctive should be used. I'm not speaking from a subjective perspective; I'm merely making an observation about reality. Anyone walking into that room might say the same thing. I need a little clarity, please. Replies in English. Thanks!


----------



## honeypie

I'll see if I can help... The subjunctive isn't used at all in that sentence: "No hay nada en la mesa". However, if you were to add a dependent clause to that sentence then you would need it.  Here's a similar example:

No hay nada en esta casa que *pertenezca *(subjunctive of pertenecer) a Julio. _There is nothing in this house that belongs to Julio._

VS.

Nada en esta casa *pertenece* a Julio. _Nothing in this house belongs to Julio._

As you can see, both sentences are negations, in a sense, but only the first one requires subjunctive because you are actually commenting on something (in this case "nada") that doesn't exist. The word "que" is what really makes the difference as it represents the shift from one clause to another and therefore "que pertenezca a Julio" is referring to a characteristic of a thing that doesn't even exist. 

I'm not saying this too clearly but maybe you can ask a few more specific questions now and I then I can get a better sense of how to address your specific doubts.


----------



## Outsider

"Subjunctive" is a deliberately vague notion, because different languages will express it in often different ways. In English, there are few constructions where the subjunctive is made explicit. In Spanish, the subjunctive is pervasive. Just now in the German forum there is a discussion about this. Some German speakers think the terms "subjunctive" and "conjunctive" should be regarded as different, since the German subjunctive (traditionally called _Konjunktiv_; the name "_con_junctive", though uncommon in English, goes back to Latin grammar) is not used in exactly the same way as, say, the Spanish _subjuntivo_.

I disagree with that point of view. I think it's the same broad notion, materialized in somewhat different ways. The French _subjonctif_ doesn't work quite the same way as the Spanish _subjuntivo_, either.

What they all have in common is that they typically mark uncertainty, indetermination or indirectness in some way.


----------



## virgilio

Bilbo,
       Spanish uses a subjunctive in order to talk about situations which - for one reason or another - are - *in the mind of the speaker* - less than 100% real or true or certain.
e.g.
I think they have arrived. (implying but I'm not sure "that they have arrived")
creo que hayan llegado.
The verb - which here is "hayan" - is subjunctive because the clause in which it stands (that they have arrived) is less than 100% certain in the mind of the speaker. In other words that would be said by someone who had an idea that "they" had arrived but wouldn't swear to it.
It is also used in "if" or "unless" sentences (conditional sentences)  when they talk about imaginary or supposed situations instead of real ones.
e.g.
If you say that, you are a fool. (real situation)

If you had said that, we would not have believed it (imaginary situation which didn't happen)

In such sentences Spanish always uses an imperfect subjunctive verb in the "if" or "unless" clause:

Si hubieras dicho esto, no lo habríamos creído

Si tuviéramos más dinero, compraríamos un coche

In a few parts of the Spanish-speaking world, *both* clauses, I believe,  use the imperfect subjunctive.

Hope this helps at least for a start.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## honeypie

virgilio said:


> creo que hayan llegado.
> The verb - which here is "hayan" - is subjunctive because the clause in which it stands (that they have arrived) is less than 100% certain in the mind of the speaker. Virgilio


 
I won't say for certain that some Spanish speakers wouldn't say that, but usually you don't use subjunctive with "creer que" but rather with "no creer que". 

Creo que han llegado or No creo que hayan llegado

You don't use it for creer just like you don't with pensar or opinar, etc.  unless they are in the negative.  (No pienso que hayan llegado *but *Pienso que han llegado). 

Even though to believe something doensn't mean it's true, in Spanish when you giving your opinion in this fashion you don't need the subjunctive.

On the other hand, if say "I hope they arrive soon" you would need it. "Espero que lleguen pronto."


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Don't the conditional and subjunctive work together in some instances to express conditionality?


----------



## Outsider

They are both used in conditional sentences, in the Romance languages. However, many languages of other groups do not have a separate conditional mood/tense.


----------



## honeypie

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Don't the conditional and subjunctive work together in some instances to express conditionality?


 
Yeah exactly. For example: "Si fuera a México tendría que aprender español."  _If I went/If I were to go to Mexico I'd have to learn Spanish. _


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

I know if I said: "Quiero que tu cocines." I would use the subjunctive because I'm expressing desire. But what about necessity? What if I said: "Nesecito que tu cocines(as)." Should I use the subjunctive there? The indicative?


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> I know if I said: "Quiero que tu cocines." I would use the subjunctive because I'm expressing desire. But what about necessity? What if I said: "Nesecito que tu cocines(as)." Should I use the subjunctive there? The indicative?


Necesito que (tú) cocines. 

You need _subjuntivo _as well.

Regards,

Pedro.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

What if I'm speaking in a different person in the main clause. What if I'm talking about _someone else's _desires, doubts, needs, etc. Example: "Juan queire que tu cocines (as)." Should that be indicative because I'm "reporting" something, or is it subjunctive because I'm still talking about a subjective perspective even though it isn't mine?


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> What if I'm speaking in a different person in the main clause. What if I'm talking about _someone else's _desires, doubts, needs, etc. Example: "Juan queire *quiere* que t*ú* cocines (as)." Should that be indicative because I'm "reporting" something, or is it subjunctive because I'm still talking about a subjective perspective even though it isn't mine?


It is subjunctive because you are still talking about a subjective perspective even though it isn't yours.

Juan *quiere* que* yo* *cocine*.
Juan *quiere* que* tú* *cocines*.
Juan *quiere* que* él* *cocine*.
Juan *quiere* que* nosotros* *cocinemos*.
Juan *quiere* que* vosotros* *cocinéis*.
Juan *quiere* que* ellos* *cocinen*.

Regards,

Pedro.


----------



## lazarus1907

Bilbo Baggins said:


> "Juan qu*ie*re que t*ú* cocines (as)." Should that be indicative because I'm "reporting" something, or...


Rather than "reporting", books usually say "declaring", but still you're not doing either with the subordinate clause, but with the main clause. Look:

Juan quiere algo -> You declare that "Juan wants sth."
Juan quiere que cocines -> You declare that "Juan wants sth (i.e. you too cook)."

The declaration or report is what Juan wants, i.e. the verb "querer". The subordinate clauses are NOT declarations nor reports, because their verbs are different from the one used to declare (querer). The verbs used in the subordinates are "to come" and "to cook", and you use the subjunctive if you use these two verbs to declare things. In the following sentences I underline the subordinate clauses:

Juan quiere que vengas.
Ellos quieren que cocines tú.

Omitting the conjunction "que", those two clauses look like this when they appear alone (notice that if they are alone, they must be always in indicative):

Tú vienes.
Tú cocinas.

Now, you're not declaring nor reporting that you are coming, or that you are cooking. Therefore, the subordinate clauses must be subjunctive.

Using the same argument, look at these sentences:

Creo que es posible. (=creo eso)
Sé que no vas a venir (=Sé eso)

They are virtually identical to:

Es posible, creo
No vas a venir, lo sé.

As you can see, the subordinate clauses can be turned into independent sentences in indicative, and still express the same idea. You are declaring things with the subordinate. You could have not done this with the previous ones:

Tú vienes, quiero.  (You come, I want  )

but you could have done it with the last two:

It is possible, I think.
He's not coming, I know.


----------



## honeypie

Yeah, there are certain constructions that always require the subjunctive no matter the context: Querer que, Esperar que, Necesitar que, to name a few. But you can see what they have in common, the expression of a a want/need/desire.  

However, you often don't need the subjunctive when the sentence has only one subject.  For example, you'd say "Espero ir a verte esta tarde" instead of "espero que (yo) vaya a verte esta tarde". You would say "espero que vaya a verte", however, if the "vaya" referred to "él" or "ella" instead of "yo" because in that case there would be a change in subject.


----------



## lazarus1907

honeypie said:


> Yeah, there are certain constructions that always require the subjunctive no matter the context: Querer que, Esperar que, Necesitar que, to name a few. But you can see what they have in common, the expression of a a want/need/desire.


To name a few; however, they all have in common something simpler: The subordinate clauses are not used to declare anything. This simple rule also give account of other structures that have nothing to do with desires, needs or plain negatives:

_Creo que viene_  (I declare that "he's coming", in my opinion, of course)
_No creo que venga_  (I am not declaring that "he's coming", so I use subjunctive)
(Él) _No cree que venga_  (I am not declaring that "he's coming")
(Él) _No cree que viene_  (I am declaring that "he's coming", even though he doesn't believe it)
_ No sabía que venía_ (I declare that he came, because I now know, even though I didn't then)
_No sabía que fuera a venir_ (I still don't want to declare that he was coming; maybe because I'm still not sure, or just because I prefer not to)


----------



## honeypie

lazarus1907 said:


> but you could have done it with the last two:
> 
> It is possible, I think.
> You're not coming, I know it.


 
I completely agree with everything you said in your post, but as a side note I wanted to point out something interesting regarding this particular sentence. In this case "I know" doesn't sound right unless you have the it. It's ironic because so often in Spanish you say "lo sé" while in English we just say "I know" and not "I know it", however, in this case it's much more common to add the it, maybe just because of the sound. So, even though the sentence isn't wrong, it's much more common to say "I know you're not coming" or "You're not coming, I know it".


----------



## honeypie

lazarus1907 said:


> To name a few; however, they all have in common something simpler: The subordinate clauses are not used to declare anything. This simple rule also give account of other structures that have nothing to do with desires, needs or plain negatives:
> 
> _Creo que viene_ (I declare that "he's coming", in my opinion, of course)
> _No creo que viene_ (I am not declaring that "he's coming", so I use subjunctive)
> _No sabía que venía_ (I declare that he came, because I now know, even though I didn't then)
> _No sabía que fuera a venir_ (I still don't want to declare that he was coming; maybe because I'm still not sure, or just because I prefer not to)


 

Yeah, definitely.  That's a really good way to put it.  Although wouldn't it be "no creo que venga"?


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Why is the presence of a subordinate clause so pertinent? In HoneyPie's first posting on this thread she used an example: "Nothing in this house belongs to Juan." and then rephrased it: "There is nothing in this house that belongs to Juan." creating a subordinate phrase and thereby evoking the subjunctive. The two sentences convey the same concept. Why is the presence of a subordinate in and of itself so pertinent?


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

I think I've reached a new understanding on this subject. When you form a subordinate clause with que or other relative pronouns, you are forming a "modifying clause" that can act as a noun, or an adjective, or an adverb. If what you are modifying with said clause is a desire, an uncertainty, a need, a non-existence, or some aspect of subjective perspective, we then employ the subjunctive. Am I right? Am I at least getting closer? Comments please.


----------



## honeypie

I'll try to explain it but no guarantees.  (This is definitely in layman's terms because I don't know the specific vocabulary):

"Nada en la casa pertenece a Juan" - Here "nada" can almost be thought of as an object itself, or at least it's clear that it's a noun. It's the subject of the sentence. Even though is means "nothing", the sentence is still an affirmation.  

On the other hand we have "No hay nada en la casa que pertenezca a Juan" - Here we are not only talking about "nada" but we are stating the absence of it (the double negative is necessary in Spanish, whereas in English we'd say "There isn't anything" instead of "There isn't nothing"). So, if it helps, you can think of "nada" as meaning "anything" instead of "nothing" and therefore the real negation here is not the word "nada" but the "no hay [noun] que".  In other words, this sentence is a negation whereas the other one is an affirmation, but both essentially express the same thing. 

This is *not by any means* a correct technical explanation, rather I'm trying to find a way to think about it helps for a native English speaker.  (So don't quote me on this!).   


Does this make any sense? Definitely let me know if it sounds like I'm just talking nonsense.


----------



## lazarus1907

honeypie said:


> Yeah, definitely.  That's a really good way to put it.  Although wouldn't it be "no creo que venga"?


I pressed "SUBMIT" too fast. Look at the latest version.





honeypie said:


> I completely agree with everything you said in your post, but as a side note I wanted to point out something interesting regarding this particular sentence.


I wasn't providing a perfect translation in English, but inverting the order of the words just to show that it is a declaration.


----------



## lazarus1907

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Why is the presence of a subordinate clause so pertinent? In HoneyPie's first posting on this thread she used an example: "Nothing in this house belongs to Juan." and then rephrased it: "There is nothing in this house that belongs to Juan." creating a subordinate phrase and thereby evoking the subjunctive. The two sentences convey the same concept. Why is the presence of a subordinate in and of itself so pertinent?


The same idea can be expressed in many different ways, but that doesn't mean that the syntax is the same all the time:

Nada en esta casa *pertenece* a Juan  (there is no subordinate clause; there is only one verb, so no subjunctive)
No *hay* nada en esta casa que *pertenezca* a Juan (two verbs; the subordinate is underlined)

In the 2nd sentence, you are not declaring that "there is something that belong to Juan" (subordinate), so it must be in subjunctive.


----------



## honeypie

lazarus1907 said:


> I pressed "SUBMIT" too fast. Look at the latest version.


 
Yeah, I definitely do that all the time.


----------



## virgilio

Bilbo,
       honeypie was right in the correction of my Creo que + subjunctive into
no creo que + subjunctive.(Sorry):
e.g.
No creo (que hayan llegado) I don't believe (that they have arrived).
The proposition "that they have arrived" is one that I don't believe and so, of course, it is less than 100% true in my - that is, the speaker's - mind - hence the subjunctive.
That's the example I should have given. 
One other case where Spanish always uses a subjunctive is in sentences saying  person A wants person B to do something
e.g.
What do *you* want *me* to do?  Qué quieres que yo haga.?

English in these cases uses a construction often called the "accusative and infinitive" construction, in which the verb becomes an infinitive and its 'subject' is accusative. Spanish uses a "que + subjunctive" construction.

*She* wanted *her son* to write us a letter

Ella quería que su hijo nos escribiera una carta


Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Why is the presence of a subordinate clause so pertinent? In HoneyPie's first posting on this thread she used an example: "Nothing in this house belongs to Juan." and then rephrased it: "There is nothing in this house that belongs to Juan." creating a subordinate phrase and thereby evoking the subjunctive. The two sentences convey the same concept. Why is the presence of a subordinate in and of itself so pertinent?


It's usually said that the subjunctive always appears in subordinate clauses, though not all subordinate clauses are in the subjunctive. In a way, that's a good definition of subjunctive; that's it's a _mood for subordinate clauses_.


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
            Re your:"that's a good definition of subjunctive; that's it's a _mood for subordinate clauses_."
No doubt that's the reason for the name "subjunctive", the mood for subjoining one clause to another.
One could say, I suppose, that the subjunctive is the natural mood of all  subordinate clauses but, where the speaker's intention is assert the content of a subordinate clause as being definite or certain or true, the indicative often supersedes the natural subjunctive.
Virgilio
PS Please note the word "supersedes" and the metaphor it involves.


----------



## Outsider

To assert or to ask for an assertion (when asking a question). Yes, I agree with that.


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> One could say, I suppose, that the subjunctive is the natural mood of all  subordinate clauses but, where the speaker's intention is assert the content of a subordinate clause as being definite or certain or true, the indicative often supersedes the natural subjunctive.


Wouldn't it be just easier to say that the subjunctive is the mood for all subordinates clauses where the speaker doesn't have the intention to assert anything?


----------



## eddie82

Would this be right:

_Se darán pruebas de lectura para que el profesor sepa que los estudiantes están leyendo los textos y que analizándolos también._

_El profesor les dará una prueba de lectura a los estudiantes para asegurarlo a si mismo que ellos sepan lo que pasa en el cuento._

Do these two cases use the correct verbage??


----------



## mhp

eddie82 said:


> Would this be right:
> 
> _Les__ darán (others, not the professor) pruebas de lectura para que el profesor sepa que los estudiantes han leído los textos y que también los han analizado._
> 
> _El profesor les dará una prueba de lectura a los estudiantes para asegurarse de que ellos saben lo que pasa en el cuento._
> 
> Do these two cases use the correct verbage??



Not sure about the verbiage, only the obvious grammar errors


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Bilbo,
> Spanish uses a subjunctive in order to talk about situations which - for one reason or another - are - *in the mind of the speaker* - less than 100% real or true or certain.
> e.g.
> I think they have arrived. (implying but I'm not sure "that they have arrived")
> creo que hayan llegado.
> The verb - which here is "hayan" - is subjunctive because the clause in which it stands (that they have arrived) is less than 100% certain in the mind of the speaker. In other words that would be said by someone who had an idea that "they" had arrived but wouldn't swear to it.
> It is also used in "if" or "unless" sentences (conditional sentences) when they talk about imaginary or supposed situations instead of real ones.
> e.g.
> If you say that, you are a fool. (real situation)
> 
> If you had said that, we would not have believed it (imaginary situation which didn't happen)
> 
> In such sentences Spanish always uses an imperfect subjunctive verb in the "if" or "unless" clause:
> 
> Si hubieras dicho esto, no lo habríamos creído
> 
> Si tuviéramos más dinero, compraríamos un coche
> 
> In a few parts of the Spanish-speaking world, *both* clauses, I believe, use the imperfect subjunctive.
> 
> Hope this helps at least for a start.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
That's a type 3 conditional or past contrafactual.
It is pluperfect subjunctive not imperfect subjunctive.

Si hubieras dicho...
If I had said that...

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Bilbo Baggins said:


> I know if I said: "Quiero que tu cocines." I would use the subjunctive because I'm expressing desire. But what about necessity? What if I said: "Nesecito que tu cocines(as)." Should I use the subjunctive there? The indicative?


 
*The act of cooking is not accomplished yet= unreal= Subjunctive.*

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

mhp said:


> Not sure about the verbiage, only the obvious grammar errors


 
If you use *saben*, it means that the short history is read already.
If you use *sepan* it means they have not read the short history yet.

Ivy29


----------



## jcihlar

I always felt that it was reasonably straightfoward to know when to use the subjunctive after certain verbs - you just learn the verbs that take it. The trickier part was the subjunctive in those "modifying" or "adjectival" clauses. Spanish pedagogical books will usually separate them out.

Perhaps the following  explanation will help. In Spanish the subjunctive in those "modifying" clauses is used to make a difference in what we linguists call "scope ambiguities", as illustrated by the following sentence:

1) María wants to marry someone who is Spanish.

In English the exact same string of words yields two interpretations.
a) María wants to marry a specific Spaniard, namely Javier.
b) María wants to marry anyone who happens to be Spanish, it's not known who.

In Spanish this would never be an ambiguity because you have the indicative/subjunctive contrast:

a) María quiere casarse con alguien que _es_ español.
b) María quiere casarse con alguien que _sea_ español.

This is why in want ads the subordinate clause is always subjunctive:
c) Busco alguien que _hable _inglés. 
The writer of the ad doesn't have a specific English-speaker in mind.


----------



## mhp

Ivy29 said:


> If you use *saben*, it means that the short history is read already.
> If you use *sepan* it means they have not read the short history yet.
> 
> Ivy29


 That’s certainly one way to see it. I see it a bit differently 

*   asegurar(se)* can have two different semantic functions: It may either influence the subordinate clause or it may not--Not too different from the verb “decir”.

  Te he dicho que compres pan.
  Te he dicho que me gusta el pan.

  Juan se aseguró de que supieran el cuento. 
  (Juan influyó en ellos.)
  Juan *made sure* that they knew the story.

  Juan les dio una prueba para asegurarse de que sabían el cuento. 
  (Juan se cercioró de que lo sabían.)
  Juan gave them a test to *assure himself* that they knew the story.


----------



## eddie82

Great explanation!  Muy bien hecho!!!


----------

