# Creo que Juan no tiene novia (indicativo / subjuntivo)



## GQ.Wong

Quick question about the indicativo and subjuntivo.

I understand that we use the Indicativo for affirmations (afirmación) and the subjuntivo for assumptions (suponer)

_*Creo que Juan tiene novia* (indicativo, afirmación)

*No creo que Juan tenga novia* (subjuntivo, suponer)
_
My questions is, can we say:
_ 
*Creo que Juan no tiene novia *(indicativo, rechazar)
_
Todavía estamos afirmando, pero al mismo tiempo estamos rechazando.


----------



## Cenzontle

Yes, all three of your sentences are good.  "Creer" takes the indicative, "no creer" takes the subjunctive, 
and it doesn't matter whether the verb in the *subordinate *clause is negated or not.


----------



## GQ.Wong

Cenzontle said:


> Yes, all three of your sentences are good.  "Creer" takes the indicative, "no creer" takes the subjunctive,
> and it doesn't matter whether the verb in the *subordinate *clause is negated or not.


 

Ok, this clears things up.

What about the difference in meaning? When should I use the Indicativo and when the subjuntivo?

_*No creo que Juan tenga novia* (I am not sure if he has a girlfriend)_

_*Creo que Juan no tiene novia*_ (I think he doesn´t has a girlfriend)


----------



## Rodal

they both mean the same but they're said differently:
No creo que Juan tenga novia ~ I don't think Juan has a girlfriend.
Creo que Juan no tiene novia ~ I believe Juan doesn't have a girlfriend.
And as Cenzontle said: "Creer" takes the indicative, "no creer" takes the subjunctive.


----------



## GQ.Wong

Rodal said:


> they both mean the same but they're said differently:
> No creo que Juan tenga novia ~ I don't think Juan has a girlfriend.
> Creo que Juan no tiene novia ~ I believe Juan doesn't have a girlfriend.
> And as Cenzontle said: "Creer" takes the indicative, "no creer" takes the subjunctive.


 

Is there a different mood? Like when would I use the Subjuntivo and when would I use the Indicativo.
On what does it depend? Or is it just preference. Do I have more information when I just the indicativo in this example.


----------



## Elcanario

GQ.Wong said:


> Ok, this clears things up.
> 
> What about the difference in meaning? When should I use the Indicativo and when the subjuntivo?
> 
> _*No creo que Juan tenga novia* (I am not sure if he has a girlfriend)_
> 
> _*Creo que Juan no tiene novia*_ (I think he doesn´t has a girlfriend)


Hola
Como ya se ha dicho, la negación de la oración principal induce el subjuntivo (_en la mayoría de los casos, no en todos_) en la subordinada. Existen muchos inductores del modo subjuntivo como pueden ser nunca, nadie, jamás, pocos, etc.
En cuanto a la diferencia de significado, la NGLE dice:
"25.7f Como se ha explicado, en las subordinadas sustantivas que contienen subjuntivos inducidos por la negación se cuestiona la certeza del complemento oracional, pero también se pone en tela de juicio la veracidad de la proposicion principal en su conjunto. [...]"
"25.7g Varios autores han puesto de manifiesto que el subjuntivo produce en las subordinadas inducidas por la negación cierto EFECTO DE DISTANCIA O DE RESERVA, y también que su presencia es señal de que el hablante no se compromete con la certeza de su contenido, que queda así en suspenso. No se informa, pues, en esas oraciones acerca de la veracidad de la situación que se menciona. No obstante, del contexto se puede colegir que estos hechos se dan efectivamente algunas veces como en _No sabía que tocaras el saxofón_ (que implica 'lo tocas'). [...]"
Un saludo


----------



## Gabriel

Rodal said:


> they both mean the same but they're said differently:
> No creo que Juan tenga novia ~ I don't think Juan has a girlfriend.
> Creo que Juan no tiene novia ~ I believe Juan doesn't have a girlfriend.
> And as Cenzontle said: "Creer" takes the indicative, "no creer" takes the subjunctive.


What you say is correct in the sense of how we use it. But strictly speaking, they are different (both in Spanish and in English).

When you say "Creo que Juan no tiene novia" you affirm your positive believe regarding the truth of the fact "Juan tiene novia".
When you say "No creo que Juan tenga novia" you are negating a believe but, again, strictly speaking, you are not stating anything regarding your believe in the contrary. A good reason not to believe that Juan has a girlfriend (which is not the same than believe that Juan doesn't have a girlfriend" could that you have no idea who Juan is.

To say it in another way:
"Creer que juan no tiene novia" is the opposite of, and incompatible with, "creer que juan tiene novia" (Juan tiene vs Juan NO tiene)
"No creer que Juan tiene novia" is also opposite to, and incompatible with, "creer que juan tiene novia". (creer vs NO creer)
However, "No creer que Juan tenga novia" in NEITHER opposite to NOR incompatible with "No creer que Juan no tenga novia" (they are regarding the lack of two different believes), nor it is equivalent to "Creer que Juan no tenga novia" (not believing one thing is not the same than believing the opposite thing).

But, again, all that my bee all too good for a Philosophy course, or Logics, but we use it with the same meaning: the meaning of believing that Juan doesn't have a girlfriend.


----------



## Rodal

GQ.Wong said:


> Is there a different mood? Like when would I use the Subjuntivo and when would I use the Indicativo.
> On what does it depend? Or is it just preference. Do I have more information when I just the indicativo in this example.


The subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty of the matter; if you don't want to sound like a dork when someone proves you wrong then always use the subjunctive and you'll sound more polite this way.


----------



## Gabriel

Rodal said:


> The subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty of the matter; if you don't want to sound like a dork when someone proves you wrong then always use the subjunctive and you'll sound more polite this way.


That's absolutely incorrect. You cannot say "No estoy seguro, pero creo que no pueda". You must say "Creo que no podré".

"La verdad que no estoy seguro y podría equivocarme, no tengo certeza, pero me parece que esto no *va* a funcionar". (no puedes decir *vaya*)

As discussed many times in these fora, "certainty/uncertainty" is, by itself, a disastrous indicator of what mood to use.


----------



## Rodal

Gabriel said:


> What you say is correct in the sense of how we use it. But strictly speaking, they are different (both in Spanish and in English).
> 
> When you say "Creo que Juan no tiene novia" you affirm your positive believe regarding the truth of the fact "Juan tiene novia".
> When you say "No creo que Juan tenga novia" you are negating a believe but, again, strictly speaking, you are not stating anything regarding your believe in the contrary. A good reason not to believe that Juan has a girlfriend (which is not the same than believe that Juan doesn't have a girlfriend" could that you have no idea who Juan is.
> 
> To say it in another way:
> "Creer que juan no tiene novia" is the opposite of, and incompatible with, "creer que juan tiene novia" (Juan tiene vs Juan NO tiene)
> "No creer que Juan tiene novia" is also opposite to, and incompatible with, "creer que juan tiene novia". (creer vs NO creer)
> However, "No creer que Juan tenga novia" in NEITHER opposite to NOR incompatible with "No creer que Juan no tenga novia" (they are regarding the lack of two different believes), nor it is equivalent to "Creer que Juan no tenga novia" (not believing one thing is not the same than believing the opposite thing).
> 
> But, again, all that my bee all too good for a Philosophy course, or Logics, but we use it with the same meaning: the meaning of believing that Juan doesn't have a girlfriend.


Gabriel, you're absolutely wrong and I absolutely disagree with you.


----------



## Gabriel

Rodal said:


> Gabriel, you're absolutely wrong and I absolutely disagree with you.


Would you care to explain?


----------



## Raving Syntactivist

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Gabriel and I mostly disagree with Rodal, but I do see where he's coming from, kind of. 

I think that Gabriel's explanation of what "triggers" the subjunctive is very good and I couldn't agree more with it. 
Creo que + indicative
No creo que + subjunctive

Although I'm not a native speaker, I believe it would sound quite odd to use the subjunctive with "creo que" or the indicative with "no creo que." 

That being said, where I sort of agree with Rodal is in the amount of certainty the subjunctive communicates versus the indicative. The way I see it, in both languages, "creo que no tiene novia" or "I think he doesn't have a girlfriend" sounds more confident than "no creo que tenga..." or "I don´t think he has..." So, if you're trying to communicate that you certainly know without any (or with very little) doubt that Juan doesn't have a girlfriend, you might say, "I think he doesn't have a girlfriend" or "Creo que no tiene novia." 
Conversely, if you aren't sure that he has one, or you don't think he does, but you have no evidence to prove one way or the other, or if you simply hadn't thought about whether or not he has a girlfriend but your knee-jerk reaction is that he's single, you might choose the construct, "No creo que tenga novia" or "I don't think he has..."
In conclusion, yes, you can use the subjunctive to communicate lack of certainty, but you still have to use it correctly; you can't just slap it into any sentence you wish because you don't want to commit.


----------



## Gabriel

Si le digo a mi hijo "Estoy muy feliz de que mi hijo seas tú", ¿estoy dudando de que de verdad sea mi hijo o de que eso me hace muy felíz?
Respuesta: Ninguno. No estoy dudando.
¿Entonces por qué "seas" está en subjuntivo?


----------



## GQ.Wong

Gabriel said:


> I think that Gabriel's explanation of what "triggers" the subjunctive is very good and I couldn't agree more with it.
> Creo que + indicative
> No creo que + subjunctive


 
This is very clear to me.
Creo que + I (because we are affirming somthing)
No Creo + S (we are not affirming anything)

So basically it has almost the same meaning, but it´s said in a different ¨mood¨,

Let´s say two teenagers from Madrid are talking about football players. Is this a good example?
I am trying to understand it better.

*Creo que Ronaldo no tiene novia.*

Ronaldo is famous and constantly in the media, so we could affirm this more or less.

*No Creo que Romario tenga novia.*

Romario, although famous, he is a player from the previous generation and perheps less known. Also has very little media exposure in Spain.


----------



## Elcanario

Hola
La negación con este tipo de verbos en esta clase de oraciones (creer, pensar, parecer, etc), como ya señalé, es un *inductor* pero no es definitivo para todos los casos. Estos verbos, en sí mismos, son inductores del modo indicativo.
NGLE 25.7i:
"[...]
 La presencia del indicativo en _No cree que *he* hablado con una amiga_ (Steimberg, Espíritu) o en _No creen que *es* necesario aumentar la cantidad de funcionarios_ (Tiempos 25/09/2000) está determinada por el verbo creer. Como este aparece negado, en estas oraciones se rechazan ciertas creencias y se obtiene la implicación de que tales contenidos son  verdaderos.[...]
No creo que *hay* tal lucha de clases (Benet, Saúl); Y no me parece que *es* justo que el pueblo boliviano [...] (Viezzer, Hablar); Yo no me creo que Julio *ha* *muerto* (Razón [Esp.] 20/11/201); Era mejor hacerlo un poco más ancho y es lo que se ha hecho. Lo cual no creo que *ha ido* en detrimento de la estética (País [Esp.] 30/05/1997); No creía que *estaba* usted tan cerca (Martín Recuerda, Caballos).
[...]"
un saludo


----------



## Rodal

Gabriel said:


> Would you care to explain?



See Elcanario's response in answer 6; you will find the answer to your question there: " Varios autores han puesto de manifiesto que el subjuntivo produce en las subordinadas inducidas por la negación cierto EFECTO DE DISTANCIA O DE RESERVA, y también que su presencia es señal de que el hablante no se compromete con la certeza de su contenido, que queda así en suspenso". This is exactly what I'm saying: "no creo que tenga novia" (subjuntivo) y "creo que no tiene novia" (indicativo); Within this context I said the subjunctive form has an uncertainty factor that the indicative doesn't have and that sets the tone for a more polity response. I did not say that uncertainty was the trigger of the subjunctive form.  No entiendo cuál es tu confusión Gabriel.


----------



## Rodal

Gabriel said:


> That's absolutely incorrect. You cannot say "No estoy seguro, pero creo que no pueda". You must say "Creo que no podré".
> 
> "La verdad que no estoy seguro y podría equivocarme, no tengo certeza, pero me parece que esto no *va* a funcionar". (no puedes decir *vaya*)
> 
> As discussed many times in these fora, "certainty/uncertainty" is, by itself, a disastrous indicator of what mood to use.



Gabriel, you misunderstood my statement and have taken it out of context. I'm talking about the subjunctive induced by negation stated in this thread. GQ Wong asked me whether there was a difference in mood between the indicative and the subjunctive and my response was "The subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty of the matter" so yes there is difference in mood and from these two examples presented in this thread, the subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty in the matter. I never said that certainty WAS the inductor/initiator of the subjunctive form.  Of course you don't say "No estoy seguro, pero creo que no pueda". This is wrong and it came from you, not me.


----------



## Rodal

GQ.Wong said:


> This is very clear to me.
> Creo que + I (because we are affirming somthing)
> No Creo + S (we are not affirming anything)
> 
> So basically it has almost the same meaning, but it´s said in a different ¨mood¨,
> 
> Let´s say two teenagers from Madrid are talking about football players. Is this a good example?
> I am trying to understand it better.
> 
> *Creo que Ronaldo no tiene novia.*
> 
> Ronaldo is famous and constantly in the media, so we could affirm this more or less.
> 
> *No Creo que Romario tenga novia.*
> 
> Romario, although famous, he is a player from the previous generation and perheps less known. Also has very little media exposure in Spain.



Precisamente GQ. Wong, creo que GQ lo ha comprendido bien  
Pero si no hubiese visto tu respuesta habría dicho: No creo que GQ lo haya comprendido bien.  Ahora si te quedó más claro?


----------



## Rodal

Gabriel said:


> Si le digo a mi hijo "Estoy muy feliz de que mi hijo seas tú", ¿estoy dudando de que de verdad sea mi hijo o de que eso me hace muy felíz?
> Respuesta: Ninguno. No estoy dudando.
> ¿Entonces por qué "seas" está en subjuntivo?



You're talking about the hypothetical idea that your son could have been born somewhere else, in someone else's home and be someone else's son and while you know that isn't true, you'are making a statement in the subjunctive because of that hypothetical idea. To stress the fact that you're happy that isn't so. So yes, there is a hypothetical uncertainty here too and therefore the subjunctive is the correct form.  Again, I'm not saying that uncertainty is the inductor of the subjunctive form, I'm just saying that whenever we choose to go with the subjunctive form vs the indicative is because there is an uncertainty component in the sentence.


----------



## Peterdg

Rodal said:


> no entiendo cuál es tu confusion Gabriel,


The problem is that you say this:


Rodal said:


> The subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty of the matter;


There are a zillion cases where this does not apply. You present this as a general selection criterion between indicative and subjunctive. Well, sometimes this is a valid criterion but most of the time, it is not. The trick is to know when it can be used and when it cannot. And that is not what your general statement does.

Therefor, I agree with Gabriel (and so does the NGLE: it literally says it: "it cannot be used as a valid selection criterion" (25.1j).


----------



## Rodal

Peterdg said:


> The problem is that you say this:
> 
> There are a zillion cases where this does not apply. You present this as a general selection criterion between indicative and subjunctive. Well, sometimes this is a valid criterion but most of the time, it is not. The trick is to know when it can be used and when it cannot. And that is not what your general statement does.
> 
> Therefor, I agree with Gabriel (and so does the NGLE: it literally says it: "it cannot be used as a valid selection criterion").



Again, I did not say that "uncertainty" is the inductor of the subjunctive. I said the subjunctive has an uncertainty component in it in the context of this thread. This is why I disagreed with Gabriel's comment; I'm discussing the negation induced subjunctive discussed in this thread and Gabriel took it out of context.


----------



## Elcanario

Las generalizaciones son malas consejeras en esto del lenguaje por eso hice mi último comentario. Ni siquiera el amplio espectro en el que la negación induce el subjuntivo resulta definitivo ya que, excepciones, haberlas haylas.
En mi opinión la perspectiva que aporta la NGLE en relación a estos temas es mejor. Realiza un trabajo descriptivo de los inductores —que son muchos— y de sus excepciones, detallándolo con explicaciones de cada caso.
Un saludo


----------



## Gabriel

Rodal said:


> See Elcanario's response in answer 6; you will find the answer to your question there: " Varios autores han puesto de manifiesto que el subjuntivo produce en las subordinadas inducidas por la negación cierto EFECTO DE DISTANCIA O DE RESERVA, y también que su presencia es señal de que el hablante no se compromete con la certeza de su contenido, que queda así en suspenso". This is exactly what I'm saying: "no creo que tenga novia" (subjuntivo) y "creo que no tiene novia" (indicativo); Within this context I said the subjunctive form has an uncertainty factor that the indicative doesn't have and that sets the tone for a more polity response. I did not say that uncertainty was the trigger of the subjunctive form.  No entiendo cuál es tu confusión Gabriel.


I understand what you say, but still can't find real sense.

Do you really mean that "*Creo *que no tiene novia" doesn't have an uncertainty factor?


----------



## Rodal

Gabriel said:


> I understand what you say, but still can't find real sense.
> 
> Do you really mean that "*Creo *que no tiene novia" doesn't have an uncertainty factor?



Creo has an uncertainty factor created by "creo" not by the subjunctive (completely different).
But because the second sentences uses the word "creo" that I said that both sentences say the same thing meaning you can answer both ways however, is the tone different in the subjunctive form?; yes absolutely.


----------



## Gabriel

Rodal said:


> Gabriel, you misunderstood my statement and have taken it out of context. I'm talking about the subjunctive induced by negation stated in this thread.


Sorry, yes, I misunderstood and thought that you were making a general statement.


> GQ Wong asked me whether there was a difference in mood between the indicative and the subjunctive and my response was "The subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty of the matter" so yes there is difference in mood and from these two examples presented in this thread, the subjunctive is always more appropriate when there is no certainty in the matter.


But again, you mean that in "Creo que no tiene novia" there is certainty about the matter?
About what matter? Please don't say about "creo" because then I can be equally certain that "no creo". In other words, I can be equally certain about my believe as about my lack of believe.

Now, if you said that between "Creo que no tiene novia" and "No creo que tenga novia" there are different shades of doubt, then I won't object. Because both of them conveys doubt and none of them conveys certainty.


----------



## Rodal

Gabriel said:


> Sorry, yes, I misunderstood and thought that you were making a general statement.
> 
> But again, you mean that in "Creo que no tiene novia" there is certainty about the matter?
> About what matter? Please don't say about "creo" because then I can be equally certain that "no creo". In other words, I can be equally certain about my believe as about my lack of believe.
> 
> Now, if you said that between "Creo que no tiene novia" and "No creo que tenga novia" there are different shades of doubt, then I won't object. Because both of them conveys doubt and none of them conveys certainty.



Gabriel, you still don't understand what I'm saying here. I'm referring to the subjunctive from in negation that was in this thread. you're going off a tangent and disagreeing with the fact that the indicative form shows more certainty than the subjunctive form. Both sentences conveyed the same message (one with uncertainty from the subjunctive) and the other with uncertainty from the word "creo". I choose the subjunctive form to convey the suspicion that he doesn't have a girlfriend.


----------



## Gabriel

Sorry, it was not my intention to take you out of context.

I think that I finally got what you mean.

You are not comparing "Creo que no tiene novia" with "No creo que tenga novia", but "No creo que tenga novia" con "No creo que tiene novia". In this last case, you've heard someone saying that he has a girlfriend and you are practically saying that you don't believe that that is true, you are almost saying that you believe it is a lie. So yes, if what you want to convey is your suspicion that he doesn't have a girlfriend (rather than your believe that whoever said he does have one is lying) using "no creo", then the subjunctive is appropriate.

Did I finally got it?


----------



## Rodal

I just want to convey the suspicion that he doesn't have a girlfriend ~ yes.
Is the subjunctive most appropriate for this ~ yes.

Thank you, I'm glad we can agree.


----------



## Peterdg

Rodal said:


> I said the subjunctive has an uncertainty component in it in the context of this thread.


Sorry, that was not what I understood when I read your statement. It was the "always" in your statement that made me believe that you were giving a general indicative/subjunctive rule, "always" valid.


----------



## GQ.Wong

Rodal said:


> Precisamente GQ. Wong, creo que GQ lo ha comprendido bien
> Pero si no hubiese visto tu respuesta habría dicho: No creo que GQ lo haya comprendido bien.  Ahora si te quedó más claro?


 
Vale. Gracias. Ahora es mas claro.


----------



## pachanga7

Dare I suggest that we might be trying hard to make meaning out of something that is inherently disorderly? Reality is messy, and language does its best to map to reality, but there are redundancies and imperfections as in all human endeavors. 

Logically you can get to the same destination in more than one way: 

1) A is true
2) A is false, or not true
3) I think A is not true
4) I don't think A is true

Because you introduce another layer of meaning in the third and fourth lines, the opinion part, saying "don't think" in the fourth line is ambiguous. The negation could refer to the thinking, or it could be inferred to refer to the subordinate clause:

I don't think A is true. I don't think anything is true. Because I am a rock... (to take it to an absurd extreme) 
I think A is false. (this has certainty and precision)

Because of the subtle ambiguity when you attach the negation to the thinking part, Spanish has a neat trick of changing the verb in the subordinate clause to make it extra clear that the negation applies to the subordinate clause. 

My two cents!


----------

