# I raised my hand so that you would see me/ you saw me



## Gamen

Hi everybody:

Is possible to use either the "auxiliary would + participle" or "past simple" or "did" /"didn't" in the examples below?
Are the two forms equally correct?
In Spanish is only possible one form in this case: The imperfect of the subjunctive.

I raised my hand and greeted so that you would see me.
I raised my hand and greeted so that you saw me.
(Spanish: Levanté la mano y saludé para que me vieras).

I hid myself so that he wouln't see me.
I hid myself so that he didn't see me.
(Spanish: Me escondí para que él no me viera).

I appreciate your help!


----------



## obz

"so (that) you *would *see me"


----------



## saintcasper91

I disagree with obz, both are correct.


----------



## obz

_"so that you saw me"_? Really? Interesting. Never heard it from a native before, but I've no reason to doubt you. For me it sounds quite odd, but there you go. You learn something new everyday.


----------



## Gamen

Both are correct, but the most common form is with "would"?


----------



## saintcasper91

Sounds fine to me


----------



## Gamen

sounds fine to you with the simple past?


----------



## saintcasper91

Yep, both sound fine!


----------



## Gamen

Ok saintcasper91. 

Would it be also the same with the following structure?
I was afraid he *wouldn't come* to my party yesterday, but he did.
I was afraid he *didn't come* to my party yesterday, but he did.

Are the two forms equally correct using "would" or past?


----------



## saintcasper91

Nope, in that case only the 'wouldn't' is correct


----------



## Gamen

Then, when would you say: "I was afraid he didn't come"?


----------



## obz

Wow, you and I will be polar opposites saintcasper91  
I see them as both correct in the case of "to be afraid".
In this case, they say different things.

I was afraid he didn't come (I never saw him).
I was afraid he wouldn't come (he didn't have the intention, or wasn't able for some reason)


----------



## Gamen

Sorry, I cannot see the difference between "I was afraid he didn't come to my party" and "I was afraid he wouldn't come to my party"

In Spanish we can just say:
"Tenía miedo que no viniera/vieniese a mi fiesta" and there's no other possibility.

How can I know when to use didn't or wouldn't?


----------



## obz

Gamen said:


> and there's no other possibility.



Sure there are.
"que no quisiera venir/que no fuera a venir" This is "wouldn't come", for me. "Would" doesn't _only _serve as a conditional, it has a value of 'will', 'voluntad', 'desire' etc. Especially if we look at it's etymology roots, it has always had the ability imply desire, or lack there of.

But I fear this can be pretty complex. I'm not saying these are the right translations in every context... more so, just to try and explain what difference I see between "didn't come" and "wouldn't come"


----------



## FromPA

obz said:


> Wow, you and I will be polar opposites saintcasper91
> I see them as both correct in the case of "to be afraid".
> In this case, they say different things.
> 
> I was afraid he didn't come (I never saw him).
> I was afraid he wouldn't come (he didn't have the intention, or wasn't able for some reason)




I'm in the middle.  I agree with saintcasper91 on this one ("I was afraid he hadn't come" is what I think you're trying to express with "didn't come").  I'm with you, however, on "I hid myself so that he didn't see me."  I'm waiting for confirmation from other BE speakers that this is normal usage in BE.


----------



## Gamen

I was afraid he hadn't come, but he came. = Tenía miedo que no hubiera venido, pero vino.

I was afraid he didn't come, but he came. = Tenía miedo que no viniera, pero vino.

I was afraid he wouldn't come, however he came. = Tenía miedo que no quisiera o fuera a venir, que no tuviera ganas o intenciones de venir, sin embargo vino.


Are these equivalences ok?


----------



## obz

FromPA said:


> ("I was afraid he hadn't come" is what I think you're trying to express with "didn't come").



Yes, it would be quite similar. I think _didn't _works also, but it would depend on the temporal context.


----------



## inib

Gamen said:


> I was afraid he hadn't come, but he came. = Tenía miedo que no hubiera venido, pero vino.
> 
> I was afraid he didn't come, but he came. = Tenía miedo que no viniera, pero vino. I certainly wouldn't use this one. it doesn't make any sense at all to me, let alone the intended one.
> 
> I was afraid he wouldn't come, however he came. = Tenía miedo que no quisiera o fuera a venir, que no tuveira ganas o intenciones de venir, sin embargo vino. OK, but also just plain "Temía que no viniera"
> 
> 
> Are these equivalences ok?


In my usage, "so that" is always followed by _will/would/can/could_. I can't think of any exceptions right now.
And just a couple of comments on vocabulary:
 1) "I raised my hand and greeted" could be nicely condensed into "I waved".
2) _To hide_ doesn't need to be reflexive in English. If you just said "I hid", it would be automatically understood that the direct object is "myself".


----------



## Gamen

Then, if I can translate "Tenía miedo que no viniera" as "I was afraid he wouldn't come", the expression
*"I was afraid he didn't come"* is not correct or doesn't exist? You would never use it?
Sorry but I continue without understanding if the structure with "didn't" / verb in the past could be used sometime and what the meaning is.


----------



## inib

Gamen said:


> Then, if I can translate "Tenía miedo que no viniera" as "I was afraid he wouldn't come", the expression
> *"I was afraid he didn't come"* is not correct or doesn't exist? You would never use it?
> Sorry but I continue without understanding if the structure with "didn't" / verb in the past could be used sometime and what the meaning is.



I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't make sense to me. When I was afraid, I was looking to the future, so the conditional tense can be justified that way.


----------



## Gamen

Ok. I see your point.
Now I realized the two examples or structures I gave are not comparable. I mean,
I can say:
I hid so he didn't see me (or I hid so he wouldn't see me)
But I cannot say, however:
I was afraid he didn't come but 
I was afraid he wouldn't come.

Am I right?


----------



## MacFadden

"I raised my hand and waved so you would see me," sounds much better than "... so you saw me," to me. And I agree with inib that "I was afraid he didn't come" doesn't make sense in this context. It would make sense if you were saying, "I was afraid of that" and meant "I suspected as much," but not if you were expressing fear.

Also, this isn't really what your question was about, but I thought you might like to know: _Saludar_ in this case would be 'wave,' not 'greet,' if I understand you correctly. And in your second sentence, saying "myself" is redundant. When 'hide' is not followed my 'the keys' or 'the pie' or some such thing, it is presumed that what the speaker is hiding is him or herself.


----------



## Gamen

Ok.
Certainly it is better to employ just one "more effective" verb in English in the context we are discussing since "to wave" sums up the expression "I moved/shook my hand to say hello". As in Spanish we don't have a verb like that, I translated thinking of our most complex idea in Spanish which is, for lack of only one word, "levanté la mano y saludé". "Saludar" should be translated as "to wave" instead of "to greet", according to what you have told me.
Regarding the reflexive pronoun for "to hide", it happens the same. I've just used it because I use it in Spanish.

The problem with "I was afraid that he didn't come" is that I thought it was the translation of "tenía miedo que él no viniera", that is perfectly correct in Spanish.

I insist, if it is correct in any context, how and in what situation could I say, "I was afraid he didn't come/ didn't go / didn't see me"?
Or should I definitely leave it out for being incorrect in the example we're discussing?


----------



## MNstudent

Ok, I hope this clears up some things.

*I hid so that he wouldn't see me.* In this sentence, we know what you did and the reason you did it. We don't know if it was successful. 
*I hid so that he didn't see me.* You hid and were successful. He didn't see you. This can only be said after the action because we need to know that he actually didn't see you, not just that you were hoping he wouldn't see you.

*I was afraid that he wouldn't come, but he did.*You are at a party, and he isn't there. You fear that he won't come, but he shows up. Afterwards you are telling someone that you thought he wouldn't come, but he did.
*I was afraid that he didn't come, but he did.* You are at a party, and he isn't there. You fear that he won't come, and he doesn't. The next day, you find out that he really was there, you just never saw him. You tell someone that after the party, you were afraid that he didn't come, but he did. This sentence is still odd sounding, but I think that would be a situation someone may think if you used it. 

Using the past tense like this means that it did or did not happen. It is a fact. He didn't see you (from the first example), and to your knowledge he didn't come (second). Using the conditional is more natural and more accurately says what you want to say. So yes, it is possible to use the past (though it conveys a different meaning), but the conditional is the best translation.


----------



## FromPA

MNstudent said:


> Ok, I hope this clears up some things.
> 
> *I hid so that he wouldn't see me.* In this sentence, we know what you did and the reason you did it. We don't know if it was successful.
> *(1) I hid so that he didn't see me.* You hid and were successful. He didn't see you. This can only be said after the action because we need to know that he actually didn't see you, not just that you were hoping he wouldn't see you.
> *I was afraid that he wouldn't come, but he did.*You are at a party, and he isn't there. You fear that he won't come, but he shows up. Afterwards you are telling someone that you thought he wouldn't come, but he did.
> *(2) I was afraid that he didn't come, but he did.* You are at a party, and he isn't there. You fear that he won't come, and he doesn't. The next day, you find out that he really was there, you just never saw him. You tell someone that after the party, you were afraid that he didn't come, but he did. This sentence is still odd sounding, but I think that would be a situation someone may think if you used it.
> 
> Using the past tense like this means that it did or did not happen. It is a fact. He didn't see you (from the first example), and to your knowledge he didn't come (second). Using the conditional is more natural and more accurately says what you want to say. So yes, it is possible to use the past (though it conveys a different meaning), but the conditional is the best translation.



(1) I understand the distinction that you are making, but I don't think it really works.  I don't think that "so that" is the proper phrase to accomplish your meaning.  "So that" means "in order to" and your intended meaning is "in such a manner that."  I would offer 2 alternatives:  "I hid so that he couldn't see me" (ambiguous as to whether you were successful) or "I hid such that he didn't see me."

(2) On this one, I'm totally missing your meaning.   It still seem to me that it should be "I was afraid he hadn't come, but he had."


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

I'll concentrate on Gamen's first two sentences:

1. I raised my hand and greeted so that you would see me.
2. I raised my hand and greeted so that you saw me.
(Spanish: Levanté la mano y saludé para que me vieras).


The use of "para que me vieras" indicates that "being seen" was the aim/objective of the subject, therefore I'd tend to exclude #2 because "so that you saw me" can be interpreted as a successful fact in the past.
I'm also a little doutful about #1. due to the use of "would". I believe the subject's manoeuvres are aimed at _enabling_ the other person to see him/her. To this purpose I would use "could" instead.

So, the final sentence would turn out to be something like the following:

3. "I waived so that/in order that you could see me.", OR "I waived for you to be able to see me." 

GS


----------



## inib

FromPA said:


> (1) I understand the distinction that you are making, but I don't think it really works. I don't think that "so that" is the proper phrase to accomplish your meaning. "So that" means "in order to" and your intended meaning is "in such a manner that." I would offer 2 alternatives: "I hid so that he couldn't see me" (ambiguous as to whether you were successful) or "I hid such that he didn't see me."
> 
> (2) On this one, I'm totally missing your meaning. It still seem to me that it should be "I was afraid he hadn't come, but he had."


I share your feelings, but couldn't find an uncomplicated way of expressing them so well


----------



## kalamazoo

I'm a little late to this party but there are my thoughts.  

1.  I hid SO THAT he wouldn't see me - expresses my purpose in hiding.
2. I hid SO he didn't see me - expresses the result of my hiding and "so that" is not needed.

I agree with several others that "I was afraid he didn't come" is kind of strange.  I would say "I was afraid he hadn't come."


----------



## Chispa123

Gamen said:


> Hi everybody:
> 
> Is possible to use either the "auxiliary would + participle" or "past simple" or "did" /"didn't" in the examples below?
> Are the two forms equally correct?
> In Spanish is only possible one form in this case: The imperfect of the subjunctive.
> 
> I raised my hand and *waved*  so that you would see me.
> I raised my hand and *waved* so that you saw me.
> (Spanish: Levanté la mano y saludé para que me vieras).
> 
> I hid myself so that he wouln't see me.
> I hid myself so that he didn't see me.
> (Spanish: Me escondí para que él no me viera).
> 
> I appreciate your help!



A little off the topic of discussion


----------



## Gamen

Thank you everybody. It was really very useful and clear all you brought  it up as it helped me to come out of the "blind alley" where I was wound  up.

The problem was that I was mistakenly translating the Spanish  expression "Levanté la mano y te saludé para que me vieras/ para que  pudieras verme". We, in Spanish, always must use the  preterite (past)  of the subjunctive, never the conditional as in English. Instead,  that sentence in English should be translated as: "I raised my hand and  waved so that you would see me" or "I raised my hand and waved so that you COULD see me".

I thought that this same idea could be translated as "I raised my hand and waved so that you saw me", but I was wrong.

You  don't use the simple past to express the idea "con el fin de que me  vieras, para que me vieras", meaning purpose, but the conditional would  + verb.

I could use the simple past in another kind of construction as  someone previously suggested. It would be a construction where there is  no purpose or aim.
I raised my hand and waved *in a such an evident way that* you saw me well but you pretended not to.
Or I have to remove the "that" in order not to express purpose or aim but consequence: "*I hid so (then, therefore) he didn't see me"* (Me escondí, de modo tal que no me vio/ Me escondí, por lo tanto no me vió.) Even in Spanish we use here the past of the indicative, not the preterite of the subjunctive. It occurs that there's a change in the communicative intention. From the "purpose", we pass on to the "consequence" or result of the action and, as a result of this, the verbal tenses also vary.

Similarly, I would have to say: *I was afraid that he wouldn't come, but he did"*  (Tenía miedo que no viniera, pero vino). I'm indicating that I was  afraid that he possibly wouldn't come, but due to the fact that it is a  possibility or expression of doubt -not a confirmed or real fact- facing  the situation that he did come or not, English language does not use the  past simple.

On the other hand, If I say in English, "I was  afraid that he hadn't come", the sense or verbal tense here is different  compared to that of the beginning. Here I'm expressing I feared that you  had not come, being this past tense (had not come) already accomplished and subsequent  regarding the first past (I was afraid..) where I stated my fear that something could  not happen (but it happens after all). In Spanish we would say: "Tenía  miedo de que (él) no hubiera venido". (Pero vino) This second idea in brackets is inferred  from the first one. 
"Hubiera venido" points out a past event prior  to another past and it is perceived as if it were occurred, despite the  fact the speaker shows some doubt about its accomplishment. Do you agree?

I  think that you shed light on this issue and have cleared it up to me. Every  one did their bit and helped me a lot to understand something I couldn't  get at first on my own.
Thank you.
If somebody disagrees with something, let me know please. This became really interesting!

Please, correct any mistake I might have made in my English. I'm enjoying a lot this thread and learning a lot.


----------



## Gamen

Notwithstanding, I found in one of my grammar English books the following construction:
"They *arranged* things *so that* they never *met*"

So, it is possible to use the simple past after "so that".
Now my arguments came down!
Can anybody save me of dying drowned?


----------



## FromPA

Gamen said:


> Notwithstanding, I found in one of my grammar English books the following construction:
> "They *arranged* things *so that* they never *met*"
> 
> So, it is possible to use the simple past after "so that".
> Now my arguments came down!
> Can anybody save me of dying drowned?



You can "arrange" things with the intention of never meeting ("they arranged thing so that the would never meet"), but "arranging" something "so that" you never met doesn't make any sense to me.  To me, "so that" refers to a future event while "they never met" refers to an already competed fact.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

If "so that" means something like " in such a manner that", I frankly don't see any reason for not considering the sentence grammatical. 

I _am_ having eyesight problems but am I really going blind?  

GS


----------



## FromPA

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, everyone.
> 
> If "so that" means something like " in such a manner that", I frankly don't see any reason for not considering the sentence grammatical.
> 
> I _am_ having eyesight problems but am I really going blind?
> 
> GS


 

I agree with you.   I just don't think "so that" is being used correctly. For the intended meaning, I would use "such that," which is not very colloquial.


----------



## Gamen

hello.
But I think, but I'm not sure, with "so that" the structure takes necessarily the "would", whereas with "in such a way that" it can take the past simple. I see there are two different structures that have different "regencies".

I helped you so that you would finish your work earlier
I helped you in such a way that you finished your work earlier.

What do you think?

Anyway, would be the previous example correct or not? I mean:
"They *arranged* things *so that* they never *met*"


----------



## juan082937

FromPA said:


> (1) I understand the distinction that you are making, but I don't think it really works. I don't think that "so that" is the proper phrase to accomplish your meaning. "So that" means "in order to" and your intended meaning is "in such a manner that." I would offer 2 alternatives: "I hid so that he couldn't see me" (ambiguous as to whether you were successful) or "I hid such that he didn't see me."
> 
> 
> Also
> 1.-I hid so well that he didn't see me  (cause-effect)


----------



## juan082937

so+adjective or adverb+that = cause-effect. They arranged things so well that they never met, they arranged things very well, so they never met.


----------



## juan082937

Gamen said:


> Thank you everybody. It was really very useful and clear all you brought  it up as it helped me to come out of the "blind alley" where I was wound  up.
> 
> The problem was that I was mistakenly translating the Spanish  expression "Levanté la mano y te saludé para que me vieras/ para que  pudieras verme". We, in Spanish, always must use the  preterite (past)  of the subjunctive, never the conditional as in English. Instead,  that sentence in English should be translated as: "I raised my hand and  waved so that you would see me" or "I raised my hand and waved so that you COULD see me".
> 
> I thought that this same idea could be translated as "I raised my hand and waved so that you saw me", but I was wrong.
> 
> You  don't use the simple past to express the idea "con el fin de que me  vieras, para que me vieras", meaning purpose, but the conditional would  + verb.
> * *You cannot interpret a personal feeling or reaction of your listener since it is just guessing. It's another reason to use the modal verbs. would, could, should, might*.*
> I could use the simple past in another kind of construction as  so  meone previously suggested. It would be a construction where there is  no purpose or aim.
> I raised my hand and waved *in a such an evident way that* you saw me well but you pretended not to.       *Again you cannot interpret your interlocutor feelings or reactions*
> Or I have to remove the "that" in order not to express purpose or aim but consequence: "*I hid so (then, therefore)he didn´t see me. < I hid so well that he didn´t see me>(cause-effect)"* (Me escondí, de modo tal que no me vio/ Me escondí, por lo tanto no me vió.) Even in Spanish we use here the past of the indicative, not the preterite of the subjunctive. It occurs that there's a change in the communicative intention. From the "purpose", we pass on to the "consequence" or result of the action and, as a result of this, the verbal tenses also vary.
> 
> Similarly, I would have to say: *I was afraid that he wouldn't come, but he did"*  (Tenía miedo que no viniera, pero vino). I'm indicating that I was  afraid that he possibly wouldn't come, but due to the fact that it is a  possibility or expression of doubt -not a confirmed or real fact- facing  the situation that he did come or not, English language does not use the  past simple.
> 
> On the other hand, If I say in English, "I was  afraid that he hadn't come", the sense or verbal tense here is different  compared to that of the beginning. Here I'm expressing I feared that you  had not come, being this past tense (had not come) already accomplished and subsequent  regarding the first past (I was afraid..) where I stated my fear that something could  not happen (but it happens after all). In Spanish we would say: "Tenía  miedo de que (él) no hubiera venido". (Pero vino) This second idea in brackets is inferred  from the first one.
> "Hubiera venido" points out a past event prior  to another past and it is perceived as if it were occurred, despite the  fact the speaker shows some doubt about its accomplishment. Do you agree? *Tuve (tenía)miedo de que no hubiera llegado, pero llegó ( Subjunctive= hubiera llegado) = tuve miedo de que no había llegado pero llegó, your fear is posterior of hubiera/había llegado=But with doubts.
> *
> I  think that you shed light on this issue and have cleared it up to me. Every  one did their bit and helped me a lot to understand something I couldn't  get at first on my own.
> Thank you.
> If somebody disagrees with something, let me know please. This became really interesting!
> 
> Please, correct any mistake I might have made in my English. I'm enjoying a lot this thread and learning a lot.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, From.

You write:

_I agree with you. I just don't think "so that" is being used correctly. For the intended meaning, I would use "such that," which is not very colloquial.

_Are you really considering the possibility of saying/writing "They arranged things such that they never met"? 

GS

I'm sorry but I continue to believe that the sentence could be "They arranged things so that they never met" (ie, They arranged things so that eventually they didn't meet", ie "... so that in the end they succeeded in not meeting)

GS


----------



## Forero

MNstudent said:


> Ok, I hope this clears up some things.
> 
> *I hid so that he wouldn't see me.* In this sentence, we know what you did and the reason you did it. We don't know if it was successful.
> *I hid so that he didn't see me.* You hid and were successful. He didn't see you. This can only be said after the action because we need to know that he actually didn't see you, not just that you were hoping he wouldn't see you.
> 
> *I was afraid that he wouldn't come, but he did.*You are at a party, and he isn't there. You fear that he won't come, but he shows up. Afterwards you are telling someone that you thought he wouldn't come, but he did.
> *I was afraid that he didn't come, but he did.* You are at a party, and he isn't there. You fear that he won't come, and he doesn't. The next day, you find out that he really was there, you just never saw him. You tell someone that after the party, you were afraid that he didn't come, but he did. This sentence is still odd sounding, but I think that would be a situation someone may think if you used it.
> 
> Using the past tense like this means that it did or did not happen. It is a fact. He didn't see you (from the first example), and to your knowledge he didn't come (second). Using the conditional is more natural and more accurately says what you want to say. So yes, it is possible to use the past (though it conveys a different meaning), but the conditional is the best translation.


I agree with this except that I don't find "I was afraid he didn't come" odd sounding. It seems to me both a perfectly acceptable way to say "I was afraid he hadn't come" and the proper past tense of "I am afraid he doesn't come."





Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, From.
> 
> You write:
> 
> _I agree with you. I just don't think "so that" is being used correctly. For the intended meaning, I would use "such that," which is not very colloquial.
> 
> _Are you really considering the possibility of saying/writing "They arranged things such that they never met"?
> 
> GS
> 
> I'm sorry but I continue to believe that the sentence could be "They arranged things so that they never met" (ie, They arranged things so that eventually they didn't meet", ie "... so that in the end they succeeded in not meeting)
> 
> GS


I agree with you, GS. "So that" does not have to mean "in order that". It can indeed mean "in such a way that" or "in order that and with the effect that". "So that" is ambiguous, but to me "such that" seems wrong here since I would expect it to modify a noun.


----------



## chileno

Gamen said:


> hello.
> But I think, but I'm not sure, with "so that" the structure takes necessarily the "would", whereas with "in such a way that" it can take the past simple. I see there are two different structures that have different "regencies".
> 
> I helped you so that you would finish your work earlier
> I helped you in such a way that you finished your work earlier.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Anyway, would be the previous example correct or not? I mean:
> "They *arranged* things *so that* they never *met*"




Can you translate that to Spanish?


----------



## Gamen

in conclusion.
If " so that" not only can mean "in order that" but also "in such a way that", we can say either
"I hid so that he wouldn't see me" (meaning "in order that", "so as to") or
"I hid so that he didn't see me" (meaning "in such a way that" or "as a result of", "therefore")

So, "so that" can mean both "purpose" and "consequence", depending on the context and the communicative intention.


----------

