# Se me rompieron los platos



## magnus98

In this sentence: Se me rompieron los platos, how do the particles se & me function?  I think that it means: I broke the dishes; but I don't know how to get there.  I think me is reflexive?  I don't have any idea of how se functions.  I know that there is a passive se (not that), an impersonal se (not that), so what kind of animal is it?

Gracias


----------



## micafe

"Se" is part of "romper" used as a pronominal verb: "romperse"

Pronouns like "me", "te", "se" are used to express that the action happened to me (you, him) indicating that I caused the dishes to break. 

You could say "rompí los platos" and it would mean the same thing. That sentence is just a type of construction that's very common in Spanish. 

"Se te cayó el libro" 

"Se nos quemó la carne"


----------



## cubaMania

It's confusing to us.
Accidental and unplanned occurrences:


> The reflexive construction, used mainly with pronominal verbs, can also be used to describe accidental and unplanned occurrences...
> 
> In this type of construction, the reflexive pronoun _se precedes an indirect object pronoun that indicates the subject, and the verb, rather than being conjugated to agree with the subject, agrees with whatever noun follows the verb...
> 
> _​The accidental reflexive construction indicates that the action was unintentional. In addition, because the subject is only referred to by an indirect object pronoun, this construction gives the sense that the subject is not to blame - he or she had nothing to do with the accident.


Look for examples and more explanation here:  http://www.elearnspanishlanguage.com/grammar/verb/accidentalreflexive.html


----------



## Cenzontle

I think "Rompí los platos" could give the impression that I broke them intentionally.
"Se rompieron" comes historically from words that mean "they broke themselves".  
But we know they can't do that, so we take the next-most-plausible meaning, "they suffered breakage, and we're not saying who or what broke them."
Then we insert "me", with a function that is sometimes called the "dative of interest".  
This "me" refers to a person who is "interested in" (affected by, involved somehow with) the event.
So it could mean *my *plates broke, or they "went and broke on me", or I was holding them when they slipped and fell.
But probably *not* "I threw the plates on the floor in order to smash them."


----------



## robjh22

I think the same thing is at work when we say in English, "my car (up and) broke down on me." I guess we could say "my dish broke on me," though it would be less common. 

You understand this, right? "My best huntin' dawg up 'n died on me."

The thing died or broke down, it wasn't my fault, and it affected me personally.


----------



## magnus98

micafe said:


> "Se" is part of "romper" used as a pronominal verb: "romperse"
> 
> Pronouns like "me", "te", "se" are used to express that the action happened to me (you, him) indicating that I caused the dishes to break.
> 
> You could say "rompí los platos" and it would mean the same thing. That sentence is just a type of construction that's very common in Spanish.
> 
> "Se te cayó el libro"
> 
> "Se nos quemó la carne"
> 
> ***********************************************
> 
> I'm still confused.  Which is the reflexive pronoun?  Se or te.   If *te* is the reflexive pronoun (meaning yourself), then what is the meaning of *se*? I have seem this structure many times, but have never been able to understand the meaning of the two pronouns before the verb.
> Which pronoun is reflexive and what is the grammatical function of the other pronouns.  My hunch is that the pronoun next to the verb is reflexive (te in this case), and the other pronoun... I don't know!  I think that this is much more difficult than is seems.  Details are missing.


----------



## Peterdg

magnus98 said:


> micafe said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Se" is part of "romper" used as a pronominal verb: "romperse"
> 
> Pronouns like "me", "te", "se" are used to express that the action happened to me (you, him) indicating that I caused the dishes to break.
> 
> You could say "rompí los platos" and it would mean the same thing. That sentence is just a type of construction that's very common in Spanish.
> 
> "Se te cayó el libro"
> 
> "Se nos quemó la carne"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************************************
> 
> I'm still confused.  Which is the reflexive pronoun?  Se or te.   If *te* is the reflexive pronoun (meaning yourself), then what is the meaning of *se*? I have seem this structure many times, but have never been able to understand the meaning of the two pronouns before the verb.
> Which pronoun is reflexive and what is the grammatical function of the other pronouns.  My hunch is that the pronoun next to the verb is reflexive (te in this case), and the other pronoun... I don't know!  I think that this is much more difficult than is seems.  Details are missing.
Click to expand...

There is no "reflexive" pronoun here. "Romperse" is a pronominal verb. "Lavarse" is a reflexive verb. The difference between the two is that with reflexive verbs, the pronoun says who experiences the action (expressed in English by .._self_). _Me lavo_: I was myself.

This is not true for pronominal verbs. For most of the pronominal verbs, the pronoun adds a "shade" to the meaning of the verb. E.g: 'morir" versus "morirse", "caer" versus "caerse" or "ir" and "irse". This "shade" can be  different for each verb. 

Both reflexive and pronominal verbs have one thing in common: the pronoun always coincides with the person of the conjugated verb. Me lavo, te lavas, se lava ...

Now, in "se te cayó el libro" , it is "se cayó" that forms the pronominal construction. The "te" says to whom it happens (and is not necessary).  In case of "caerse", the addition of "se" and "te/me" to the verb usually indicates that you couldn't help it that the book fell (or it fell unintentionally)


----------



## magnus98

This is the best explanation I've heard.  In summary: accidental reflexive construction, with *se *being the reflexive pronoun (a special usage type, accidental), *te* being an indirect object (indicating the subject--you), and the verb, romperse, conjugated to agree with the noun (los platos) following it.   Is that an accurate summary?   Is there a good book that teaches the details of this type of construction?

Thanks all for sticking with me through this.


----------



## robjh22

Wait till you get to the _se impersonal, as in "Se le informa que el examen ha sido postergado." _


----------



## XiaoRoel

Una diferencia entre el _se_ morfema de impersonalidad (es decir, su presencia impide la expresión del agente de la acción), o de otro modo de impersonalidad llamado pasiva refleja (también sin agente) y el _se_ reflexivo-recíproco es que el se impersonal sólo se puede usar con las terceras personas (las no-personas).


----------



## grahamcracker

Would it be fair to say that any hypothetical Spanish verb --- "xxxx*arse*", appropriately conjugated, can perform the function of an English reflexive OR an ambiguously caused action or event?? Depending on the context of its use?


----------



## Peterdg

magnus98 said:


> This is the best explanation I've heard. *Thank you. * In summary: accidental reflexive construction, with *se *being the reflexive pronoun (a special usage type, accidental), *te* being an indirect object (indicating the subject--you), and the verb, romperse, conjugated to agree with the noun (los platos) following it.   Is that an accurate summary?*Yes. *  Is there a good book that teaches the details of this type of construction?
> 
> Thanks all for sticking with me through this.


If you are an English speaker, buy the grammar of Butt and Benjamin. This is one of the best Spanish grammars in English that I know. If you want a Spanish grammar in Spanish, get yourself the NGLE (Nueva gramática de la lengua española) of the RAE. Of course, both deal with much more than this construction.


----------



## L'Inconnu

"I broke the dishes"

'I' is the subject, and 'broke'  is the verb. What did I break? The dishes.

"The dishes broke"

Now 'dishes' is the subject. What did the dishes break?  We certainly can't say that the dishes broke themselves in English, but we can in Spanish. 

"Los platos se rompieron"
"Se rompieron los platos"

'Los platos' is the subject, and 'se' is the direct object. 

"Se me rompieron los platos."

'Me' is the indirect object. Of course, it wouldn't make sense to say that "The dishes broke themselves to me." But, we might say that "The dishes broke *on* me." 

"Se te cayó el libro"
"The book fell _*from*_ you" 

Notice that in order to get a close translation in English, 1) we drop the reflexive pronoun (itself, themselves, etc),  2) We chose whatever preposition seems appropriate.

Of course, it still sounds odd, but it would sound ok if we said something like "The book fell from your hand". Alternatively, we could say 

''You dropped the book" 

In the above case, as someone pointed out, the subject of the English sentence (you) corresponds to the indirect object of the Spanish one (te). But notice the difference in meaning.

a) Se rompió el reloj
b) Yo rompí el reloj

"Se me rompió el reloj" is closer in meaning to sentence (a).


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Peterdg said:


> "Romperse" is a pronominal verb. "Lavarse" is a reflexive verb.



I view all verbs whose infinitive form ends in -SE to be pronominal verbs, with some having the characteristic of being reflexive. This avoids the confusion that inevitably results when learners encounter pronominal verbs that are not reflexive. Take _quejarse_ (to complain), for instance. If there is anything that can't be reflexive, it's probably complaining. If I am going to complain, I'm not going to do it to myself. I am going to complain to someone else, or there's no point to complaining. There is no verb _quejar_, only _quejarse_.

I have adopted this view of pronominal verbs because this is the approach adopted by Butt & Benjamin, who reject the term reflexive verbs because it leads to confusion. (See § 26.1 and the definition of pronominal verb (p. 580).)


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

grahamcracker said:


> Would it be fair to say that any hypothetical Spanish verb --- "xxxx*arse*", appropriately conjugated, can perform the function of an English reflexive OR an ambiguously caused action or event?? Depending on the context of its use?



No. This is the problem with calling pronominal verbs reflexive. First learners think that reflexive verbs are all reflexive. Then they learn about the not-my-fault use. Butt & Benjamin have a table in § 26.1 showing 8 possible meanings of pronominal verb forms. Three of them involve passive or impersonal constructions, but the other five are: reflexive (_me lavo_), reciprocal (_nos queremos_), intransitive (_se abrió_), se de matización (_se fue_), and "total consumption" (_se comió el pastel_). This does not include verbs that appear only in pronominal form, such as _quejarse_.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

robjh22 said:


> I guess we could say "my dish broke on me," though it would be less common.



Yes, usually it's "*your* dish broke on me." 

_*¿*Como se dice_ Butterfingers!!! _en español*?  *_


----------



## Peterdg

RicardoElAbogado said:


> I view all verbs whose infinitive form ends in -SE to be pronominal verbs, with some having the characteristic of being reflexive.


You are completely right of course.


----------



## grahamcracker

RicardoElAbogado said:


> No. This is the problem with calling pronominal verbs reflexive. First learners think that reflexive verbs are all reflexive. Then they learn about the not-my-fault use. Butt & Benjamin have a table in § 26.1 showing 8 possible meanings of pronominal verb forms. Three of them involve passive or impersonal constructions, but the other five are: reflexive (_me lavo_), reciprocal (_nos queremos_), intransitive (_se abrió_), se de matización (_se fue_), and "total consumption" (_se comió el pastel_). This does not include verbs that appear only in pronominal form, such as _quejarse_.


I cannot understand why you replied "no." You said no then explained why my question could be replied to in the affirmative. The only part that could possibly be "no" would be the ambiguity of some of the events. But a car getting broke down could be phrased ambiguously in English (the car broke down/ se rompió) without citing the exact cause, only that the event happened to the object.

Obviously there are situations and events that I am not familiar with in my study of Spanish, but that was outside the realm of my question. My question was not exclusive.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

I understood your question to be asking whether "*any* hypothetical Spanish verb" could, if appropriately conjugated, perform the function of an English reflexive OR an ambiguously caused action or event. The answer to that question is no, not any verb, only some.
_
Quejarse_, for example, no matter how you conjugate it and no matter what the context, can not "perform the function of an English reflexive OR an ambiguously caused action or event." _Quejarse_, as you probably know, means to complain. _Quejarse_ can not be conjugated properly without the attached pronoun.

_Me quejo mucho_.   I complain a lot.
_Se quejaba todo el tiempo_.   She complained all the time.

As I said in another post in this thread, If there is anything that can't be reflexive, it's probably complaining. If I am going to complain, I'm not going to do it to myself. I am going to complain to someone else, or there's no point to complaining. Furthermore, there's no accident or ambiguous cause when complaining.


----------



## L'Inconnu

grahamcracker said:


> But a car getting broke down could be phrased ambiguously in English (the car broke down/ se rompió) without citing the exact cause, only that the event happened to the object.



We agree



grahamcracker said:


> Obviously there are situations and events that I am not familiar with in my study of Spanish, but that was outside the realm of my question. My question was not exclusive.



I don't know the Spanish definition either. In French, we speak of _pronominal_ verbs, but we conjugate them with _reflexive_ pronouns. So, it's just a semantic point. 

Anyway, my point is that the reflexive pronoun applies when the subject of the sentence is also the direct object. 

The car broke

What broke? The car. 

So, all we are really talking about is the simple fact that Spanish speakers feel the need to provide the sentence with a direct object, when in English we don't bother to. Certainly it's going to sound odd to say "The car broke itself" or "The book fell itself". So we simply drop the superfluous pronoun when we translate from Spanish to English.


----------



## grahamcracker

RicardoElAbogado said:


> I understood your question to be asking whether "*any* hypothetical Spanish verb" could, if appropriately conjugated, perform the function of an English reflexive OR an ambiguously caused action or event. The answer to that question is no, not any verb, only some.
> _
> Quejarse_, for example, no matter how you conjugate it and no matter what the context, can not "perform the function of an English reflexive OR an ambiguously caused action or event." _Quejarse_, as you probably know, means to complain. _Quejarse_ can not be conjugated properly without the attached pronoun.
> 
> _Me quejo mucho_.   I complain a lot.
> _Se quejaba todo el tiempo_.   She complained all the time.
> 
> As I said in another post in this thread, If there is anything that can't be reflexive, it's probably complaining. If I am going to complain, I'm not going to do it to myself. I am going to complain to someone else, or there's no point to complaining. Furthermore, there's no accident or ambiguous cause when complaining.


Oh, really? Take the following: *"He went around all day complaining and muttering to himself continually."

*Would you care to try again?


----------



## grahamcracker

L'Inconnu said:


> So, all we are really talking about is the simple fact that Spanish speakers feel the need to provide the sentence with a direct object, when in English we don't bother to. Certainly it's going to sound odd to say "The car broke itself" or "The book fell itself". So we simply drop the superfluous pronoun when we translate from Spanish to English.


Indeed. It's funny how we use language to avoid responsibility. But that is another discussion altogether.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

grahamcracker said:


> Oh, really? Take the following: *"He went around all day complaining and muttering to himself continually."*



Yes, but in Spanish _querjarse_ can not, by itself, fulfill the reflexive function any more than "to complain" in English can fulfill the reflexive function. 

_Andaba quejandose todo el día.   _ He went around all day complaining.

_Andaba quejandose a sí mismo __todo el día_.   He went around all day complaining to himself.

Just as in English, you need to add "to himself" to make the sense reflexive. The verb itself is not reflexive.

Verbs like _lavarse_ and _peinarse_ are truly reflexive. No outside help needed.


----------



## grahamcracker

RicardoElAbogado said:


> Yes, but in Spanish _querjarse_ can not, by itself, fulfill the reflexive function any more than "to complain" in English can fulfill the reflexive function.
> 
> _Andaba todo el día quejandose.   _ He went around all day complaining.
> 
> _Andaba todo el día quejandose a sí mismo_.   He went around all day complaining to himself.
> 
> Just as in English, you need to add "to himself" to make the sense reflexive. The verb itself is not reflexive.
> 
> Verbs like _lavarse_ and _peinarse_ are truly reflexive. No outside help needed.



So? Isn't that the way with almost all verbs in English? Don't they need help? 

My point was never about exclusivity but rather could it be done. And I took a verb that you said was not reflexive in English and I showed how it could be expressed reflexively in English.


----------



## L'Inconnu

RicardoElAbogado said:


> _ Me quejo mucho_.   I complain a lot.
> _Se quejaba todo el tiempo_.   She complained all the time.



"El enfermo se queja de dolor de cabeza."

_*Who*_ is complaining? The _enfermo._

Obviously, 'dolor' can't be the direct object, because it follows the preposition 'de'. Once again, all we really have is yet another case where the (reflexive?) pronoun serves as a direct object, when English speakers simply don't bother to use one when expressing the same thought.

Now, my question. 

If I can't call it a _reflexive_ pronoun, what do I call it?


----------



## grahamcracker

L'Inconnu said:


> "El enfermo se queja de dolor de cabeza."
> 
> _*Who*_ is complaining? The _enfermo._
> 
> Obviously, 'dolor' can't be the direct object, because it follows the preposition 'de'. Once again, all we really have is yet another case where the (reflexive?) pronoun serves as a direct object, when English speakers simply don't bother to use one when expressing the same thought.
> 
> Now, my question.
> 
> If I can't call it a _reflexive_ pronoun, what do I call it?


L'Iconnu

I think the problem is that while it functions reflexively, xxx-rse verbs are not always reflexive in the strictest sense of the term. We are prone to call them reflexive, but I think the Spanish grammarians find fault with the use of the term because it misleads us non-natives into believing that it is always that way.


----------

