# tenerse en cuenta que dichos envases estén hechos (subjunctive)



## flicg

Why is the subjunctive used here: "podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que no se exceden en sus envases o que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables"?

 Is it to do with the fact that we could take it into account but we don't have to?


----------



## Circunflejo

No. It has to do with the fact that they may have that sort of _envases _or may not have that sort of _envases_. If we knew for sure that those _envases_ met the requirement, we would use the indicative (están).

P.S.: the _que dichos envases_ part is odd and sounds ugly.


----------



## flicg

But where is the doubt that certain brands do not overdo their packaging or that the packaging is recyclable?


----------



## Circunflejo

flicg said:


> But where is the doubt that certain brands do not overdo their packaging or that the packaging is recyclable?


The uncertainty is about the recyclable packaging. Exceden is in indicative so there's certaintity about the existence of _marcas _that don't make it. On the other hand, estén is in subjunctive so they may be or they may not be.


----------



## flicg

Ah. So  If I have understood you correctly estén is expressing a doubt, it is not a necessary consequence of a previously implied doubt.


----------



## Peterdg

flicg said:


> But where is the doubt





flicg said:


> is expressing a doubt


No.

You should abandon the believe that "doubt" is a concept that is related to the subjunctive. The concept "doubt" is far too flexible to be used as a determining factor for the indicative/subjunctive opposition.

In your specific case, the verb "estén hechos" appears in a relative subordinate (1) with antecedent "dichos envases". In a relative subordinate, the subjunctive is used to impose a condition/restriction on the antecedent.

I'm aware that this is rather technical, but I'm afraid that is the only way to follow to understand how the subjunctive is used in Spanish.

(1) A relative subordinate is a subordinate that acts like an adjective that qualifies a noun (in this case "dichos envases").


----------



## flicg

OK, thanks.


----------



## flicg

Sorry, what is the condition/ restriction that the subjunctive imposes on "dichos envases"?


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Circunflejo said:


> P.S.: the _que dichos envases_ part is odd and sounds ugly.


But it does call for the subjunctive for the same reason _envases_ does


----------



## Peterdg

flicg said:


> Sorry, what is the condition/ restriction that the subjunctive imposes on "dichos envases"?


The condition is that these "envases" must be made from recycled material.


----------



## Circunflejo

Reina de la Aldea said:


> But it does call for the subjunctive for the same reason _envases_ does


 Envases is a noun there.


Peterdg said:


> The condition is that these "envases" must be made from recycled material.


Yes, but that would be true too if the indicative was used.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Circunflejo said:


> Envases is a noun there.
> 
> Yes, but that would be true too if the indicative was *were *used.


Yes, very sloppy.  It was right of you to call me out, C


----------



## flicg

Isn't it not that estén requires a condition (I don't see how that could work) but rather that the condition requires that the verb takes the subjunctive?


----------



## Circunflejo

flicg said:


> Isn't it not that estén requires a condition (I don't see how that could work) but rather that the condition requires that the verb takes the subjunctive?


The latter isn't true because that sentence could have been written with indicative (están) if there was certainty about the condition. I'll leave the former to who suggested it.


----------



## Peterdg

flicg said:


> Isn't it not that estén requires a condition (I don't see how that could work) but rather that the condition requires that the verb takes the subjunctive?


Honestly, I don't understand what you are saying here.


----------



## pollohispanizado

flicg said:


> "podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que no se exceden en sus envases o que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables"


Here the subjunctive doesn't express doubt in the sense of not knowing, instead it's more like not assuming.

_Brands that don't over-use packaging or whose packaging (*whichever that may be*) is made from recyclable materials might be considered._


----------



## Sendro Páez

Me gustaría ofrecer mi punto de vista, que sé que va a ser frustrante. Pido perdón de antemano. Veamos:

— La frase en cuestión («Podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que no se exceden en sus envases o que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables») está mal construida.

— Yo no la entiendo.

— Nos falta contexto, sin duda, pero creo que no es lo más preocupante en este galimatías.

— No sé si el problema es semántico o gramatical..., pero está mal redactada.

— No sé identificar el sujeto (sujeto _paciente_, en este caso) de la construcción verbal «podrían tenerse en cuenta».

— No sé identificar los elementos coordinados por la conjunción disyuntiva _o_.

— Llegado a este punto, no me sorprende que el redactor haya escogido mal el modo verbal en algún caso.

— No entiendo cómo pueden convivir «exceden» (indicativo) y «estén» (subjuntivo) en esas dos estructuras aparentemente coordinadas.

— Intuitivamente, tiene menos lógica ese verbo en indicativo que el otro en subjuntivo.

— Si tienes que traducir la susodicha al inglés, flicg, te doy mi pésame. Si, por el contrario, estás aprendiendo gramática, te sugiero que te olvides de este texto y pases a otro. Sin remordimientos, ya que, repito, esta es una construcción fallida.


Me gustaría ahora alumbrar un poco. A ver si, aprovechando el contraste que producen los enunciados disponibles, lo consigo:

— La frase _Podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que no se exceden en sus envases_ sí está bien construida.
· Implica necesariamente la existencia de unos seres _denominables_* «marcas que no se exceden en sus envases».​· El hablante considera cierta dicha existencia en el momento de la enunciación de la frase.​
— La frase _Podría tenerse en cuenta que dichos envases estén hechos con materiales reciclables_ también está bien construida.
· Implica la existencia de ciertos «envases».​· El hablante considera posible el cumplimiento de la condición, por parte de los envases mencionados, de estar hechos con materiales reciclables.​· Este cumplimiento puede ser presente o futuro, pero en ningún caso el hablante lo considera cierto.​

* Me he inventado esta palabra sobre la marcha.


----------



## Peterdg

Estoy de acuerdo con Sendro: la frase está construida, por lo menos, de manera poco cuidadosa.

Pero sí lo que puedo hacer, es intentar de dar una sugerencia de traducción:

"They could consider those brands 1) that do not exaggerate with their containers (packaging) or 2) that those (= dichos) containers are made of recycled materials". 

Tampoco es una traducción esmerada pero he intentado dar una traducción bastante literal.

Mejor sería algo como:

"They could consider those brands that do not exaggerate with their containers or whose containers are made of recycled materials".


----------



## pollohispanizado

Peterdg said:


> "They could consider those brands that do not exaggerate with their containers or whose containers are made of recycled materials".


Based on the mention of recyclable materials, I think _que no exceden en sus envases_ means "that do not not have bulky packaging/use more materials than is necessary in their packaging."


----------



## Peterdg

pollohispanizado said:


> Based on the mention of recyclable materials, I think _que no exceden en sus envases_ means "that do not not use more materials than is necessary in their packaging."


Possibly. I don't know. There is not enough context to decide on that.


----------



## Rocko!

En realidad, podemos emplear tanto el indicativo como el subjuntivo: _estén, están_. La única diferencia es la presencia de matices que no llegan a funcionar como tales.

El subjuntivo en este caso hace alusión a un "_*siempre y cuando*_...", que propone a los interlocutores análisis, distinción y clasificación de la infomación.

Imaginemos que el edministrador de WordReference está imaginando qué criterios podría usar para eliminar o conservar foreros, y les dice a los moderadores: "_Podríamos dejar a los foreros que no hacen chistes o a los que en caso de hacerlos, esos chistes *sean (solo) *sobre gramática_". Lo que aquí tendríamos es que los criterios requieren que se haga una revisión de las participaciones pasadas y, posiblemente, también las actuales de los foreros, pudiéndose hacer incluso pronósticos sobre el futuro, del tipo "éste hace chistes de gramática, pero presiento que un día los comenzará a hacer colorados, habrá que vigilarlo", ¿y qué significa esto? Que *presumiblemente *hay foreros que hacen chistes sobre gramática. Y ellos se quedarían, *siempre y cuando* no los hagan colorados, verdes, etc.

Si en cambio dijéramos: "_Podríamos dejar a los foreros que no hacen chistes o que en caso de hacerlos, sus chistes son sobre gramática_", el mensaje no contiene un "siempre y cuando", ni se oiría completamente bien la restricción "_son solo_", a diferencia del ejemplo anterior con "_sean solo_".

El indicativo nos dice "si hay, pum", mientras que el sunjuntivo "si es que de verdad, pero de verdad, hay, pum" (si hubiera). Tal vez se vería más claro así: _Vas a entrar a esa habitación y vas a despertar a los que *están *dormidos_ (anda y hazlo) Vs. _Vas a entrar a esa habitación y vas a despetar a los que *estén* dormidos_ (anda, fíjate quién sí y quién no, y actúa en consecuencia). Estos matices pueden perderse con suma facilidad cuando las frases o los contextos son más complejos o hay ideas que roban más la atención que las que contienen los modos indicativo o subjuntivo; de todas maneras, los hablantes no dejarán de añadir los matices, es decir, elegirán el modo que más se ajuste a la forma en que desean que las cosas se hagan o entiendan.


----------



## flicg

Unfortunately I no longer have the piece to hand to give you the full sentence. I'm not entirely sure it would have helped much.

To pick up @Sendro Páez 's point, I didn't have to translate the piece.  I had to figure out why the subjunctive was being used in some cases.  I actually found the fourth example (not shared here) so hard I couldn't come up with any ideas of my own, didn't even pitch it to you on the forum and gave up.  I may come back to you later with it on a separate post.

FWIW I think @pollohispanizado was closest to the meaning here.

At first I didn't see how the nuance in @Rocko!'s examples would translate to English, but now I think it might be something like: "Go into that room and wake up those who are sleeping" versus "Go into that room and wake up those who may (could be) be sleeping". But then that makes me wonder why you might use the subjunctive rather than the conditional....

Not to diverge too far, his examples, the input from you all plus the fact that I learnt today that Spanish uses the subjunctive much more than French (which I speak better), helped me figure out why I think the subjunctive is used in my sentence.   "Dichos envases" doesn't translate particularly well in English either to my mind.  I reckon it would sound a bit pompous.

Previously I might have translated the phrase as "...those brands which don't overdo their packaging or whose packaging is made of recycled materials."  This is why I was saying I didn't see why there were these references to "may or may not", uncertainty, doubt, ambiguity.

I now realise that in English I might more clearly say:  "...those brands which don't overdo their packaging or whose packaging _may be made _of recycled materials.


----------



## Rocko!

flicg said:


> But then that makes me wonder why you might use the subjunctive rather than the conditional....


No es posible, solo podríamos apuntar con el dedo de la mano una caja  llena de manzanas y dar la orden: "_desecha las manzanas que están/estén podridas_".

Estas frases con subjuntivo que estamos revisando solo aceptan que las reescribamos con subjuntivo:

...o que dichos envases *estén *hechos a base de materiales reciclables → ...o que dichos envases *estuvieran *hechos a base de materiales reciclables.

...o que dichos envases *estarían *hechos a base de materiales reciclables.
...o que dichos envases *podrían estar* **hechos a base de materiales reciclables.

Solo el indicativo en tiempo presente "están" podría sustituir al subjuntivo "estén", manteniendo el significado de la frase (supongamos en esta ocasión que los matices de los modos no forman un significado verdadero, solo una intención).


----------



## flicg

Thanks. Useful to know that you can't say "dichos envases podrían estar hechos a base de materiales reciclables" nor, presumably, "desecha las manzanas que podrian ?estar/?ser podridas". 

Although I can often recognise the subjunctive, as yet I rarely use it & without your pointer would probably have tried to get round it using the conditional. Now I know not to!


----------



## Rocko!

flicg said:


> Twould probably have tried to get round it using the conditional.


Perdón, solo puedo comentar sobre la oración en español. Desconozco si podría traducirse al inglés usando el condicional en inglés.
Espera más opiniones respecto al inglés.
Suerte y saludos.


----------



## Circunflejo

flicg said:


> "Dichos envases" doesn't translate particularly well in English either to my mind.


The problem isn't dichos envases but the linking with the rest of the sentence with o. The intended meaning of o is like in English A or B. In this case A would be what follows the first que and B what follows the second one. If you drop A, the sentence doesn't make sense (and it should make sense). If you go for a less usual reading and consider that the only thing to drop would be en sus envases, it wouldn't make sense either.


flicg said:


> I think it might be something like: "Go into that room and wake up those who are sleeping" versus "Go into that room and wake up those who may (could be) be sleeping". But then that makes me wonder why you might use the subjunctive rather than the conditional....


There's no room for the conditional unless you change the meaning of the sentence. Think about your original sentence as if there were two groups: one that meets the requirement of recyclable packaging and another one that doesn't meet it. If you used the conditional, there would be two possible readings: 1) that they could meet the requirement of recyclable packaging and they actually meet it. 2) that they could meet it but they don't meet it actually. In other words, all the enterprises could have recyclable packaging but some of them have it and some others don't have it. Therefore, the conditional isn't useful to select one of the groups because it just tells us that they could have recyclable packaging; something that both of them could make. The indicative tells us there's no doubt (at all) that there are enterprises that are actually making recyclable packaging so it selects one of the groups and it confirms that that group exists. The subjunctive tells us that there may be enterprises that are actually making recyclable packaging. As well as the indicative, it selects one of the groups (the one that actually makes recyclable packaging) and that makes it different from the conditional because the latter doesn't select one of the groups. On the other hand, the subjunctive differs from the indicative in that the indicative confirms that such group actually exists while the subjunctive doesn't confirm it, it just says that it may exist. 

Maybe the rant above is too dense and not clear at all. So maybe something shorter could clarify it for you. Your second sentence above (Go into that room and wake up those who may (could be) be sleeping) could be re-phrased this way: Go into that room and if there were (subjunctive in English too) people sleeping, wake them up.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Circunflejo said:


> Go into that room and if there were are people sleeping, wake them up


While English does have the subjuntive, it doesn't go here, because it is an if-clause in the present.

But to express doubt you could say:

_Go into that room, and if there is anybody/are any people sleeping, wake them up_.


----------



## flicg

Circunflejo said:


> "If you drop A, the sentence doesn't make sense (and it should make sense)".


If the subjunctive depends on A, which, in a subordinate clause (B) I think you were saying earlier it does, then how could B (in the subjunctive) make sense if you dropped A unless the indicative was used instead of the subjunctive?



Circunflejo said:


> The indicative tells us there's no doubt (at all) that there are enterprises that are actually making recyclable packaging so it selects one of the groups and it confirms that that group exists. The subjunctive tells us that there may be enterprises that are actually making recyclable packaging. As well as the indicative, it selects one of the groups (the one that actually makes recyclable packaging) and that makes it different from the conditional because the latter doesn't select one of the groups.


I am lost with this idea of "selecting".



Circunflejo said:


> On the other hand, the subjunctive differs from the indicative in that the indicative confirms that such group actually exists while the subjunctive doesn't confirm it, it just says that it may exist.


This is clear.


----------



## Circunflejo

flicg said:


> If the subjunctive depends on A


No. It not depends on A. There are two subordinated clauses: A) que no se exceden en sus envases. B) que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables. If we make a full sentence for each subordinated clause, we have: A1) podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que no se exceden en sus envases. B1) podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables. A1 makes sense. B1 doesn't make sense (it would make sense if it said _cuyos _instead of _que dichos_ though).


flicg said:


> I am lost with this idea of "selecting".


A or B; not A and B. Therefore, in A or B you pick either A or B; i.e.: you select one group (A or B). A=there are enterprises that make recyclable packaging. B=There are enterprises that don't make recyclable packaging. Both the indicative and the subjunctive refer to A so they are picking (selecting) A and, therefore, not picking (selecting) B.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Sin ánimo de enturbiar aun más la cosa, he aquí otro ejemplo, este tomado del NGLE:

_Se explicará a lo largo de esta gramática la naturaleza de la anomalía que caractarice las construcciones que se consideren incorrectas_...

The subjuntive here expresses the idea of unspecificity; there is no doubt that there are constructions that are considered incorrect or that they are characterized by an anomaly. (Granted, in this example there is an element of projection into the future, which is also the purvue of the subjuntive in many cases, especially in subordinate and relative clauses.)

It is for the same reason that the subjuntive is used with _cualquier(a), donde(quiera), como(quiera), quien(quiera), no importa.._. It has nothing to do with doubt, but instead unspecificity.

_Voy a dar un dulce a quienes tienen puesta una camisa roja_ (sé quienes son, los he visto con una camisa roja puesta)

_Voy a dar un dulce a quienes tengan puesta una camisa roja_ (no dudo que hay personas que tienen puesta una camisa roja, pero no sé en concreto quienes sean, o no me importa; les daré un dulce independientemente de quienes sean, con tal de que cumplan la condición que tener puesta la camisa)


----------



## Rocko!

pollohispanizado said:


> _Se explicará a lo largo de esta gramática la naturaleza de la anomalía que *caractErice* las construcciones que se *consideren* incorrectas_...


"Caract_*e*_rice". Este ejemplo con subjuntivo está correctamente escrito (quien opine lo contrario estaría diciendo que la NGLE está mal redactada) pero creo que la construcción es chocante para muchos nativos del idioma español cuando se lee fuera de su contexto general, es decir, sin leer la página entera del libro. Presentada así, como una frase aislada, presiento que la gran mayoría, por no decir que todo el mundo, la prefiriría con indicativo o la escribiría con indicativo.


----------



## Ballenero

flicg said:


> Why is the subjunctive used here: "podrían tenerse en cuenta aquellas marcas que no se exceden en sus envases o que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables"?
> 
> Is it to do with the fact that we could take it into account but we don't have to?


(He sido incapaz de leer todos los comentarios).

De forma breve, el subjuntivo aquí expresa una condición, entonces la frase en subjuntivo:
…o que dichos envases estén hechos a base de materiales reciclables.
En indicativo:
…o si dichos envases están hechos a base de materiales reciclables.


----------



## flicg

I have taken on board the later points, thank you. I have also got back my papers.  For those who were wondering what the whole sentence was, I see it was simply preceded by "Además".


----------

