# ...se pot transforma oricând î scenarii...



## chatkigazouille

Hello all!

I am reading a news article about places and weather and am trying to figure out a few things in this sentence:

"Poveştile care circulă în jurul lor *se pot *transforma oricând *î scenarii* de filme."

1) Why do we use se putea instead of just putea in here, and how is it different otherwise?
2) What is the purpose of "_*î*" _in "î scenarii"?

Thank you all!


----------



## farscape

Hi chatkigazouille,

Let's take care of the typo first: 'î scenarii' is in fact 'în scenarii'

Second, we'll simplify things a bit:

"Poveștile se pot transforma în scenarii" which means "the stories/tales could turn into screenplays"

This construction is the reflexive voice which is obtained by using the reflexive pronoun "se", in this case to describe a possibility of the tales changing (or be changed, depending on the rest of the context), into screenplays.


----------



## chatkigazouille

farscape said:


> Hi chatkigazouille,
> This construction is the reflexive voice which is obtained by using the reflexive pronoun "se", in this case to describe a possibility of the tales changing (or be changed, depending on the rest of the context), into screenplays.



How would the meaning of the sentence be different (or not at all?) if we did not use the reflexive voice, i.e. "Poveștile *pot* transforma în scenarii"?

Thank you!


----------



## farscape

When the object of the action is the tales themselves you need the reflexive pronoun.

In your version, "poveștile pot transforma" the only meaning you can get is an action performed by the tales on something else: "poveștile pot transforma realitatea" -> the tales can change the reality.

In contrast, "poveștile se pot transforma în realitate" translates as "the tales (themselves) could turn into reality".


----------



## chatkigazouille

farscape said:


> In contrast, "poveștile se pot transforma în realitate" translates as "*the tales (themselves) could turn into reality*".



Gotcha! Thanks. I learn something new today. This is really interesting.

So in Romanian, when we want to make a reflexive situation with "putea", we make putea reflexive, instead of the infinitive, correct?

I'm curious because in French, we'd say "Ils peuvent se transformer..." (They can transform themselves) - the infinitive is the reflexive ("se transformer"), and not "pouvoir" (putea in this case).

Thank you!


----------



## farscape

A putea is no more special than other verbs 

Let's consider these examples:

 Poveștile se transformă - defines a certainty, the tales themselves, given the pronoun se, are turning into something.

Poveștile se pot transforma - defines the possibility for the tales to be turned into something. ( a se putea - the reflexive form of "a putea" defines a possibility, somewhat close to the French form you're quoting)

Please note the changes of the main verb in the predicate, a transforma.


----------



## chatkigazouille

What I was trying to say was that, the structure is

1) a se putea + transforma [infinitive]
Se pot transforma în scenarii...

and not

2) a putea + se transforma [infinitive]
Pot se transforma în scenarii...

 I'm guessing that 2) is wrong, correct me if not.


----------



## farscape

Yes indeed, #2 is not correct. 

The possibility is indicated by the verb 'a putea' and the action by the verb 'a transforma'. 

f.


----------

