# ¿Cómo te rompiste la pierna? / ¿Cómo se rompió la pierna?



## zeppo

Romperse continues to find ways to give me trouble, even after I think I understand it.

I saw these examples provided in an old post here by someone from Madrid.:

¿Cómo te rompiste la pierna?  
¿Cómo se rompió la pierna?

I am familiar with the 2nd sentence.  But the first one confuses me a bit.

With the first, is the first also considered another way of using the "accidental 'se'", as I see some tutorials call it?  Or, rather that reflexive (you broke yourself) , considered simply the Indirect Object (English term) used to identify the owner of the leg?  Not that it makes much difference either way, but I'm just trying to understand the perspective of the Spanish speaker with this first sentence.

Also, is the first one used as much as the second?  I understand there may be regional differences, but I'd like to hear from them. 

thanks
Zeppo


----------



## kayokid

The first sentence is the "tu" form of address and the second is "usted".

Grammatically, the "te" and "se" are the indirect objects, _as far as I know_, yes. It specifies whose leg it is, as you say.

Let's see if we can get confirmation from someone a bit more adept at Spanish grammar.


----------



## zeppo

Actually, the second is not Usted, but is reflexive, and the subject is la pierna.  

Romperse is one of the trickiest verbs for me, along with acabar and deber.  i've put a lot of time into understanding them, and they still throw me from time to time.  I drill myself on them with a flashcard app, and think I have a handle on them, and then I out of nowhere get a brain freeze.


----------



## inib

zeppo said:


> ¿Cómo te rompiste la pierna?
> ¿Cómo se rompió la pierna?


I agree with kayokid. The only difference between those two sentences is that the first one is in the "tú" form and the second one uses "Usted".
The corresponding versions using the "accidental se" and the leg as subject would be:
¿Cómo *se te* rompió la pierna?
¿Cómo *se le* rompió la pierna?


----------



## Dave Ugidos

inib said:


> I agree with kayokid. The only difference between those two sentences is that the first one is in the "tú" form and the second one uses "Usted".
> The corresponding versions using the "accidental se" and the leg as subject would be:
> ¿Cómo *se te* rompió la pierna?
> ¿Cómo *se le* rompió la pierna?


Some comments that may help or maybe create more confussion (hopefully not):
Zeppo, firstly see if you agree that the 2nd sentence meaning could be ambigous if no context comes with it. I agree it is the polite form for you (Usted) that does not exists in the English language. But it could also mean "how did he/she break his/her leg?"

Secondly, see if these 2 sentences can help clarify the indirect objects or they put more worries over your attempts of understanding this tricky verb:

Al rompérsete la pierna, ¿te dolió mucho? (A ti?)
Al rompérsele la pierna, ¿le dolió mucho? (A Usted?)

(Again, the second one could be ambigous if no context or if the "Usted" word is not utilized).


----------



## MGKuni

zeppo said:


> Actually, the second is not Usted, but is reflexive, and the subject is la pierna.



No lo veo así. A menos que haya un contexto extraño (una pierna rota y sin cuerpo), "¿Cómo se rompió la pierna?" se refiere normalmente a que un sujeto (él, ella, usted, la vaca, el perro, etc.) se rompió su propia pierna.

(Yo) Me rompí la pierna esquiando (¿Cómo me rompí la pierna?)
(Tú) Te rompiste la pierna esquiando (¿Cómo te rompiste la pierna?)
(Él) Se rompió la pierna esquiando (¿Cómo se rompió la pierna?) - 3ª persona singular (él, ella, usted)
Etc.

No necesitamos utilizar posesivos, porque no decimos "Rompí mi pierna" sino "Me rompí la pierna" (la mía). Observa que sería diferente decir: "Le rompí la pierna" (Yo rompí la pierna de él/ella/usted - le rompí la pierna a él/ella/usted).

La segunda frase que has puesto te puede confundir con la pregunta: ¿Cómo se rompió la televisión?, donde claramente la televisión no se rompe a sí misma, pero es una especie de impersonal. Aquí dejo que alguien te lo pueda explicar mejor.


----------



## zeppo

Wow, thanks everybody for clarifying this!  I had intended both sentences to be two different ways of saying the same thing to someone with whom you have a relationship that uses "tu".   But by the confusion I caused with the second sentence,a great point has been made to me about the construction needed:  "¿Cómo *se te* rompió la pierna?"

I have been trying to engrain in my mind the distinctions in the use of this verb with body parts (or articles of clothing perhaps in some cases) verses non-body parts combined with the "accidental" implications that are typically used.   This is exactly the kind of relapse back into confusion I have with this verb if I don't practice/study it often enough.    The web becomes tangled again.  But you have given me something to study again.  I'm pretty sure I have a follow up question, but let me absorb this first.  

Thanks to *all* of you!


----------



## zeppo

kayokid said:


> The first sentence is the "tu" form of address and the second is "usted".
> 
> Grammatically, the "te" and "se" are the indirect objects, _as far as I know_, yes. It specifies whose leg it is, as you say.
> 
> Let's see if we can get confirmation from someone a bit more adept at Spanish grammar.



Ok, I had to step back and refresh my mind a bit to find my source of confusion again.  Here is what I don't understand:  I haven't found anything saying that "se" is an indirect object.  That is, I would expect it to be "le".  Therefore, I concluded that it is reflexive, and that being so, that the leg broke itself. 

So if you are correct, then it is "you broke yourself".  Now regarding the "accidental 'se' ", what I had read is that this applies to what things do to themselves that happen to another.   I dropped the cup.   Se me cayó el taza. [cup is the subject].  

But perhaps this is where body parts come into play, and it is the thing that always makes wrapping my mind around romperse problematic in remembering these "ins and outs" as we say in English.


----------



## zeppo

MGKuni said:


> (¿Cómo se rompió la pierna?) - 3ª persona singular (él, ella, usted)



I don't understand this.  Why wouldn't you say "¿Cómo le rompió la pierna?" for the 3rd person Usted,  since  the indirect object for Usted is le?


----------



## kayokid

zeppo:

Review the "reflexive verb pronouns". These are used for reflexive verbs.

"Se" is the 3rd pers. sing. (and plural). Its* function* in your specific sentence is as the indirect object.


----------



## zeppo

kayokid said:


> zeppo:
> 
> Review the "reflexive verb pronouns". These are used for reflexive verbs.
> 
> "Se" is the 3rd pers. sing. (and plural). Its* function* in your specific sentence is as the indirect object.



Ok, well that is more clearly worded then.  I see now, I think. When you said indirect objects in your initial reply, I'm thinking yes that makes sense for "te", and that is why i was okay with that first sentence in the original post (but the second had me confused.)

So in my original posts, if both are reflexive pronouns, the first one says literally, "How did you break yourself the leg?" using the familiar "tu".  Given this as the norm, then I think I can translate better MGKuni was telling me.  I was having trouble translating his Spanish reply, and Google Translate wasn't helping enough.


----------



## zeppo

Dave Ugidos said:


> Al rompérsete la pierna, ¿te dolió mucho? (A ti?)
> Al rompérsele la pierna, ¿le dolió mucho? (A Usted?)
> 
> .



Yes, from your sentences and Inib's I think I am remembering why that Spanish requires the indirect object with body parts when using the 'accidental se'.  The spanish speaker is used to the indirect object clarifying the owner of the body part, so it would sound unnatural without the clarifying indirect object.  This is what I have to hammer into my head about body parts and romperse, as distinguished from, for example, walking into a room and seeing a broken lamp on the floor and asking someone there "How did the lamp break?"  I use a flashcard app to generate cards that are scheduled by the app to test me on this stuff, but I think I need to add some cards that ask about this rule as well as just the translations.  Maybe I can go longer this time without a relapse of confusion.

Thanks to all.


----------



## kayokid

Let me add one more thing in the hope that it will help clarify this.

vestirse - to get dressed; to dress oneself

Me visto.
Te vistes.
(El) se viste. "Se" is the direct object (by function).

ponerse - to put something on yourself/your own body

Me pongo la camisa.
Te pones la camisa.
(El) *se* pone la camisa.  Here you have named the thing "put on". (This is the direct object.) By doing so the 'se' pronoun which refers to who is getting the shirt put on is the indirect object by function.

Compare:
El padre *le* pone la camisa. = The father puts the shirt on him/his child, etc. The child is getting the shirt put on, so he is the i.o. by function here. This is the verb: vestir [*not* reflexive]!!


----------



## zeppo

MGKuni said:


> La segunda frase que has puesto te puede confundir con la pregunta: ¿Cómo se rompió la televisión?, donde claramente la televisión no se rompe a sí misma, pero es una especie de impersonal. Aquí dejo que alguien te lo pueda explicar mejor.



Yes, I think I understand now.  What gets me confused is when I forget the distinction between sentences concerning body parts and those concerning objects, like the television.  As long as I can remember this point, and particular the reason, I think I will be better off.  When I forget the reason behind it, I start questioning all the sentences I have used as examples for my studies and I end up back at Word Reference.com asking questions again.    I've just got to keep hammering it into my head.


----------



## kayokid

zeppo said:


> I don't understand this.  Why wouldn't you say "¿Cómo le rompió la pierna?" for the 3rd person Usted,  since  the indirect object for Usted is le?



If I understand this sentence correctly it means:

How did you break his leg?

Let's  see if we can get confirmation on this.


----------



## zeppo

kayokid said:


> If I understand this sentence correctly it means:
> 
> How did you break his leg?
> 
> Let's  see if we can get confirmation on this.



Ok, I see.   I think I've got it now.  Now I just have to hope I can make it stick.    Thanks for the help!


----------



## MGKuni

kayokid said:


> If I understand this sentence correctly it means:
> 
> How did you break his leg?
> 
> Let's  see if we can get confirmation on this.



Sí 
zeppo, mira siempre la conjugación del verbo para ver el sujeto. Está en 3ª persona sing.: usted, él, ella. Y el "le" objeto indirecto de "a él, a ella, a usted"
La frase "¿Cómo le rompió la pierna?", sin contexto, es un poco ambigua:
How did you break his/her leg? - ¿Cómo (usted) le rompió la pierna (a él/ella)?
How did he/she break your/his/her leg? - ¿Cómo (él/ella) le rompió la pierna (a usted/a él/a ella)?

Hope this help!


----------



## zeppo

Well, I have another follow up question.

1)  Se rompió la pierna.  (Usted) >  You broke your leg.
2)  Se me rompió la pierna.  (Usted) >  You broke my leg. (... but I understand it wasn't intentional).
3)  Se me rompió la pierna.   >  My leg broke.  (slipped on some ice when nobody else was around).

4) Se le rompió la pierna.  (a usted) > Your leg broke.

If #2 is wrong, then how would you say it?


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

zeppo said:


> If #2 is wrong, then how would you say it?


You broke my leg:
Me rompiste la pierna (Tú)
Me rompió la pierna (Usted)


----------



## kayokid

I don't know that there is a way to imply the idea that it was done unintentionally with 'se'...

That is, to have the same meaning as in:
Se me rompió la pierna

and having somebody else being responsible.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

"Me rompió la pierna" does not imply unintentionality (nor the opposite). You would have to add "intencionadamente", or "sin querer", to clarify that.
Unintentionality is implied only in "Se me rompió la pierna" (explicitly meaning that there is no one responsible for that).


----------



## zeppo

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> "Me rompió la pierna" does not imply unintentionality (nor the opposite). You would have to add "intencionadamente", or "sin querer", to clarify that.
> Unintentionality is implied only in "Se me rompió la pierna" (explicitly meaning that there is no one responsible for that).



And as I understand it then,

"Se me rompió la pierna" > "My leg broke."
  Se le rompió la pierna. (a usted) > Your leg broke.
  Le rompió la pierna.   (Usted) >  You broke his leg.

So if a very large person trips and falls and lands on a small person and breaks his leg, and you examine the small person and say to the big person, "Le rompió la pierna", this is okay and does offend the big guy by implying it was intentional?

I ask because adding to the confusion about how to use this romper/romperse has been how to factor in this question of accidental verses intentional.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

As far as "le rompiste la pierna" does not specify whether it was intentional or not, your big guy may probably try to immediatly clarify that, not allowing the speaker to hold any doubt about it (unless he feels guilty, in which case he may not open his mouth, so as to allow the possibility that the speaker may believe that it was not his fault after all).
Hope it is clear. 

But I feel it is almost the same with English; "you broke his leg" has a slight implication of responsibility on the "you"-subject, does it not? Even though it does not clarify whether it was intentional or not... or so I read it.


----------



## kayokid

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> .
> 
> But I feel it is almost the same with English; "you broke his leg" has a slight implication of responsibility on the "you"-subject, does it not?  Even though it does not clarify whether it was intentional or not... or so I read it.


----------



## zeppo

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> As far as "le rompiste la pierna" does not specify whether it was intentional or not, your big guy may probably try to immediatly clarify that, not allowing the speaker to hold any doubt about it (unless he feels guilty, in which case he may not open his mouth, so as to allow the possibility that the speaker may believe that it was not his fault after all).
> Hope it is clear.
> 
> But I feel it is almost the same with English; "you broke his leg" has a slight implication of responsibility on the "you"-subject, does it not? Even though it does not clarify whether it was intentional or not... or so I read it.



In English, "You broke is leg" absolutely implicates "you" as the *cause *of the broken leg, but without indicating whether it was intentional.   My thinking had been from what I had read about Spanish that you had to be more careful about this in Spanish than in English.  If that is not the case, then that makes things easier.

But then it makes me think of how, if a waiter were to drop a tray of wine glasses, in Spanish the waiter would say "The wine glasses dropped," whereas in English the waiter would say "I dropped the wine glasses."    In English, the first thought of the listener would not be that he did it on purpose.  Also, in English anyone seeing the waiter carrying the tray walk out of view, and the hear him drop the wine glasses, would think it odd if the waiter said "The wine glasses dropped" as they came around to view the mess. Yet it seems to me that the English student of Spanish is led to believe if the waiter had said "Caí los vasos," one should think he was saying that he did it on purpose. So I had carried over this impression to the use of romper. 

I appreciate the clarification.  This helps me to understand how to use romper better.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

I am not sure where do you get that we say "the glasses dropped" ; the usual Spanish expression would be "se me cayeron las copas". "Se cayeron las copas" would sound in your example as weird as in English.

Other than our more or less complicated use of "se" and the personal pronouns, I think it is correct to use these expressions with the understanding of equivalence to the corresponding English ones.


----------



## inib

zeppo said:


> "Caí los vasos,"


Zeppo, I think it might be a good idea if you started a new thread about _fall/drop _or _caer/caerse/caérsele algo a alguien_ because I hate to tell you this, but it's even more complicated than _romper_. To start off with, Spanish doesn't have two words like _drop_ and _fall_.


----------



## zeppo

Thanks, inib.  I see what you mean about caer and that sentence.  I forgot that there isn't literally a way to say (transitively)  "I dropped" with caer.  Needed a better example.  Actually, I haven't had much trouble with caer.  I would not have said "Caí los vasos" because I know it is not correct, even if I forgot the reason why.    To me, using caer is far easier than romper.  But I guess I have some kind of block with romper.  

But now, I next want to sort out "esperar" once and for all.


----------



## zeppo

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> I am not sure where do you get that we say "the glasses dropped" ; the usual Spanish expression would be "se me cayeron las copas". "Se cayeron las copas" would sound in your example as weird as in English.
> 
> Other than our more or less complicated use of "se" and the personal pronouns, I think it is correct to use these expressions with the understanding of equivalence to the corresponding English ones.



In English, in that situation, the waiter would not say "The glasses fell/dropped to me" (or on me), unless he has no idea what happened (some mysterious force swept the tray from his hand).  That would seem strange to say.  In other words, my point was in English in that situation, the waiter would not make "the glasses" the subject of the verb as a way of conveying it was accidental (and trust me, having waited tables for years earlier in life, I have seen plenty of dropped glasses.)  Yet it seems when being taught Spanish there is this emphasis on how not making "the glasses" the subject would come across as being an intentional incident.  It is a problem though that I picked the wrong verb to use as an example I think.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

zeppo said:


> when being taught Spanish there is this emphasis on how not making "the glasses" the subject would come across as being an intentional incident


Ok, ok, it is not really like that but thanks for letting me understand inib's point; "caer" does deserve a separate thread!


----------



## zeppo

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> Ok, ok, it is not really like that but thanks for letting me understand inib's point; "caer" does deserve a separate thread!



Actually, it would be more to my to my interest to start a thread on the "accidental se", as English textbooks on learning Spanish call it.   I did a google search and came up with one that is interesting, but I haven't read it all yet.  Unfortunately, no native Spanish speakers take part.   But from your input here, my thought is that the "accidental 'se'" is just a label and convention invented by English speaking teachers as a way of explaining the use of sentences where what is more often the object of the sentence in English is now the subject.

In that thread,  someone (not a native Spanish speaker) gives these  examples:


1) Se me ha roto la bicicleta. = *I* have broken my/the bike (by accident).
2) Se ha roto la bicicleta. = The bike has gotten/been broken. (by some event we don't know of, but it wasn't broken by me).

to me, given what I have learn from you all, I would correct the above with the following:


Se me ha roto la bicicleta. = *I* have broken my/the bike (by accident).  > The bike has broken on me.  ("on" being the way we would say it in English).

Se ha roto la bicicleta. = The bike has gotten/been broken.  *?* (by some event we don't know of, but it wasn't broken by me).

I mark the second with a question mark, because if  "se rompió la pierna" is the use of Usted to say "you broke your leg", then I have to wonder if "Se ha roto la bicicleta" would be the use of Usted to say "you have broken the bike") .

Assuming he is correct about his translation of the second sentence, then I mark the comment "it wasn't broken by me" as wrong because I see nothing, at least in English, that precludes the speaker from having broken the bike.


Yet the poster, NewDestiny, goes on to say:

"It can also be said: He roto la bicicleta. (on purpose). But there's an obvious admission of guilt when it's said that way"

From what you tell me, as a native Spanish speaker, this is wrong.  There is no obvious admission of guilt of having done it intentionally.  The cause is simply left unexplained, if I understand you all correctly.  This would be true in English as well.  Yet we English speakers are picking up this notion from  this convention used by our teachers of labeling this structure "the accidental se" as they try to make it fit in some way that students will remember how to use it, I suppose.


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

Ok. I think you got it all almost right.

"Se ha roto la bicicleta" means the bike has gotten broken, but yes, in Spanish it means it was not my fault (and I may or may not know how it happened). In fact it means it was no one's fault _because the subject is a non animated object_. Obviously enough, it also implies that there was no intention to break it. The same goes for just any other verb ("se (me) estropeó el coche", "se (me) cayeron las copas" -yes, this last one is trickier as "caer" is always non-intentional).

But do not get confused. The use of "me"/"te"/"se" is just descriptive, as "who suffered the action", the action happened "to whom".
Let us see if this helps:
"Murió el gato" (the cat died)
"Se murió el gato" (same meaning, really; "el gato (se) murió")
"Se _me_ murió el gato" (same meaning again, but you add "to me" ("me"), as stressing that the action is "suffered" by me)

Now,
"Se ha roto la bicicleta" (the bike got broken, no one's fault; the subject is the bike)
"Se me ha roto la bicicleta (same meaning, but adding "me", meaning it happened "to me"; I am the "sufferer" of the action. And it does not necessarily imply that it happened while I was using it; "Mamá, se me ha roto la bicicleta. Juan estaba dando una vuelta con ella de tranqui y la rueda se salió sola.")

When instead of using the bike as subject you use a person, as in "(Yo) He roto la bicicleta", this means it was me (an animated object) who broke it (it was my fault), but again there is neither explicit nor implicit implication of intentionality. [You lend me a bike, I have an accident and crash it, I return with the broken bike and I say "Lo siento, he roto la bicicleta". Obviously enough (in this case at least) it was not on purpose. Even more, imagine the accident was a car's fault. It is not so much "guilt" what I assume when I say "He roto la bici" as "responsibility" (you lent me your bike and even if it was not my fault "the bike broke because of me riding it", and I am assuming my responsibility for the bike with you)].

Now, it is not so much the use of "se" as the election of the subject (_la bici_ se rompío versus _yo_ rompí la bici) what brings about or not a person responsible for the action. In either case, there is no implicit intentionality.

Hope it makes sense.

And by the way, "(Usted) se ha roto la pierna" sounds natural. "(Usted) se ha roto la bicicleta", although correct, is a bit weird. You would say "(A usted) se _le_ ha roto la bicicleta" (fortunately enough, the forms with "usted", at least in Spain, are rarely used).


----------



## zeppo

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> Ok. I think you got it all almost right.
> 
> "Se ha roto la bicicleta" means the bike has gotten broken, but yes, in Spanish it means it was not my fault (and I may or may not know how it happened). In fact it means it was no one's fault _because the subject is a non animated object_. Obviously enough, it also implies that there was no intention to break it..



Hmm, well this is an important difference between English and Spanish then.  

In English, when we say "The window has gotten/has been broken" the fact that the subject is an inanimate  object has no bearing on whether anyone is at fault.  The sentence simply doesn't *address* the question of who is at fault, but it does not rule out that it was intentional.  It simply provides no information to reveal the answer to that question.  It could be followed by a conversation in which the speaker reveals he has no knowledge of how it happened, or it could be that the speaker knows how it happened. 

-- "Oh, how did that happen?"
-- "Some kids were walking by and I saw one of them throw a rock at it.  They ran before I was able to get outdoors."

No one would think twice, at least with USA English, about the fact that the first sentence was phrased the way it was.  There wouldn't be a contradiction that lead to a follow up, "But you just said it was nobody's fault."    The phrasing of that sentence would have had no importance.  Now, yes, the fact that in English it doesn't give any answers as to whether it was intentional or not might lead one to use that phrasing as a way of softening the blow of retribution, or for whatever reason.  


-- "Oh, how did that happen?"
-- "Well, I'm sorry, but I didn't realize how close I was and caught it with the leg of the table I bought when I was carrying it inside."

It seems it is not that the subject is inanimate that makes the difference, but that in Spanish you go further by saying that it has broken *itself*, whereas in English we don't think of it that way (no "itself").  Since in Spanish the using the inanimate object requires you to include "itself", by default, the choice of that subject makes a difference in Spanish that isn't there in English.  Understanding the real degree of that importance to the Spanish listener is part of my question, but I think you've addressed that, and I will probably just have to keep reading lots of examples in context to get a real feel for its use.  I probably won't be able to assimilate it until I become much more fluent.  But I can keep trying to drill myself.

The question of intentionality expressed with other phrasing, I think you have addressed clearly enough, and if I understand you correctly, when New Destiny said :

"It can also be said: He roto la bicicleta. (on purpose). But there's an obvious admission of guilt when it's said that way"  (Guilt only in the sense of *cause* but not *intent*.)


----------



## ChemaSaltasebes

You've got it perfectly all right!

Just one little minor thing. That "se" in Spanish is not really "itself", although it moves a bit somehow in that direction. You could say "La bici rompió", "La bici murió", but this would be sort of like "humanizing" the bike (but don't take this literally). You could use your example of the kid throwing a rock on the bike, and as in your example, the owner could have had started the story with "La bici se rompió". There would be no contradiction but an understandable relevance on the side of the owner/story-teller on the fact that the bike is broken over the fact that another kid did break it. He is saying it was nobody's fault, or more specifically, in this particular case, he is saying I don't care whose fault it was; the fact is that the bike is broken!. But he is definitely not saying that the bike broke by "itself" (because it was old, for example). It is really the subject what is relevant here, the bike versus the other kid. The "se" does not have that "itself" implication... at most just "moving a bit somehow in that direction".

So, at the end, you might want to substitute "no one's fault" in my previous comments for "no one is being blamed", to gain a little precision (wow, this is harder than what I had suspected! The truth is that the actual meaning is somewhere in the middle of those, and a bit closer to no one's fault than to no one is being blamed...!). Check this out: 
- Ey, ¿la bici se rompió?
- Oye, que no fui yo
- Yo no he dicho eso
- Ya, pero por si acaso
[la bici se rompió does not rule out _completely_ the possibility that the speaker does have someone to blame]

Pero discúlpame, todo esto es probablemente excesivamente sutil, incluso para la mayor parte de nativos (¡y muy probablemente no todos estarían de acuerdo conmigo!), y no tengo tan claro que pueda ayudarte a ganar fluidez. Aunque, ¡quién sabe!. ¡Ya nos contarás cuando hayas reposado la info!


----------



## zeppo

ChemaSaltasebes said:


> The "se" does not have that "itself" implication... at most just "moving a bit somehow in that direction".



"No fault 'se'" is better, which I noticed some lessons call it, although more specifically I might call it the "no fault indicated 'se'". 

Maybe the sense is a cross between this and the use of "se" as is found in, "Se puede? " for instance?
Ey, ¿la bici se rompió? > The bike, it broke?   (we wouldn't say it that way in English, but I'm thinking more in meaning than in translation)

I may be really getting off on a tangent, but it almost seems the that this "no fault se", though it names the subject, is then a kin to sense of the "impersonal 'se'".  An impersonal se that happens to name the subject, though that is a contradiction in terms, in which the subject and verb are almost evaluated independently.  As weird as that sounds, it seems to best describe the sense I am getting.

Oh well, at any rate, I think I have some valuable input from you and the others as to the sentiment to the Spanish listener behind its use.  Thanks for bearing with me to the end.  I feel like I got it.  But the again I've said that before and my confusion later returned.  So I'll have to keep reviewing it while it is fresh and hope to find ways to make it stick.


----------

