# Se me va a quemar el pollo.



## Baines

I do not understand the syntax in this sentence. Could someone please explain it to me?

Thank you


----------



## Pitt

Lo veo así:

_Se me va a quemar el pollo._

el pollo = sujeto
se = componente del verbo prominal _quemarse_ (no es un complemento directo), (en este caso también llamado _se accidental_
me = complemento indirecto

Saludos


----------



## duvija

El pollo se va a quemar y la responsable soy yo ("me")

Saludos


----------



## Baines

I don't understand the use of "me" in this sentence. The English translation in the text book where I found this is given as: "My chicken will burn" or "The chicken will burn". If it is the first one, shouldn't the sentence read: "Se va a quemar mi pollo" and if it is the second one: "El pollo se va a quemar". "Me" is in the postion of an indirect object and there is no indirect object in this sentence.


----------



## K.Z.

One doesn't need the "me"; it's just a way of speaking. To me, the "me" indicates I'm the person cooking the chicken.

Se va a quemar el pollo = The chicken will burn. (Anyone could be cooking this chicken.)
Se va a quemar mi pollo = My chicken will burn. (It's my chicken, but someone else other than me could be cooking it.)
Se me va a quemar el pollo = The chicken (*I'm *cooking) will burn.


----------



## SevenDays

K.Z. said:


> One doesn't need the "me"; it's just a way of speaking. To me, the "me" indicates I'm the person cooking the chicken.
> 
> Se va a quemar el pollo = The chicken will burn. (Anyone could be cooking this chicken.)
> Se va a quemar mi pollo = My chicken will burn. (It's my chicken, but someone else other than me could be cooking it.)
> Se me va a quemar el pollo = The chicken (*I'm *cooking) will burn.


 
Yes, this is spot on. _Syntactically_, "me" functions as the indirect object; _semantically_, it indicates _I'm cooking_ the chicken (or_ my cooking_). In Spanish, you can have an indirect object without a direct object, whereas I don't think that's the case in English (but never say never; there may be some exceptions).
Cheers


----------



## Menocchia

There are many uses of "se" in Spanish, it's one of the most discussed topics in Spanish Grammar.

I think in this particular example it works as what is called "se intrasitivizador", meaning a way of making the verb intransitive, avoiding all reference to the agent that performed the action.

Regarding the "me", I think it's called "dativo de interés", that basically mentions the person affected or interested in what the verb is expressing... We see this in sentences such as "el bebé no me come" (usually told by the baby's mother). I think it's still under discussion if this should be considered an Indirect Object (taking into account that we usually see Indirect objects following Direct Objects).

Hope this made some sense


----------



## k-in-sc

We have similar constructions in English, although they are not as common. "This chicken's going to burn on me if I don't turn the heat down quick," "He up and died on me," "The baby's not eating very well for me," etc.


----------



## duvija

El dativo de interés, se llama en inglés 'ethic(al) dative'. Existe pero poco.
(I'm gonna buy me a little truck).

Saludos.


----------



## k-in-sc

Hmm, are you sure "I'm gonna buy me a little truck" is the best example? The construction is more similar, but in that case it seems like it just means "for myself" and would be like an IO. It's not quite the same meaning as "Se me va a quemar el pollo," at any rate. The difference is that in English that idea generally is expressed with the pronoun as the object of a preposition.


----------



## duvija

No, I'm sure is not the same construction, but it's an example of the ethic dative, isn't it?


----------



## reinaldo83

I don't know a lot of english but i'm gonna try to do my best...

"Se va" is something like "is going to"... So:

Se va a quemar el pollo = The chicken is going to burn

BTW, it should be: "El pollo se va a quemar" since the correct gramma is Subject+Verb+Object...

So i would say "Se va" is something like "is going to", so it indicates (in this case) future sense... For example:

Mi hermana se va a comprar un sombrero = My sister is going to buy a hat (for herself) I'm gonna explain this parenthesis later...

Va = Conjugation 3rd person singular of the verb "Ir" (Go)

But another option would be:

Mi hermana se irá a comprar un sombrero = My sister will go to buy a hat (for herself)

Irá = 3rd singular person conjugation in perfect future of the verb "Ir"... In english we use the auxiliar "Will" to express the future sense...

Now "Se" indicates, i think, something like the Reflexive Pronouns. I mean, the action goes over the same subject.

If in spanish we say (without the "se"):

El pollo quemará = The chicken will burn.... I'm not sure if in english it has complete sense but in spanish you could ask: "The chicken will burn WHAT?" My car ( for example )... "The chicken will burn my car"... No, "The ckicken will burn itself", so... That "itself" can be understood when you read "se"...

"El pollo se va a quemar" or inverted "Se va a quemar el pollo"

Another example:

"Se van a comprar una laptop"...

"Van" = 3rd plural person conjugation or the verb "Ir", so there is an implicit "Ellos" (They) at the very beginning of the sentence, so you understand:

(Ellos) se van a comprar una laptop = They are going to buy a laptop "for themselve"

Again, that "Themselve" can be understood because of the "se" because if you don't use the reflexive pronoun, it could be a laptop for anything, it could be for a gift, it could be for reselling or whatever, in that case you say:

(Ellos) van a comprar una laptop = They are going to buy a laptop

Reason: We don't know, it could be any reason.

But no, the laptop is for themselve so if you use the word "se" you can understand the laptop they are buying is for themselve...

I hope you are understanding this...

Now, the word "me" is something like the Indicative pronouns (not sure if that's the name). I mean:
Me = Me
te = you (singular)
le = her, him, it
nos = us
les = you (plural), them

Example:

El pollo se "me" va a quemar = The chicken is gonna burn "because of me" ( I'm not sure how to translate it exactly): Maybe, "The chicken i'm cooking is going to burn"

El pollo se "te" va a quemar = The chicken you are cooking is going to burn.

El pollo se "le" va a quemar = The chicken He/she is cooking is going to burn.

El pollo se "nos" va a quemar = The chicken we are cooking is going to burn.

El pollo se "les" va a quemar = The chicken you(plural)/they are cooking is going to burn.

In this case this "indicative pronoun" says the person that action is happening to (like a responsable of the action)...

Note: you can put the "se" in there or after the verb (together), i mean:

El pollo va a quemar"se" ( no resposable )
El pollo va a quemar"se""le" (He/she is reponsable)

But it's better to say: (it sounds better)

El pollo se va a quemar ( with no responsable)
El pollo se me va a quemar.
El pollo se les va a quemar.
El pollo se te va a quemar.
El pollo se le va a quemar.

Etc.

Hope you can find this useful

Bye.

Reinaldo.


----------



## k-in-sc

duvija said:


> No, I'm sure i*t'*s not the same construction, but it's an example of the ethic dative, isn't it?


I had to look it up. An example of the ethic dative from "Henry IV," "he that kills me some six or seven dozen of Scots at a breakfast," is explained not as "he who kills for me" but "he who kills, I am told ...". And elsewhere the ethic dative is explained as "the use of 'me' in lively expressions to indicate some one (sic) who is interested in the statement or whose feelings sympathize with the action." 
So no, based on that, I'd say "I'm going to buy me a truck" is not an example of the ethic dative at all. But I'm not a linguist ...


----------



## Baines

Many thanks for all the excellent and informative responses.


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> I had to look it up. An example of the ethic dative from "Henry IV," "he that kills me some six or seven dozen of Scots at a breakfast," is explained not as "he who kills for me" but "he who kills, I am told ...". And elsewhere the ethic dative is explained as "the use of 'me' in lively expressions to indicate some one (sic) who is interested in the statement or whose feelings sympathize with the action."
> So no, based on that, I'd say "I'm going to buy me a truck" is not an example of the ethic dative at all. But I'm not a linguist ...


 

If it isn't, then why is it so weird?.
Normally it would be 'I'm going to buy a truck/ I'm gonna buy a truck'
The addition of 'me' is unnecessary, but if ... ok, maybe my definition of ethic dative is a little bit more general than yours. Oh, wait. In Spanish it would be 'me voy a comprar un camioncito', with no dative at all. So you may be right. My hat to you (I think I mangled this expression right now). :-((


----------



## chrismac

duvija said:


> My hat to you (I think I mangled this expression right now). :-((


@ duvija: "I take my hat off to you"!


----------



## k-in-sc

"My hat is off to you"  
I'd still like to know the technical term for the "buy me a truck" construction, which I hear every day where I live. I had never come across the ethic dative, which appears to have gone out of use several hundred years ago (and was confusing even in its heyday).


----------



## chrismac

k-in-sc said:


> I had never come across the ethic dative...


Neither have I. Back in the day, when I knew more about grammar than I do now, I'm fairly sure there was something known as the "ethic*al *dative", but I don't remember what it was!


----------



## k-in-sc

Wikipedia just gives examples using Latin and Greek:
Dativus ethicus (ethic dative) indicates that the person in the dative _is or should be especially concerned_ about the action, e.g. 'quid mihi Celsus agit?' ' What is Celsus doing' (I am especially interested in what it is)?
Dativus ethicus: The dativus ethicus, or the 'ethic or polite dative,'  is when the dative is used to signify that the person or thing spoken of _is regarded with interest by someone_. This dative is mostly, if not exclusively, used in pronouns. As such, it is also called the "dative of pronouns." For example:
"τούτῳ πάνυ μοι προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν." (Demosthenes 18.178). 
"Pay close attention to this, I beg you (i.e., please pay..)".
"ὦ μῆτερ, ὡς καλός μοι ὁ πάππος." (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 18.178).  
"Oh, mother, how handsome grandpa is (I've just realized!)".

Hard to believe English used to have this too! Interesting, though!


----------



## chrismac

¡Wow! And (since my reply has to have a minimum of ten characters) Wow again!


----------



## VictorBsAs

Entonces, ¿cómo traducirían esto al inglés?
- Se me quemó el pollo.
- Ja ja ja 
- Te reís porque el pollo se me quemó a mí. Si se te hubiera quemado a vos no te reirías.


----------



## k-in-sc

"I burned the chicken."
"Hahaha!"
"You're laughing because I burned it. If you had burned it you wouldn't be laughing."
OR
"The chicken burned."
"Hahaha!"
"You're laughing because I was cooking it. If you were the one cooking it, you wouldn't be laughing."


----------



## duvija

Se puede?:
You're laughing because it was me who burned it. If it had been you/ If it had happened to you, you wouldn't be laughing.


----------



## k-in-sc

duvija said:


> You're laughing because it was me who burned it. If it had been you/ If it had happened to you, you wouldn't be laughing.


Another possibility: "who let it burn"/"who let it get burned."


----------



## VictorBsAs

Thank you, k-in-sc and duvija. I think I have got the idea.
I like the approach "If it had happened to you" because I think that
"Quemé el pollo" is something I did, but
"Se me quemó el pollo" is something that happened to me.


----------



## k-in-sc

If you don't think it was really your fault, you might want to say "The/this chicken got (a little) burned," with no reference to the fact that you were in charge of it, even though in Spanish you might include the "me."


----------

