# It was supposed to be a good party  (Subjunctive)



## 1012

Belated happy new year to everyone!

Any comments about the verb- suponer, needing the subjunctive.

If my memory serves me right, what I heard on youtube.com from one of the native speakers was that: 'suponer' does not need the subjunctive.


I hope, it's true (or) am I hoping against hope.

Thanks a million in advance, as usual


----------



## Bevj

We can't give general rules, I'm afraid.
Please give us a specific example and we'll help you find the best translation for that sentence.
Thank you.


----------



## 1012

so, that means there are instances where the subjunctive could be used.

Did i nail it, right?


----------



## Bevj

Without an _example_, I can't answer your question.


----------



## 1012

Sorry, for the late reply.

Examples: 1. It was supposed to be a good party.
                2. Let's suppose it is feminine

Are we supposed to use the subjunctive, in the above?


----------



## Agró

1012 said:


> Sorry, for the late reply.
> 
> Examples: 1. It was supposed to be a good party.
> 2. Let's suppose it is feminine
> 
> Are we supposed to use the subjunctive, in the above?


No.


----------



## gengo

1012 said:


> Examples: 1. It was supposed to be a good party.
> 2. Let's suppose it is feminine
> 
> Are we supposed to use the subjunctive, in the above?



#1 is ambiguous.  It could mean a) it was intended/expected to be a good party or b) I have heard that it was a good party.  Which one do you mean?

a) It was supposed to be a good party, but the rain ruined it.
b) Did you go to John's birthday bash?  It was supposed to be a good party.

In #2, you would use the subjunctive:  Supongamos que es femenino.  The first verb there is in the subjunctive form because it is a sort of command.


----------



## Agró

1012 said:


> If my memory serves me right, what I heard on youtube.com from one of the native speakers was that: *'suponer' does not need the subjunctive.*


Creía que hablábamos del verbo "ser", no del verbo "suponer", y es lo que he interpretado con eso de *'suponer' does not need the subjunctive*, es decir que el verbo "suponer" rige -o no- subjuntivo.
Por supuesto que "Supongamos" es subjuntivo, pero también podría decirse "Vamos a suponer que..." (indicativo).


----------



## Artifacs

Hi @1012,

Do you want to know if the verb «suponer» introduces always a subordinate sentence with a verb in subjunctive mode?


----------



## 1012

Agró said:


> Creía que hablábamos del verbo "ser", no del verbo "suponer", y es lo que he interpretado con eso de *'suponer' does not need the subjunctive*, es decir que el verbo "suponer" rige -o no- subjuntivo.
> Por supuesto que "Supongamos" es subjuntivo, pero también podría decirse "Vamos a suponer que..." (indicativo).


Please use the English language more, while explaining. 
The only reason, that it would help me understanding as to what you are saying better

Hope, you do not take it otherwise.


----------



## 1012

gengo said:


> #1 is ambiguous.  It could mean a) it was intended/expected to be a good party or b) I have heard that it was a good party.  Which one do you mean?
> 
> a) It was supposed to be a good party, but the rain ruined it.
> b) Did you go to John's birthday bash?  It was supposed to be a good party.
> 
> In #2, you would use the subjunctive:  Supongamos que es femenino.  The first verb there is in the subjunctive form because it is a sort of command.


For a better understanding, let us consider both the examples- 
a) It was supposed to be a good party, but the rain ruined it (Subjunctive? If so, why)
b) Did you go to John's birthday bash?  It was supposed to be a good party. (Subjunctive? If so, why)

As far as my understanding goes- 

a) It was supposed to be a good party, but the rain ruined it. no subjunctive
b) Did you go to John's birthday bash?  It was supposed to be a good party- one would use the subjunctive

Also, could you help me with the translation of the above.

And in my second example- Let's suppose it is feminine. (Here, it is a hypothetical situation or we can say a unreal situation. And as per the rules of the Spanish grammar- subjunctive is used in wishes, desires, hopes. &/or unreal situation.) 

Please correct me, if am wrong.


----------



## 1012

Artifacs said:


> Hi @1012,
> 
> Do you want to know if the verb «suponer» introduces always a subordinate sentence with a verb in subjunctive mode?


I wish I had understood your question.

Can you please rephrase it! (introduces always a subordinate sentence with a verb in subjunctive mode.)

Thanks in advance for your time and patience


----------



## Artifacs

1012 said:


> I wish I had understood your question.
> 
> Can you please rephrase it! (introduces always a subordinate sentence with a verb in subjunctive mode.)
> 
> Thanks in advance for your time and patience


Oh, sorry.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to know about the use of the subjunctive of the verb «suponer» or the other verb that goes as part of the direct object sentence that the said verb «suponer» introduces.

In Spanish, the English sentence «It was suposed to + VERB» goes like «Se suponía que + VERB AS DIRECT OBJECT»

Example:


----------



## 1012

Artifacs said:


> Oh, sorry.
> 
> I wasn't sure if you wanted to know about the use of the subjunctive of the verb «suponer» or the other verb that goes as part of the direct object sentence that the said verb «suponer» introduces.
> 
> In Spanish, the English sentence «It was suposed to + VERB» goes like «Se suponía que + VERB AS DIRECT OBJECT»
> 
> Example:


If the sentence is- it was supposed to be a good party.

Should we say: 1. se suponia que es una fiesta buena  or 2. Se suponia que este una fiesta buena.

Also, why is it se suponia. (that means the infinitive is- suponerse?)


----------



## Artifacs

1012 said:


> If the sentence is- it was supposed to be a good party.
> 
> Should we say: 1. se suponia que es una fiesta buena : or 2. Se suponia que este una fiesta buena.


Option 1 might work in some contexts:
Se suponia que es una fiesta buena  

It sounds better: «Se suponía que es una buena fiesta», though.

Option 2 doesn't work because it lacks a verb.:
Se suponia que este *esta* ??? una fiesta buena. 



1012 said:


> Also, why is it se suponia. (that means the infinitive is- suponerse?)


This is just the Spanish way to avoid using a passive voice estructure. We convert English passive voices into other ways to say the same.

Examples:

*It was said that...* ==> Se dijo que... (instead of «Fue dicho que...»)
*I was told that...* ==> Me dijeron que... (instead of «Me fue dicho que...»)
*It is suposed to...* ==> Se supone que... (instead of «Es supuesto que...»
*She was asked...* ==> Le preguntaron a ella... (instead of «Ella fue preguntada...»)


----------



## 1012

Artifacs said:


> Option 1 might work in some contexts:
> Se suponia que es una fiesta buena
> 
> It sounds better: «Se suponía que es una buena fiesta», though.
> 
> Option 2 doesn't work because it lacks a verb.:
> Se suponia que este *esta* ??? una fiesta buena.
> 
> This is just the Spanish way to avoid using a passive voice estructure. We convert English passive voices into other ways to say the same.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> *It was said that...* ==> Se dijo que... (instead of «Fue dicho que...»)
> *I was told that...* ==> Me dijeron que... (instead of «Me fue dicho que...»)
> *It is suposed to...* ==> Se supone que... (instead of «Es supuesto que...»
> *She was asked...* ==> Le preguntaron a ella... (instead of «Ella fue preguntada...»)


Once again please, if the sentence is- 'it was supposed to be a good party.' As per the context of the sentence, it means that the party has been over and one was expecting it to be good. But, it did not turn out that way.

And another thing, if I have understood the subjunctive rules correctly: 'que' is a trigger for the subjunctive
for example: Espero que, quiero que, esperaba que.
I mean, this is what I have learnt.

Why should we say- se suponia que 'es una buena fiesta,' & why not : Se suponia que 'fuera una buena fiesta?'

I mean; why not the past subjunctive?

or what if I say: It is supposed to be a good party (subjunctive or no?)

or another example:  Let's suppose it is feminine. (why no subjunctive?) Here also, it's a unreal situation

Wondering why the subjunctive rules do not apply, with this so called verb?


----------



## Artifacs

1012 said:


> Once again please, if the sentence is- 'it was supposed to be a good party.' As per the context of the sentence, it means that the party has been over and one was expecting it to be good. But, it did not turn out that way.


In that case: the second verb would be in indicative mode because it speaks about a fact that actually happened.

As for the tense of the verb, there are several options, depending on the time that has passed after the party is over. This time is subjective, is not real clock time. It is the time that the speaker wants to convey.

For instance, 

To the speaker the party was over...

long time ago: (both options below mean the same)
Option 1) _Se suponía que iba a ser una buena fiesta_
Option 2) _Se suponía que sería una buena fiesta_
just now: _Se suponía que era una buena fiesta_



1012 said:


> And another thing, if I have understood the subjunctive rules correctly: 'que' is a trigger for the subjunctive
> for example: Espero que, quiero que, esperaba que.
> I mean, this is what I have learnt.


I'm afraid that logic does not always work with all verbs and contexts.

Your three examples have verbs that express hope and desire, which both are an effective trigger for the subjuntive. But what justifies the use of the subjuntive is not the verbs itselves, but the emotions, doubts, probabilities, intentions or commands that the speaker wants to express on using them.



1012 said:


> Why should we say- se suponia que 'es una buena fiesta,' & why not : Se suponia que 'fuera una buena fiesta?'
> 
> I mean; why not the past subjunctive?


Because the speaker wants to express that is a fact (and not a hypothetical case) that the party was not a good party to him.



1012 said:


> or what if I say: It is supposed to be a good party (subjunctive or no?)


That only changes the tense of the verb «suponer» into present tense, also in indicative mode:

_Se supone que es una buena fiesta._



1012 said:


> or another example:  Let's suppose it is feminine. (why no subjunctive?) Here also, it's a unreal situation


You hit the bullseye here.

The subjuntive works when you want to express an hypothetical case:

_Supongamos que sea femenino._ 



1012 said:


> Wondering why the subjunctive rules do not apply, with this so called verb?


As I said, I'm afraid is not that simple. Verbs is not what triggers the use of the subjunctive.


----------



## Peterdg

1012 said:


> And another thing, if I have understood the subjunctive rules correctly: 'que' is a trigger for the subjunctive
> for example: Espero que, quiero que, esperaba que.
> I mean, this is what I have learnt.
> 
> Why should we say- se suponia que 'es una buena fiesta,' & why not : Se suponia que 'fuera una buena fiesta?'


I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. There is no easy rule to decide between indicative or subjunctive.

It is true that the subjunctive normally appears in subordinate clauses (= clauses that are introduced by "que"), but that does not mean that "que" is always followed by a subjunctive.

The use of the subjunctive as opposed to the indicative is often explained in terms of "meaning". Well, that does not work for me as a non native Spanish speaker. Also the RAE (the Real Academia Española) has discovered (and also says that in so many words in the new grammar that they published)  that explaining the opposition indicative/subjunctive in terms of "meaning" does not work. Instead, they (and also I) use an analytical method. It's complex. It's not sexy. It's a lot. It's tedious. But it is the only way that works for me. 

After 30 years of experience with Spanish (and studying the subjunctive), I still get surprised every now and then (well, not that  often anymore  ) with a subjunctive or an indicative that I had not expected.

So, in your specific case, the only thing I can say why "suponer que" is not followed by a subjunctive is: "because". Every other explanation would require a 50 page explanation. 

If you really want to understand the subjunctive/indicative opposition, I recommend you read chapter 25 of the "Nueva gramática de la lengua española" (you can find it online, but it is in Spanish) or buy the book "El subjuntivo, valores y usos" by J.Borrego, J.G.Asencio and E.Prieto. (But it is also in Spanish). Both works require some grammatical background. If you want some English reading material, you can buy the Spanish Grammar of Butt and Bejamin, but this handles more than the subjunctive/indicative.


----------



## elroy

I think this is pretty straightforward.

Verbs expressing *belief/opinion/perception* govern the *indicative*.

Creo / Pienso / Me imagino / Se me hace / Me parece / Sospecho / *Supongo* que *es*  (sea )

It doesn’t matter if it later turns out to be untrue:

Creía / Pensaba / Me imaginaba / Se me hacía / Me parecía / Sospechaba / *Suponía*  que *era * (fuera ) (pero no tenía razón)


----------



## 1012

elroy said:


> I think this is pretty straightforward.
> 
> Verbs expressing *belief/opinion/perception* govern the *indicative*.
> 
> Creo / Pienso / Me imagino / Se me hace / Me parece / Sospecho / *Supongo* que *es*  (sea )
> 
> It doesn’t matter if it later turns out to be untrue:
> 
> Creía / Pensaba / Me imaginaba / Se me hacía / Me parecía / Sospechaba / *Suponía*  que *era * (fuera ) (pero no tenía razón)


But, if say: supongo que------------ means I am supposing. In other words, the context is unreal.

For eg., if I say------ Let's suppose you complete the Spanish course. 
No wonder, we are assuming. And not trigger for the subjunctive?



Artifacs said:


> In that case: the second verb would be in indicative mode because it speaks about a fact that actually happened.
> 
> As for the tense of the verb, there are several options, depending on the time that has passed after the party is over. This time is subjective, is not real clock time. It is the time that the speaker wants to convey.
> 
> For instance,
> 
> To the speaker the party was over...
> 
> long time ago: (both options below mean the same)
> Option 1) _Se suponía que iba a ser una buena fiesta_
> Option 2) _Se suponía que sería una buena fiesta_
> just now: _Se suponía que era una buena fiesta_
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that logic does not always work with all verbs and contexts.
> 
> Your three examples have verbs that express hope and desire, which both are an effective trigger for the subjuntive. But what justifies the use of the subjuntive is not the verbs itselves, but the emotions, doubts, probabilities, intentions or commands that the speaker wants to express on using them.
> 
> Because the speaker wants to express that is a fact (and not a hypothetical case) that the party was not a good party to him.
> 
> 
> That only changes the tense of the verb «suponer» into present tense, also in indicative mode:
> 
> _Se supone que es una buena fiesta._
> 
> 
> You hit the bullseye here.
> 
> The subjuntive works when you want to express an hypothetical case:
> 
> _Supongamos que sea femenino._
> 
> As I said, I'm afraid is not that simple. Verbs is not what triggers the use of the subjunctive.





Artifacs said:


> For instance,
> 
> To the speaker the party was over...
> 
> long time ago: (both options below mean the same)
> Option 1) _Se suponía que iba a ser una buena fiesta_
> Option 2) _Se suponía que sería una buena fiesta_
> just now: _Se suponía que era una buena fiesta_



just now: _Se suponía que era una buena fiesta_
_With due respect,

First you mentioned:_

To the speaker the party was over... Agreed
_And later you are using 'era' which is the present subjunctive. When the party is over, why not use past subjunctive 'fuera.'_



Artifacs said:


> Option 1 might work in some contexts:
> Se suponia que es una fiesta buena
> 
> It sounds better: «Se suponía que es una buena fiesta», though.
> 
> Option 2 doesn't work because it lacks a verb.:
> Se suponia que este *esta* ??? una fiesta buena.
> 
> This is just the Spanish way to avoid using a passive voice estructure. We convert English passive voices into other ways to say the same.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> *It was said that...* ==> Se dijo que... (instead of «Fue dicho que...»)
> *I was told that...* ==> Me dijeron que... (instead of «Me fue dicho que...»)
> *It is suposed to...* ==> Se supone que... (instead of «Es supuesto que...»
> *She was asked...* ==> Le preguntaron a ella... (instead of «Ella fue preguntada...»)


Firstly, thanks for your wonderful way of explaining.

Having said that, you mentioned::: Se suponía que es una buena fiesta»
The english sentence was: it was supposed to be a good party.

Now in other words, I can also say- One supposed that it were a good party
Why not: se suponia que fuera una buena fiesta

Well, I know you are right. 

But, the question is why am I wrong?


----------



## Artifacs

1012 said:


> And later you are using 'era' which is the present subjunctive. When the party is over, why not use past subjunctive 'fuera.


The present subjuntive of the verb SER would be in this case «sea».

I used «era» the imperfect past indicative (what we call «pretérito imperfecto de indicativo»).

See here the model for the verb «ser» Modelos de conjugación verbal | Diccionario panhispánico de dudas


----------



## Artifacs

1012 said:


> Firstly, thanks for your wonderful way of explaining.
> 
> Having said that, you mentioned::: Se suponía que es una buena fiesta»
> The english sentence was: it was supposed to be a good party.
> 
> Now in other words, I can also say- One supposed that it were a good party
> Why not: se suponia que fuera una buena fiesta
> 
> Well, I know you are right.
> 
> But, the question is why am I wrong?


Unfornately, I cannot explain why you are wrong.

I think the subjunctive would be correct If the speaker talks about a party that didn't took place by using a conditional-indicative plus past pluscuamplerfect-subjunctive estructure.

_Supongo que habría sido una buena fiesta si la hubiese organizado yo._


----------



## Peterdg

1012 said:


> But, if say: supongo que------------ means I am supposing. In other words, the context is unreal.


If you read my previous contribution, you should have noticed that "meaning" is not relevant when deciding between indicative/subjunctive. "unreal" is meaning, so not relevant (and also "hypothetical", "certainty", "uncertainty" and all other general meanings).


elroy said:


> Verbs expressing *belief/opinion/perception* govern the *indicative*.


This is generally true but the problem with that is that "suponer" is not really a belief, opinion or perception. If "suponer" were, then "dudar" would also be one. I'm afraid the only option here is to know "belief/opinion/perception" and then learn a list of verbs and expressions that belong to that group and also the ones that do not.

Also, an opinion is often also followed by the subjunctive: e.g. "es lógico que", "es normal que", "es bueno que". (that's why I also included expressions). But then again, "es evidente que", "es manifiesto que" "está claro que" etc. are followed by the indicative.

As I said, complex, etc., etc..


----------



## elroy

Peterdg said:


> "suponer" is not really a belief, opinion or perception.


How so?



Peterdg said:


> If "suponer" were, then "dudar" would also be one.


"dudar" is expressing what you _don't_ believe or at least what you _don't_ think is likely or what you're _uncertain_ about.  This puts "dudar" in the same category as "*no* pensar," "*no* creer," etc., which take the subjunctive due to negation.  



Peterdg said:


> an opinion is often also followed by the subjunctive: e.g. "es lógico que", "es normal que", "es bueno que".


These are different because here the belief/opinion/perception is not expressed by the *verb*, but by an *adjective*.  Note that I said "Verbs expressing *belief/opinion/perception* govern the *indicative*."

Of course we can't boil down the use of the subjunctive to a few simple rules, and things are more nuanced in reality, but I also don't think that learners simply need to learn which verb takes what, one by one.  There are broad tendencies that are really helpful in mastering the subjunctive.  I would say that once those have been mastered, a learner only needs to learn _exceptions_ or _non-intuitive cases _one by one.

This is not a non-intuitive case; it's perfectly straightforward and in line with the general tendencies.


----------



## Peterdg

elroy said:


> This is not a non-intuitive case; it's perfectly straightforward and in line with the general tendencies.


It is straightforward if you know it.

"Dudar" means you are not sure. "Suponer" also means you are not sure; both are opinions, no? 

When I was studying Spanish (in class, about 30 years ago), we were taught the same general rules. And then "suponer" came up. Everybody in class, and I mean everybody, was convinced it had to be followed by the subjunctive, using that rule (and all the crap that had previously been told about hypothetically, uncertainty, reality, factual, etc). See also the very meaningful observation of the OP:


1012 said:


> In other words, the context is unreal.





elroy said:


> "dudar" is expressing what you _don't_ believe


Don't believe is also a belief, isn't it? It's also an opinion. 

The real problem is that all these terms can be interpreted in several ways. Some people have the natural ability to interpret them the right way. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for me (and apparently also for a lot of other people if I see the enormous amount of recurring problems with the ind./subj. opposition).


----------



## elroy

Peterdg said:


> It is straightforward if you know it.


That's obviously neither here nor there.  What I'm saying is that it's a straightforward application of the general tendency.

"dudar" expresses a _*lack*_ of belief.  It's really just saying "*no* me parece" in one word.  One you learn that, you learn to classify it with the negatives.

Perhaps my wording ("belief/opinion/perception") can be tweaked (I came up with it on the fly, in an attempt to articulate the general tendency I'm talking about).  Maybe we should add "positive" ("a *positive* belief/opinion/perception")  However we word it, there's a huge _chasm_ between "suponer" (and "pensar"/"creer" et alia) and "dudar" (and "no pensar / no creer" et alia)  To me, the difference is as clear as day.  I would never teach students to simply learn each of these one by one.



Peterdg said:


> Everybody in class, and I mean everybody, was convinced it had to be followed by the subjunctive


Ni se me ocurriría. 



Peterdg said:


> See also the very meaningful observation of the OP





1012 said:


> In other words, the context is unreal.


This suggests to me that the OP has not properly understood the heuristic, or that the heuristic has not been properly taught to them.  The problem is not with the heuristic itself.

When I say "Supongo que XYZ," it is of ZERO relevance whether XYZ is actually true or not.  What matters is that *I* have the impression that it (probably) is.  *Anything* I believe may turn out to be untrue; that's not what's relevant.  What's relevant is _*my*_ perspective.

That's why we say "Creo que España está en Asia" and "No creo que España esté en Europa."  Here, what I believe about Spain is actually untrue, and what I don't believe about Spain is actually true, but that's not relevant.  What's relevant is *what my personal perspective is*, whether or not it's actually valid.



Peterdg said:


> all the crap that had previously been told about hypothetically, uncertainty, reality, factual, etc


I'm surprised to see you being so dismissive of these heuristics.  While they are of course only general tendencies and won't neatly account for every single case, they are by and large accurate and incredibly useful in learning and mastering the Spanish subjunctive.  It makes no sense to me to instruct students to learn each case of subjunctive usage one by one.


----------



## gengo

1012 said:


> _And later you are using 'era' which is the present subjunctive.   _



If you search for "ser" (or any verb) in the WR dictionary, next to that verb on its page you will see a little arrow (looks like =>).  If you click on that, you will go to a page that shows all the conjugations of the verb, where you will see that _era_ is not a subjunctive form, but indicative.  As mentioned above, you may be confusing _era_ with _sea_, which is indeed subjunctive.


----------



## Peterdg

elroy said:


> I'm surprised to see you being so dismissive of these heuristics.


Because they are not helpful. It's like explaining the etymology of a word; it's perhaps interesting to know where it comes from but it does not explain how it is used nowadays. It's in fact an "after-the-facts" explanation. They are useless to generate the correct answer. ("teoría explicativa" (you know what the answer is and you adapt the theory to match the answer) as opposed to "teoría generativa").

Take the simple example of: "creer que" is followed by the indicative and "no creer que" is followed by the subjunctive.

Well, good luck. There are cases where "creer que" (= non negated) can be followed by a subjunctive and cases where "no creer que" can either be mandatorily, or optionally, be followed by an indicative (some documented, some not).

As I said before, it's (very) complex and the introduction of these general terms based on meaning only create a false sense of understanding and, later on, a lot of frustration if you find out it does not correspond to reality.


----------



## elroy

I wholeheartedly disagree.  These heuristics, if presented properly and clearly, are extremely helpful in the actual process of learning, understanding, and internalizing most cases of subjunctive use. Yes, there are exceptional cases, but as long as the instructor makes it clear that the heuristics are not gospel and don't straightforwardly cover every single case, the student should be prepared to encounter certain exceptions and learn those one by one.  There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

These heuristics help learners really _feel_ what the subjunctive captures and conveys, rather than just memorizing dry grammatical rules by rote.  In fact, the more learners internalize what the subjunctive actually _is_, as opposed to just seeing it as an abstract grammatical nuisance with no rhyme or reason that they simply have to learn, the more those exceptional and non-straightforward cases will actually resonate and make sense.  In fact, speaking for myself, there are very few, if any, cases of subjunctive use in Spanish that just don't make sense to me and I have to just "accept."

Languages are not 100% mathematical, but they're also not totally random.  There is a great deal of consistency and internal logic to each language system.  We learn that system best when we learn and absorb its structural foundations *as well as* the exceptions, quirks, and idiosyncrasies that make each language unique and non-mathematical.  We don't need to sacrifice one for the other.  They can happily coexist and complement each other along the language-learning journey.


----------



## Peterdg

elroy said:


> Yes, there are exceptional cases, but as long as the instructor makes it clear that the heuristics are not gospel and don't straightforwardly cover every single case, the student should be prepared to encounter certain exceptions and learn those one by one. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


It may work for you, but it doesn't for me.


Peterdg said:


> Some people have the natural ability to interpret them the right way.


I am a mathematician by formation (I can't help it). You don't teach half thruths or things that can be interpreted in an ambiguous way. 

Perhaps this is not the right place to discuss this (poor OP  ).

If you want, we can continue in a PM.


----------



## elroy

Peterdg said:


> You don't teach half truths or things that can be interpreted in an ambiguous way.


That's not what I'm advocating for.  If you re-read my posts carefully, you'll see that.


----------



## 1012

elroy said:


> That's obviously neither here nor there.  What I'm saying is that it's a straightforward application of the general tendency.
> 
> "dudar" expresses a _*lack*_ of belief.  It's really just saying "*no* me parece" in one word.  One you learn that, you learn to classify it with the negatives.
> 
> Perhaps my wording ("belief/opinion/perception") can be tweaked (I came up with it on the fly, in an attempt to articulate the general tendency I'm talking about).  Maybe we should add "positive" ("a *positive* belief/opinion/perception")  However we word it, there's a huge _chasm_ between "suponer" (and "pensar"/"creer" et alia) and "dudar" (and "no pensar / no creer" et alia)  To me, the difference is as clear as day.  I would never teach students to simply learn each of these one by one.
> 
> 
> Ni se me ocurriría.
> 
> 
> 
> This suggests to me that the OP has not properly understood the heuristic, or that the heuristic has not been properly taught to them.  The problem is not with the heuristic itself.
> 
> When I say "Supongo que XYZ," it is of ZERO relevance whether XYZ is actually true or not.  What matters is that *I* have the impression that it (probably) is.  *Anything* I believe may turn out to be untrue; that's not what's relevant.  What's relevant is _*my*_ perspective.
> 
> That's why we say "Creo que España está en Asia" and "No creo que España esté en Europa."  Here, what I believe about Spain is actually untrue, and what I don't believe about Spain is actually true, but that's not relevant.  What's relevant is *what my personal perspective is*, whether or not it's actually valid.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised to see you being so dismissive of these heuristics.  While they are of course only general tendencies and won't neatly account for every single case, they are by and large accurate and incredibly useful in learning and mastering the Spanish subjunctive.  It makes no sense to me to instruct students to learn each case of subjunctive usage one by one.


First, and foremost- am not talking about the verb creer.

It was and is only about the verb 'suponer.'

Anyways, thanks for your time


----------



## elroy

I introduced “creer” for comparison purposes.  My posts, like others’, have centered on “suponer.”

Please review this:


elroy said:


> When I say "Supongo que XYZ," it is of ZERO relevance whether XYZ is actually true or not. What matters is that *I* have the impression that it (probably) is. *Anything* I believe may turn out to be untrue; that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is _*my*_ perspective.
> 
> That's why we say "Creo que España está en Asia" and "No creo que España esté en Europa." Here, what I believe about Spain is actually untrue, and what I don't believe about Spain is actually true, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is *what my personal perspective is*, whether or not it's actually valid.


----------



## 1012

gengo said:


> If you search for "ser" (or any verb) in the WR dictionary, next to that verb on its page you will see a little arrow (looks like =>).  If you click on that, you will go to a page that shows all the conjugations of the verb, where you will see that _era_ is not a subjunctive form, but indicative.  As mentioned above, you may be confusing _era_ with _sea_, which is indeed subjunctive.


Yes, I do agree with you.
_era_ is not a subjunctive from. It is indicative.



1012 said:


> Sorry, for the late reply.
> 
> Examples: 1. It was supposed to be a good party.
> 2. Let's suppose it is feminine
> 
> Are we supposed to use the subjunctive, in the above?


Could anyone please advise/help, if we are supposed to use the subjunctive in the above mentioned examples.

If yes, please let me know why.   Thanks a million, in advance.



elroy said:


> I introduced “creer” for comparison purposes.  My posts, like others’, have centered on “suponer.”
> 
> Please review this:


So, that means in the above mentioned examples:

1. It was supposed to be a good party.
2. Let's suppose it is feminine

We shall not use the subjunctive?


----------



## gengo

1012 said:


> So, that means in the above mentioned examples:
> 
> 1. It was supposed to be a good party.
> 2. Let's suppose it is feminine
> 
> We shall not use the subjunctive?



As already said several times in this thread, no.


----------



## 1012

gengo said:


> As already said several times in this thread, no.


@gengo Thanks, a million.


----------

