# Se Passive / Se Impersonal



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *'SE' impersonal*, no grammatical subject, locked in third person singular:
> a) *without direct object*:
> Se come mucho en España.
> Se vive bien aquí*.*
> b) *With Direct Object* (= 'a' personal)
> Se respeta *a* los ancianos  (DO).
> Se acoge *a *todos los desvalidos (DO).



In the above good explanation given by Ivy29 -- the last example there bothers me. I don't consider 'todos los desvalidos' to be sufficiently specific a group of people to warrant the structure with personal 'a'. In your opinion, native speakers, wouldn't that sentence be more commonly said in the Se Passive as:

Se acogen todos los desvalidos./Todos los desvalidos se acogen. ??

And if it can be said both ways -- is there any semantic difference?


----------



## Ana_Fi

No, I think that it is usually said the way Ivy said.

'Se acogen todos los desvalidos' is not wrong, but I'd use 'se acoge a'.
'Todos los desvalidos se acogen' -> If 'todos los desvalidos' is still the DO, it should after the verb. You may see it in a different order, but very rarely. Using this order, what I understand is:
'todos los desvalidos' -> subject
'se acogen' -> pronominal verb, with this meaning:
*9. *prnl. Invocar para sí los beneficios y derechos que conceden una disposición legal, un reglamento, una costumbre, etc. 
_Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados_


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ana_Fi said:


> what I understand is:
> 'todos los desvalidos' -> subject
> 'se acogen' -> pronominal verb, with this meaning:
> *9. *prnl. Invocar para sí los beneficios y derechos que conceden una disposición legal, un reglamento, una costumbre, etc.
> _Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados_



Hmmm.. If the verb is a pronominal -- then the SE Impersonal is not being used at all -- it's a simple active voice sentence. In Se Impersonal the 'se' cannot be understood as part of a pronominal verb construction. I think the verb is transitive.


----------



## Ana_Fi

NewdestinyX said:


> I think the verb is transitive.


Yes, for sure.
But in the last example you gave, the order of the sentence made me think of 'acogerse', with the meaning I pointed out.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ana_Fi said:


> Yes, for sure.
> But in the last example you gave, the order of the sentence made me think of 'acogerse', with the meaning I pointed out.



Thanks Ana. In passive sentences my understanding is that Spanish can have either word order. Are you saying that a native speaker if they wanted to transmit Acogerse that they would use the word order with subject first verb second?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Yeah, but 'se respeta a los ancianos' is not passive either.



Agreed. Well, in English's perspective it is passive -- but not in Spanish -- I agree. 

In English the SE Impersonal, without a direct object, uses an Active Voice wording.
_ Se vive bien _= People/They/One live(s) well [active voice]

In English the SE Impersonal, with a direct object, uses passive voice. _(*This syntax is also referred to as the "Mixed Construction Impersonal/Passive" in several grammars as it exhibits qualities of both the Se Impersonal and Se Passive. In this syntax the SE is an unidentified subject as is the case with both Se Impersonal and Se Passive)_
_ Se respeta a los ancianos._= The elders are respected. (passive voice)

And the SE Passive also uses passive wording English.



> I did correct a slipped word, 'impersonal' in the passive.


Oh so you did err there. Then you meant to only contrast 'SE Impersonal' and "SE Pasiive". That's what the grammars teach. I think we have our terms clear now.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Hmmm.. If the verb is a pronominal -- then the SE Impersonal is not being used at all -- it's a simple active voice sentence. In Se Impersonal the 'se' cannot be understood as part of a pronominal verb construction. I think the verb is transitive.


 
María Moliner


> ,*acoger *(del sup. lat. «accolligÕre», de «colligÕre», recoger) *1 *tr. *Admitir una persona a ÷otra en su casa o en su compañía, para hospedarla, o para protegerla o ayudarla. ¤ El sujeto puede ser un refugio material: ‘El asilo acoge a los ancianos’. ¤ En lenguaje piadoso o patético tiene puramente el sentido de «*ayudar» o «*proteger»: ‘¡Acógenos, Señor, en este trance!’.


.

Se acoge a todos los desvalidos ( todos= is a quantifier determiner)
a todos los desvalidos= DO. Impersonal 'SE'.

Ivy29



NewdestinyX said:


> Agreed. Well, in English's perspective it is passive -- but not in Spanish -- I agree.
> 
> In English the SE Impersonal, without a direct object, uses an Active Voice wording.
> _Se vive bien _= People/They/One live(s) well [active voice]
> 
> In English the SE Impersonal, with a direct object, uses passive voice. _(*This syntax is also referred to as the "Mixed Construction Impersonal/Passive" in several grammars as it exhibits qualities of both the Se Impersonal and Se Passive. In this syntax the SE is an unidentified subject as is the case with both Se Impersonal and Se Passive)_
> _Se respeta a los ancianos._= The elders are respected. (passive voice)


.

I wonder if we can phrase the above sentence in English as :
*One respects one's elders= se respeta a los ancianos.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Se acoge a todos los desvalidos ( todos= is a quantifier determiner)
> a todos los desvalidos= DO. Impersonal 'SE'.



So you agree that this is ACOGER transitive and not 'acogerse'. I agree.




> I wonder if we can phrase the above sentence in English as :
> *One respects the elders= se respeta a los ancianos.*


Well what you've written there isn't incorrect in English, Ivy. But it is not natural English. First of all, for some strange reasons, we always use a possessive pronoun with 'elders' -- 'their', 'one's', 'his' elders. We don't ever say 'the elders' unless we're talking about the governing board of a Protestant church.

But more to the point, when there's a direct object present with SE Impersonal -- these come over into English much more naturally as passive voice. And that is why I believe that the English-authored Spanish grammars call this formation: a Mixed Construction -- or as I've called it in my book, the "Se Passive Animate" (I know you would never accept that term). And it is even more pronounced when the DO is replaced by a pronoun. Observe using the example from my grammar:

*Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año.*
One selects /People select many women each year. Not incorrect but very labored and rare.
Many women are selected each year. Much better and very common.

*Se les/las selecciona cada año.*
One selects them each year.  This wouldn't really be said in English for such a context as this -- though not incorrect.
They are selected each year.  This is the only common way this would be said. 

So, from English's perspective the subject ONE is reserved more for statements that match Spanish's "hay que" = One should. "One" is used more in statements of obligation or duty. Or it is also used for lofty statements of subjective opinion -- rarely about fact.

One can try all they want, but it won't help.  Sounds good. Lofty statement.
One can see the sun set each night.  Sounds strange. This is a fact and English would prefer Impersonal 'you' there. Not 'one'.

So in reality the use of English's Impersonal 'one' is more suited for Spanish's Se Impersonal 'without' DO and especially with intransitive verbs.

_Se vive bien en Medellín._ = One lives/People live/They live well in Medellín.
_Se debe (de) comer mucho en España._ = One must eat well in Spain.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> In English the SE Impersonal, with a direct object, uses passive voice. _(*This syntax is also referred to as the "Mixed Construction Impersonal/Passive" in several grammars as it exhibits qualities of both the Se Impersonal and Se Passive. In this syntax the SE is an unidentified subject as is the case with both Se Impersonal and Se Passive)_
> _Se respeta a los ancianos._= The elders are respected. (passive voice)


 
The above statement in red is not true. the 'se' passive is just a marker, the passive has a grammatical subject that agrees with the verb.

Ivy29


----------



## hezman

When I studied this in "Lengua", they made a clear distinction between impersonal "se" and passive "se".

Se respeta a los ancianos. <- "pasiva con se", se puede transformar en:
Los ancianos son respetados <- pasiva normal

Se come bien en España <- Impersonal. Imposible transformarla en pasiva.


----------



## NewdestinyX

> Originally Posted by *NewdestinyX*                       In English the SE Impersonal, with a direct object, uses passive voice. _(*This syntax is also referred to as the "Mixed Construction Impersonal/Passive" in several grammars as it exhibits qualities of both the Se Impersonal and Se Passive. In this syntax the SE is an unidentified subject as is the case with both Se Impersonal and Se Passive)_
> _Se respeta a los ancianos._= The elders are respected. (passive voice)





Ivy29 said:


> The above statement in red is not true. the 'se' passive is just a marker, the passive has a grammatical subject that agrees with the verb.
> 
> Ivy29


No that's not quite accurate. In both SE Impersonal and Se Passive there is no identified subject. More clearly -- there is no ACTOR of the verb's action. Both syntaxes share that in common. In the Se Passive there is a logical subject -- you refer to it as a 'grammatical subject' and for this reason Spanish makes the verb agree in number. But a "true" *grammatical subject* has to be an *'actor' of the action*. That's why passively voiced sentences need to differentiate it by giving it another name other than simply 'subject'. Because a 'subject' "acts". But I was trying to draw the similarity grammatically between SE Impersonal and SE Passive since in both instances the 'SE' marks the "absence" of an "actor" of the action of the verb.


----------



## NewdestinyX

hezman said:


> When I studied this in "Lengua", they made a clear distinction between impersonal "se" and passive "se".
> 
> Se respeta a los ancianos. <- "pasiva con se", se puede transformar en:
> Los ancianos son respetados <- pasiva normal
> 
> Se come bien en España <- Impersonal. Imposible transformarla en pasiva.



Many grammars, English-authored, still consider sentences like the one with "ancianos" a 'passive SE' for the very reason you mentioned. It can be transformed into a classic passive with SER. But unlike the SE passive the verb is locked into singular with these and that is not like the SE Passives that change the verb number to agree with the direct object. So a New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, by Butts and Benjamin, creates a 3rd category for sentences like "Se respeta a los ancianos" -- calling it a "Mixed Construction" as it has characteristics of both.

But as Ivy29 has said. In the Spanish-authored grammars: "Se respeta a los ancianos" is a Se Impersonal. It seems somehow incorrect to consider it so -- since both "Se respeta a los ancianos" and "Se venden casas aquí" can be converted to Passive with SER. 

Interesting. Thanks for that reminder.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> No that's not quite accurate. In both SE Impersonal and Se Passive there is no identified subject. More clearly -- there is no ACTOR of the verb's action. Both syntaxes share that in common. In the Se Passive there is a logical subject -- you refer to it as a 'grammatical subject' and for this reason Spanish makes the verb agree in number. But a "true" *grammatical subject* has to be an *'actor' of the action*. That's why passively voiced sentences need to differentiate it by giving it another name other than simply 'subject'. Because a 'subject' "acts". But I was trying to draw the similarity grammatically between the two since in both instances the 'SE' marks the "absence" of an "actor" of the action of the verb.


 
*Whenever a verb agrees with its subject call it any name, it plays the role of a subject*, otherwise I wouldn't understand your surprise when I slipped the word *impersonal* in 'se passive'.Probably you were reading my mind.
I wouldn't call it 'actor' but agentive, but we all know the rule switching from active into passive voice . The 'se' passive is not impersonal 'se' and vice versa. Moreover the 'se' in Impersonal is other marker with no lexical role, just as a plain marker of both different syntaxes.

The subject not always are agents sometimes they are *affected* by a cause. Se ahogó el nadador or el nadador se ahogó/ los nadadores se ahogaron. Se cerró la puerta/ la puerta se cerró.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Many grammars, English-authored, still consider sentences like the one with "ancianos" a 'passive SE' for the very reason you mentioned. It can be transformed into a classic passive with SER. "Mixed Construction" as it has characteristics of both.
> 
> But as Ivy29 has said. In the Spanish-authored grammars: "Se respeta a los ancianos" is a Se Impersonal. It seems somehow incorrect to consider it so -- since both "Se respeta a los ancianos" and "Se venden casas aquí" can be converted to Passive with SER.
> 
> Interesting. Thanks for that reminder.


 
But we have to remember that the grammatical role of 'a los ancianos' is a DO, embedded in an 'impersonal se' sentence, *where no grammatical subject is possible*. The true passives have the argument of the subject, the argument of a direct object which switched arguments from its active origin. And in this type of sentence it is not possible.
You cannot state :
*'Los ancianos son RESPETA *( locked singular verb, third person). Only 'Merlin' can draw out of a magic hat the subject = Los ancianos son...

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

hezman said:


> When I studied this in "Lengua", they made a clear distinction between impersonal "se" and passive "se".
> 
> Se respeta a los ancianos. <- "pasiva con se", se puede transformar en:
> Los ancianos son respetados <- pasiva normal
> 
> Se come bien en España <- Impersonal. Imposible transformarla en pasiva.


 
You cannot switch a DO = a los ancianos into a subject in 'an impersonal se'. It goes against the very same definition of 'impersonal se'

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> But more to the point, when there's a direct object present with SE Impersonal -- these come over into English much more naturally as passive voice. And that is why I believe that the English-authored Spanish grammars call this formation: a Mixed Construction -- or as I've called it in my book, the "Se Passive Animate" (I know you would never accept that term). And it is even more pronounced when the DO is replaced by a pronoun. Observe using the example from my grammar:
> 
> So, from English's perspective the subject ONE is reserved more for statements that match Spanish's "hay que" = One should. "One" is used more in statements of obligation or duty. Or it is also used for lofty statements of subjective opinion -- rarely about fact.
> 
> One can try all they want, but it won't help.  Sounds good. Lofty statement.
> One can see the sun set each night.  Sounds strange. This is a fact and English would prefer Impersonal 'you' there. Not 'one'.
> 
> So in reality the use of English's Impersonal 'one' is more suited for Spanish's Se Impersonal 'without' DO and especially with intransitive verbs.
> 
> _Se vive bien en Medellín._ = One lives/People live/They live well in Medellín.
> _Se debe (de) comer mucho en España._ = One must eat well in Spain.


 
*The impersonal pronouns in English are* : *one,* you, they. 
For an 'impersonal se' would fit more 'ONE' since it fits the third person 'se' marker, and avoid the easy confusion using an English passive voice which by definition entails a subject, a direct object. This being the *opposite* in Spanish, and by doing so confuses more than clarifying the issue.
One respects one's elders. Se respeta a nuestros mayores.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *Whenever a verb agrees with its subject call it any name, it plays the role of a subject*, otherwise I wouldn't understand your surprise when I slipped the word *impersonal* in 'se passive'.Probably you were reading my mind.
> I wouldn't call it 'actor' but agentive, but we all know the rule switching from active into passive voice . The 'se' passive is not impersonal 'se' and vice versa. Moreover the 'se' in Impersonal is other marker with no lexical role, just as a plain marker of both different syntaxes.
> 
> The subject not always are agents sometimes they are  *affected* by a cause. Se ahogó el nadador or el nadador se ahogó/ los nadadores se ahogaron. Se cerró la puerta/ la puerta se cerró.
> 
> Ivy29



A subject can only be called a SUBJECT in an Active voice. Any other attempt to equate the 'role' of a Subject to another grammatical phenomenon only serves to confuse. These 'particles' of a sentence are CONSISTENT in 'all' languages and cannot be redefined simply to satisfy the needs of a secondary syntax in that language. You are attempting to redefine 'subject' just to keep a stark difference between two related syntaxes in Spanish -- the SE Impersonal and Se Passive -- The Se Impersonal with direct object is very much like the Se PAssive. It simply is.



Ivy29 said:


> But we have to remember that the grammatical role of 'a los ancianos' is a DO, embedded in an 'impersonal se' sentence, *where no grammatical subject is possible*. The true passives have the argument of the subject, the argument of a direct object which switched arguments from its active origin. And in this type of sentence it is not possible.
> You cannot state :
> *'Los ancianos son RESPETA *( locked singular verb, third person). Only 'Merlin' can draw out of a magic hat the subject = Los ancianos son...



Well you are making an argument that doesn't stand the test of semantics. You don't have to match 'particle' to 'particle' for something to be semantically identical. You like to keep the worlds of Semantics and Grammar separate -- unless differentiating them serves your purposes.. in a given argument.  The 'fact' remains that "Se respeta a los ancianos" is semantically *identical* to "Los ancianos son respetados". The direct OBJECT of a SE impersonal with direct object AND of a SE Passive is the 'subject' of an active - which can always be converted to a classic passive with SER. Here or in Capernaum. It does not require Merlin. ALL direct objecys ALWAYS imply the presence of a 'real subject' in the active.



Ivy29 said:


> You cannot switch a DO = a los ancianos into a subject in 'an impersonal se'. It goes against the very same definition of 'impersonal se'
> 
> Ivy29



The very definition of Direct Objects make explicit the presence of a subject. Any dictionary will tell you that. If you don't like the ambiguity it creates then don't use the term SE Impersonal + DIRECT Object. Call it something else. If there's a direct object in the sentence -- there's a subject implied somewhere else -- in SOME voice.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> For an 'impersonal se' would fit more 'ONE' since it fits the third person 'se' marker, and avoid the easy confusion using an English passive voice which by definition entails a subject, a direct object. This being the *opposite* in Spanish, and by doing so confuses more than clarifying the issue.
> One respects our elders. Se respeta a nuestros mayores.



I was helping you to learn 'natural' English. Not word for word translation which sounds stilted and robotic. No one would ever use 'one' in that sentence. Wouldn't happen. Of that you can be sure. Try to learn. Certainly you would never utter. "It hurts me the stomach" for "Me duele el estómago" even though that matches particle for particle. 

In many cases "one" is the best translation for Se Impersonal. But only for Se Impersonal 'without' direct object and with Intransitive verbs.

Read American Heritage Handbook for Writing with regard to Impersonal Pronouns. You can learn the nuances and natural sound of my language.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> A subject can only be called a SUBJECT in an Active voice. Any other attempt to equate the 'role' of a Subject to another grammatical phenomenon only serves to confuse. -- the SE Impersonal and Se Passive -- The Se Impersonal with direct object is very much like the Se PAssive. It simply is.The very definition of Direct Objects make explicit the presence of a subject. Any dictionary will tell you that. If you don't like the ambiguity it creates then don't use the term SE Impersonal + DIRECT Object. Call it something else. If there's a direct object in the sentence -- there's a subject implied somewhere else -- in SOME voice.


 
You have a serious problem in translating the 'impersonal SE' into English with the *passive* ( the same in both languages). it would be more logical, grammatical, to use the English passive to translate the Spanish *'SE' passive.* 
*The argument of subject* ( nominal argument) is not attached to the DO or active voice. The *passive voice* has subject. The *intransitive* verbs does not have DO as a general rule ( in both languages). The *meteorolgical verbs* do not have subjects and the action of raining is there. ( hoy, está lloviendo). The impersonal verb (*haber*). You can drop the subject in transitive verbs : se besó a todas las mujeres ( impersonal 'SE'. So, your assumption does not have grip onto the reality.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> You have a serious problem in translating the 'impersonal SE' into English with the *passive* ( the same in both languages). it would be more logical, grammatical, to use the English passive to translate the Spanish *'SE' passive.*
> *<snip>* You can drop the subject in transitive verbs : se besó a todas las mujeres ( impersonal 'SE'. So, your assumption does not have grip onto the reality.



I know you can drop the subject in Impersonal SE. Who has said otherwise? My point is that your compulsion to have a particle for particle relationship between English and Spanish won't help you here. The SE Impersonal with direct objects goes over into English with Passive wording in English - every time. It is a fact you must concede. And in this case there is no book from which you can quote me -since we're talking about a a matter of interlingual translation. In this case you will simply have to 'trust' a native's ears. I know that's difficult for you -- because you need to see it in a book. But in this case you will have to trust me. Impersonal pronouns 'one' and 'they' and 'you' in English are very appropriate and work for translating Impersonal Se withouth direct objects and particularly with intrasitive verbs. But they don't work well in the other cases.

Se besó a todas las mujeres = "All the women were kissed."  = Se las/les besó (They were kissed) --also 'passive wording in English'
"One kissed all the women."  Horrible English and sounds uneducated and nonsensical.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I know you can drop the subject in
> Se besó a todas las mujeres = "All the women were kissed."  = Se las/les besó (They were kissed) --also 'passive wording in English'
> "One kissed all the women."  Horrible English and sounds uneducated and nonsensical.


 

*What about these sentences* :
‘One used to eat well in that restaurant’ (GEN)
One was looking for a car’ (GEN)
If one is rich, he/she is very nice for everybody’
How does one say "icecream" in Italian?, ¿Cómo se dice "helado" en italiano?​*One*_ should have _*one's*_ teeth checked every six months.__
*One* should have *his or her* teeth checked every six months._​*One*_ should take _*one's*_ responsibilities seriously.__
*One* should take *his or her* responsibilities seriously._​_*One repects one’s elders.*_​​_*Ivy29*_​


----------



## Ivy29

> , subject can only be called a SUBJECT in an Active voice. Any other attempt to equate the 'role' of a Subject to another grammatical phenomenon only serves to confuse. These 'particles' of a sentence are CONSISTENT in 'all' languages and cannot be redefined simply to satisfy the needs of a secondary syntax in that language. You are attempting to redefine 'subject' just to keep a stark difference between two related syntaxes in Spanish -- the SE Impersonal and Se Passive -- The Se Impersonal with direct object is very much like the Se PAssive. It simply is.


.

According 'Gramática prescriptiva española' vol.2 page 1635, numeral 26.1, 
de acuerdo a la voz :

'SE' pasiva = passive sense.
'SE' impersonal= active sense.
'SE' media =  passive sense+active sense, more passive.

DE acuerdo a la misma fuente gramatical, sólo las 'SE' medias se puede clasificar como mixta (activa-pasiva).
así pues tenemos tres voces:

1-Voz activa
2-Voz pasiva
3-Voz media ( más cerca de la pasiva).

la 'voz pasiva perifrástica 'en español es ser+pp. Sinctácticamente las pasivas tienen como sujeto 'gramatical' (o sinctático) un sintagma nominal que se interpreta como el *objeto nocional (o semántico*) de la acción denotada por el verbo.
La pasiva con 'se' no tiene el agente preposicional, 'por'+agente en su sintaxis.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *What about these sentences* :
> ‘One used to eat well in that restaurant’ (GEN)Barely acceptable. Better with 'you'.
> One was looking for a car’ (GEN)  Never used.
> If one is rich, he/she is very nice for to everybody’This is a lofty generalization -- perfect for 'one'.
> How does one say "icecream" in Italian?, ¿Cómo se dice "helado" en italiano?  Statement of a broad generalization. This works.​




> *One*_ should have _*one's*_ teeth checked every six months.__
> *One* should have *his or her* teeth checked every six months._
> *One*_ should take _*one's*_ responsibilities seriously.__
> *One* should take *his or her* responsibilities seriously._​


All of these with ONE SHOULD are different syntactically -- and they are HAY QUE in Spanish. ONE SHOULD = HAY QUE


> One repects one’s elders.
> 
> 
> 
> This is much better. Though the best would be: "You respect your elders." or "Our elders are respected." But like the ones with ONE SHOULD -- HAY QUE is the more faithful translation of many uses of ONE.
> 
> As I've told you -- regardless of the grammatical role the SE Impersonal with Direct Object plays in the Spanish language. In English, it's usually a passive wording. Impersonal wordings don't work as well.​
Click to expand...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> . According 'Gramática prescriptiva española' vol.2 page 1635, numeral 26.1,
> de acuerdo a la voz :
> 
> 'SE' pasiva = Voz activa.
> 'SE' impersonal= voz pasiva.
> 'SE' media = voz pasiva.


Well now doesn't that complicate matters based on what you've asserted so far about the best translations to English.  Are you sure you copied it correctly? It's not logical that the "SE' pasiva is considered an 'active voice'. Is that logical to you? Are you sure you didn't mis-type? 




> DE acuerdo a la misma fuente gramatical, sólo las 'SE' medias se puede clasificar como mixta (activa-pasiva).


We are not studying VOZ MEDIA here in this thread. That's why I've never acknowledged your sentence: Se ha ahogado el nadador, which is Voz Media. Not Impersonal or Passive.



> así pues tenemos tres voces:
> 
> 1-Voz activa
> 2-Voz pasiva
> 3-Voz media ( más cerca de la pasiva).
> 
> la 'voz pasiva perifrástica 'en español es ser+pp. Sinctácticamente las pasivas tienen como sujeto 'gramatical' (o sinctático) un sintagma nominal que se interpreta como el *objeto nocional (o semántico*) de la acción denotada por el verbo.


 En todo eso estamos de acuerdo.


> La pasiva con 'se' no tiene el agente preposicional, 'por'+agente en su sintaxis.


 Well more accurately there is an ignored agent in Se Passive.


----------



## Pitt

Ivy29 said:


> .
> 
> According 'Gramática prescriptiva española' vol.2 page 1635, numeral 26.1,
> de acuerdo a la voz :
> 
> 'SE' pasiva = Voz activa.
> 'SE' impersonal= voz pasiva.
> 'SE' media = voz pasiva.
> 
> 
> Ivy29


 
Si lo he entendido bien _SE pasiva = Voz activa_ corresponde a la _Pasiva refleja_. ¿Se puede decir así?


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Well now doesn't that complicate matters based on what you've asserted so far about the best translations to English.  Are you sure you copied it correctly? It's not logical that the "SE' pasiva is considered an 'active voice'. Is that logical to you? Are you sure you didn't mis-type?


.

Yes I mistyped it , I have already corrected , The same source.

Thanks
Ivy29



Pitt said:


> Si lo he entendido bien _SE pasiva = Voz activa_ corresponde a la _Pasiva refleja_. ¿Se puede decir así?


 
Pitt , I mistyped them so I have already corrected it. Some authors say passive reflexive, but I do think is better ¡SE' passive and 'SE' impersonal.

Ivy29



NewdestinyX said:


> We are not studying VOZ MEDIA here in this thread. That's why I've never acknowledged your sentence: Se ha ahogado el nadador, which is Voz Media. Not Impersonal or Passive.En todo eso estamos de acuerdo.
> Well more accurately there is an ignored agent in Se Passive.


 
Then you must read, Manuel Seco page 180, ' Gramática esencial de la lengua española' It is middle voice.

Ivy29




NewdestinyX said:


> All of these with ONE SHOULD are different syntactically -- and they are HAY QUE in Spanish. ONE SHOULD = HAY QUE​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is much better. Though the best would be: "You respect your elders." or "Our elders are respected." But like the ones with ONE SHOULD -- HAY QUE is the more faithful translation of many uses of ONE.​
> 
> 
> As I've told you -- regardless of the grammatical role the SE Impersonal with Direct Object plays in the Spanish language. In English, it's usually a passive wording. Impersonal wordings don't work as well.​
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Interesting I have found the support of 'ONE' as possible interpreter of the 'SE' impersonal. 'Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española', volume 2 page 1644, numeral 26.1.2.2.
> When the implied subjects of the se-structure, are perfective in its interpretation the notional subject of the sentence with 'SE' is unespecific not generic, this being the case with this 'se' passive, 'se quemó el bosque para acabar con la plaga de orugas' The notional subject will be somebody, certain people.​
> when the aspect is imperfective the notional subject is generic it equals the notional subject 'todo el mundo', la gente, UNO. *'cuando se empieza a ver el humo se avisa a los bomberos*' It has an universal reading, and cannot be interpreted as an unspecific agent, and this notional subject could be paraphrased as 'UNO'.
> 
> Ivy29​
> ​
> ​
Click to expand...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Then you must read, Manuel Seco page 180, ' Gramática esencial de la lengua española' It is middle voice.
> 
> Ivy29



Already have. And it supports my position. In any case we are not talking about Middle Voice in this thread. Please stop redirecting the conversation or I will need to report it.


> Interesting I have found the support of 'ONE' as possible interpreter of the 'SE' impersonal. 'Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española', volume 2 page 1644, numeral 26.1.2.2.
> When the implied subjects of the se-structure, are perfective in its interpretation the notional subject of the sentence with 'SE' is unespecific not generic, this being the case with this 'se' passive, 'se quemó el bosque para acabar con la plaga de orugas' The notional subject will be somebody, certain people.​
> when the aspect is imperfective the notional subject is generic it equals the notional subject 'todo el mundo', la gente, UNO. *'cuando se empieza a ver el humo se avisa a los bomberos*' It has an universal reading, and cannot be interpreted as an unspecific agent, and this notional subject could be paraphrased as 'UNO'.​


It doesn't often go over to English as 'one' as I've said and proved. Thanks for your input. But the SE Impersonal with direct object doesn't go to English as 'one'. In your sentence there only the first clause would be 'one' and that's because the first clause is SE Impersonal without direct object which I've acknowledged goes to English many times with 'one':
Cuando se empieza a ver el humo se avisa a los bomberos. = When 'one' begins to see smoke, the bombers are advised. (never 'one' in that second clause -- bad English)​


----------



## kotosquito

_*A subject can only be called a SUBJECT in an Active voice.  *_I don't know if you're still listening, Ndx, but I learned in grammar class that the subject of a passive construction is the thing/person acted upon.  You don't have to declare the construction as a whole a passive voice AND declare the subject to be a non-subject (since it is not acting, but being acted upon).  It suffices to say that X is the subject of a passive construction, or a passive subject.  Perhaps there are those who would disagree, but I think that this way avoids complication and confusion.


----------

