# it isn't over till it's over / it ain't over 'til it's over



## Jester94

Hola todos  

¿Cómo se dice 'it's not over till it's over' , utilizando _acabarse_?

Muchas gracias


----------



## sandpiperlily

Maybe "Nada se acaba hasta que se acabe" ?

Esperamos las respuestas de hablantes nativos...


----------



## Jester94

Muchas gracias sandpiperlily 

¡Lo usaré a menos que un hablante nativo diga algo diferente!


----------



## gengo

Other option:  Mientras hay vida hay esperanza.


----------



## Jester94

Thanks, but it has to use _acabarse _


----------



## Lurrezko

El sentido es el que apunta Gengo. Si quieres usar *acabar*, el ejemplo de sandpiperlily me suena más natural con indicativo (aunque *hasta que* suele ir seguido de subjuntivo):

_Nada se acaba hasta que se acaba._

Incluso es frecuente añadirle un *no* expletivo:
_
Nada se acaba hasta que no se acaba._

A ver qué opinan los compañeros nativos


----------



## la_machy

The saying is ''Nada se acaba hasta que se acab*a*''.

That's it.


Saludos


----------



## sandpiperlily

Could somebody help me understand why indicative is used here rather than subjunctive?  I have it drilled into my head that expressions like "hasta que" always mandate the subjunctive, so I'm really curious as to why this is an exception.


----------



## grivasl

Esto no se acaba hasta que se acaba
o bien esto no se acaba hasta que se termina
para no ser repetitivo


----------



## gengo

sandpiperlily said:


> Could somebody help me understand why indicative is used here rather than subjunctive?  I have it drilled into my head that expressions like "hasta que" always mandate the subjunctive, so I'm really curious as to why this is an exception.



What I have drilled into my head is that I'll never learn to use the subjuntivo perfectly.  

I, too, would like to see an answer to your question.


----------



## Lurrezko

gengo said:


> What I have drilled into my head is that I'll never learn to use the subjuntivo perfectly.
> 
> I, too, would like to see an answer to your question.



Me too. Se me ocurren algunos otros contextos en los que *hasta que* va seguido de indicativo.

_Siempre ocurre lo mismo, la fiesta va de maravilla hasta que llega él y la arruina._


----------



## gengo

Lurrezko oinak said:


> Me too. Se me ocurren algunos otros contextos en los que *hasta que* va seguido de indicativo.
> 
> _Siempre ocurre lo mismo, la fiesta va de maravilla hasta que llega él y la arruina._



Thanks.  For some reason, that example makes more sense to me than the one above (se acaba), maybe because there is really no implied future tense here.  But in the phrase in question, it seems to me that there is indeed an implied future tense (when the thing really is over), so I don't see why the subjunctive isn't used.  Just as when the TV host says, "Cuando regresemos," implying a future, I would have expected to see a subjuntivo here.

You guys just do this to mess with us gringos, don't you?


----------



## rap.parsons

I think the answer is that the subjunctive is used after "hasta que" when the context is a future action.  The indicative is used when the context is habitual action, or when the statement is a generalization, as is the case here.  The same is true of other time conjunctions, such as "cuando" or "tan pronto como". 

So:
Voy a seguir trabajando hasta que llueva.  But as a general statement: 
Los obreros trabajan hasta que llueve.

At least that is what I think the explanation is -- perhaps there are other reasons for the indicative here.


----------



## Jester94

gengo said:


> What I have drilled into my head is that I'll never learn to use the subjuntivo perfectly.
> 
> I, too, would like to see an answer to your question.


 
Tell me about it. Just when you think you have a grasp on it, you find something that breaks with what you'd been taught  

I'd always thought that *hasta que* had to be followed by the subjunctive, especially seeing as the phrase was from a booklet of subjunctive exercises!!


----------



## Lurrezko

Jester94 said:


> Tell me about it. Just when you think you have a grasp on it, you find something that breaks with what you'd been taught
> 
> I'd always thought that *hasta que* had to be followed by the subjunctive, especially seeing as the phrase was from a booklet of subjunctive exercises!!



Wait for a proper explanation, I've asked for help: the grammatical 7th Cavalry must be on their way already...


----------



## rap.parsons

No, it is not the case that "hasta que" is always followed by the subjunctive.  In fact, in addition to the habitual and generalized contexts I mentioned above, "hasta que" is very often followed by an indicative when the entire context is past ("Esperé hasta que llegó mi papá" for example, though past anticipated action, such as "Iba a esperar hasta que llegara", would usually call for the subjunctive).


----------



## donbill

rap.parsons said:


> I think the answer is that the subjunctive is used after "hasta que" when the context is a future action.  The indicative is used when the context is habitual action, or when the statement is a generalization, as is the case here.  The same is true of other time conjunctions, such as "cuando" or "tan pronto como".
> 
> So:
> Voy a seguir trabajando hasta que llueva.  But as a general statement:
> Los obreros trabajan hasta que llueve.
> 
> At least that is what I think the explanation is -- perhaps there are other reasons for the indicative here.



I think rap.parsons has nailed it. We're talking about a customary happening here: "It isn't over till it's over." That's always the case. If we cast similar ideas in a future light, as rap. did above, we'd use the subjunctive.

I base my position on what I have learned from reading and studying applied linguistics texts. And, clearly my views are those of a nonnative who has to form a cognitive base to justify what he says rather to depend on intuition. In summary, the issue is experience vs. non-experience. Experience calls for the indicative; non-experience requires subjunctive. Or another way to look at is that future and unrealized actions call for the subjunctive; customary or habitual ones call for indicative.

What happens around here? _Well, it ain't over till it's over, It ain't over till the fat lady sings, _etc. _No se acaba hasta que [no] se acaba. No se acaba hasta que canta la gorda._

As I read this, I note that it sounds a little dogmatic. That's not my intent.


----------



## donbill

rap.parsons said:


> No, it is not the case that "hasta que" is always followed by the subjunctive.  In fact, in addition to the habitual and generalized contexts I mentioned above, "hasta que" is very often followed by an indicative when the entire context is past ("Esperé hasta que llegó mi papá" for example, though past anticipated action, such as "Iba a esperar hasta que llegara", would usually call for the subjunctive).



On target again! If it happens customarily or if it has already happened, you use indicative.

We must have read the same books!


----------



## sandpiperlily

Thanks to everyone for their illuminating answers!

I'm still a bit confused, though.  When I think of the phrase in English, "it's not over til it's over," I think of the second part as being uncertain.  In other words, it may or may not ever be over.  So when I thought about translating this into Spanish, I used subjunctive not only because of the "rule" I had learned with "hasta que," but also because I thought that the subjunctive here would appropriately express the doubt over whether it would ever, in fact, be over.

So, am I thinking of the phrase wrong in English?

Does the phrase exist in Spanish, but with more of a definite / customary / habitual sense that folks like donbill and rap.parsons have mentioned?  As in, it's not over til it's over, but it will definitely be over at some point?

Or am I just thinking way too hard about this?


----------



## donbill

sandpiperlily said:


> Could somebody help me understand why indicative is used here rather than subjunctive?  I have it drilled into my head that expressions like "hasta que" always mandate the subjunctive, so I'm really curious as to why this is an exception.



_Estudiamos todos los días hasta que llega el profe.
Estudiamos ayer hasta que llegó el profe._

both use indicative after hasta que. The first describes a customary action; the second tells about something that has already happened.

Vamos a estudiar hasta que llegue el profe.
Íbamos a estudiar hasta que llegara el profe.

both use the subjunctive because both depict an event that is future and unrealized with respect to the time of the main verb.

Un saludo


----------



## sandpiperlily

Thanks, donbill!  It looks like your most recent post and mine were cross-posted.

So with the examples you mentioned, "it's not over til it's over" sounds more like the future-and-unrealized events in the latter examples.  As in, it's not over now, because it may or may not be over later.  So it seems to me that the translation of the expression would call for the subjunctive as I mentioned above...?


----------



## MHCKA

Desentonaré en esta elevada discusión con el uso familiar de esta frase en Tierra de mexicanos, que a falta de contexto creo que es a lo que se refiere la frase original:

"Ésto no se acaba, hasta que se acaba"

Frase frecuentemente usada en los deportes, me parece que traída de las traducciones del _beisbol_, haciendo alusión al hecho de que, por más disparejo o desalentador que se vea un resultado, éste no es definitivo hasta que se marque el final del juego.


----------



## donbill

sandpiperlily said:


> Or am I just thinking way too hard about this?



Our posts crossed. I definitely see your point. "It isn't over till it's over" has a definite tinge of the future. But if you think about it bit more, it's almost like a natural law (!!). And then we have things like "I'm prepared to wait until Hell freezes over!" (I'm treading on dangerous ground here, but I'd definitely use subjunctive in that one.)

Saludos


----------



## gengo

donbill said:


> _Estudiamos todos los días hasta que llega el profe.
> Estudiamos ayer hasta que llegó el profe._
> 
> Vamos a estudiar hasta que llegue el profe.
> Íbamos a estudiar hasta que llegara el profe.



I fully agree with those (and I'm betting that Lily does, too.)  However...



sandpiperlily said:


> I'm still a bit confused, though.  When I think of the phrase in English, "it's not over til it's over," I think of the second part as being uncertain.



Exactly.  What we seem to be disagreeing about is whether there is uncertainty in this particular phrase.  Lily and I read it as yes.  That is, it will not be over until some as-yet unspecified point in the future, at which point it will be over.  That is the very definition of when to use the subjuntivo, and I think that is what is confusing some of us (maybe the slow ones).


----------



## Peterdg

En mi opinión, gramaticalmente las dos opciones son posibles.

_Nada se acaba hasta que se acaba/e._

Yo habría utilizado el subjuntivo pero desconocía la expresión hecha.

¿Qué dice la teoría? 

La oración "hasta que se acaba/e" es una frase subordinada adverbial temporal. La teoría dice que cuando este tipo de frase se refiere a un futuro, hay que utilizar el subjuntivo.

Pero, ¿un futuro respecto a qué? Las buenas gramáticas lo matizan y dicen "_un futuro relativo al momento de hablar o un futuro relativo al verbo de la principal_". Es el quien enuncie la frase que decida qué pauta utilizará.

En este caso, si el hablante usa la pauta "relativo al verbo principal", diría "Nada se acaba (1) hasta que se acaba (2)". El verbo principal es (1). ¿Qué ocurre primero? Estará claro que es (2): entonces lo que se expresa después de "hasta que" no es un futuro relativo al verbo principal (1) y por eso el indicativo.

Si el hablante utiliza el momento de hablar como punto de referencia, utilizará el subjuntivo. En este caso quizá sea más común también poner el verbo de la principal en el futuro, pero no es preciso.

Esto no es nada fácil hasta que la explicación puede parecer rebuscada.

Pero repito, si yo lo hubiera dicho, lo habría dicho con subjuntivo (mi mente (ya) no funciona con la rapidez necesaria para hacer estas cavilaciones en una conversación)


----------



## donbill

gengo said:


> I fully agree with those (and I'm betting that Lily does, too.)  However...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What we seem to be disagreeing about is whether there is uncertainty in this particular phrase.  Lily and I read it as yes.  That is, it will not be over until some as-yet unspecified point in the future, at which point it will be over.  That is the very definition of when to use the subjuntivo, and I think that is what is confusing some of us (maybe the slow ones).



In spite of all that I have implied to the contrary, I see Lily's point. I would say, in fact, that it boils down to how we interpret the issue. The use of subjunctive vs. indicative is a subjective matter in some cases. This one qualifies as such. Nevertheless, I will continue to slavishly follow what I perceive to be the "natural law" implications of the phrase that we have been having so much fun with, and I will use indicative. I don't think this discussion is over!

Thanks to all who have made it so interesting, especially to jester94 for the initial post.


----------



## Lurrezko

Peterdg said:


> Pero, ¿un futuro respecto a qué? Las buenas gramáticas lo matizan y dicen "_un futuro relativo al momento de hablar o un futuro relativo al verbo de la principal_". Es el quien enuncie la frase que decida qué pauta utilizará.
> 
> En este caso, si el hablante usa la pauta "relativo al verbo principal", diría "Nada se acaba (1) hasta que se acaba (2)". El verbo principal es (1). ¿Qué ocurre primero? Estará claro que es (2): entonces lo que se expresa después de "hasta que" no es un futuro relativo al verbo principal (1) y por eso el indicativo.
> 
> Si el hablante utiliza el momento de hablar como punto de referencia, utilizará el subjuntivo. En este caso quizá sea más común también poner el verbo de la principal en el futuro, pero no es preciso.



Esto es muy interesante. ¿Tú crees que explicaría el ejemplo que me rondaba por la cabeza, un caso de situación habitual en el que ambos modos me suenan naturales? ¿Estaría el matiz, pues, en el punto temporal en el que se sitúa el hablante?

_Siempre te esperaba hasta que llegabas.
Siempre te esperaba hasta que llegaras._


----------



## The Prof

sandpiperlily said:


> Thanks to everyone for their illuminating answers!
> 
> I'm still a bit confused, though. When I think of the phrase in English, "it's not over til it's over," I think of the second part as being uncertain. In other words, it may or may not ever be over. So when I thought about translating this into Spanish, I used subjunctive not only because of the "rule" I had learned with "hasta que," but also because I thought that the subjunctive here would appropriately express the doubt over whether it would ever, in fact, be over.
> 
> So, am I thinking of the phrase wrong in English?
> 
> Does the phrase exist in Spanish, but with more of a definite / customary / habitual sense that folks like donbill and rap.parsons have mentioned? As in, it's not over til it's over, but it will definitely be over at some point?
> 
> Or am I just thinking way too hard about this?


 
I do hope you get a good answer to this, because exactly the same thoughts were going through my mind, too.


----------



## MHCKA

Peterdg said:


> En mi opinión, gramaticalmente las dos opciones son posibles.
> 
> _Nada se acaba hasta que se acaba/e._
> 
> Yo habría utilizado el subjuntivo pero desconocía la expresión hecha.)


 
La expresión se usa normalmente así: se acaba hasta que se acaba.


----------



## gengo

MHCKA said:


> La expresión se usa normalmente así: se acaba hasta que se acaba.



Creo que todos estamos de acuerdo en eso - lo normal es decirlo usando el indicativo.  Nomás estamos hablando sobre el porqué, para mejorar nuestro entendimiento de cómo se usa "hasta que."


----------



## Pinairun

MHCKA said:


> La expresión se usa normalmente así: No se acaba hasta que se acaba.


 
Estoy de acuerdo.
No se conoce el futuro hasta que lleg*a,* con indicativo.

Sería diferente si el primer verbo estuviera en tiempo futuro:
No se acabará hasta que se acab*e*.


----------



## albertovidal

Esto no se acaba hasta que se termine


----------



## MHCKA

MHCKA said:


> Desentonaré en esta elevada discusión con el uso familiar de esta frase en Tierra de mexicanos, que a falta de contexto creo que es a lo que se refiere la frase original:
> 
> *"Ésto no se acaba, hasta que se acaba"*


 


Pinairun said:


> Estoy de acuerdo.
> No se conoce el futuro hasta que lleg*a,* con indicativo.
> 
> Sería diferente si el primer verbo estuviera en tiempo futuro:
> No se acabará hasta que se acab*e*.


 
Corrección aceptada Pinairun... en mi segunda intrervención debí acotar la frase a: "(...) hasta que se acaba (...)", que era la parte que quise resaltar.

Completamente de acuerdo con tu observación.

Agotado el tema... creo que esto ya se acabó.


----------



## donbill

Lurrezko oinak said:


> Esto es muy interesante. ¿Tú crees que explicaría el ejemplo que me rondaba por la cabeza, un caso de situación habitual en el que ambos modos me suenan naturales? ¿Estaría el matiz, pues, en el punto temporal en el que se sitúa el hablante?
> 
> _Siempre te esperaba hasta que llegabas.
> Siempre te esperaba hasta que llegaras._



Estimado Lurrezko:

Habla el no nativo y, en su humilde opinión, dice que la segunda oración expresa un matiz de incertidumbre--_"hasta que llegaras y no sabía nunca cuándo ibas a llegar."_ La primera oración expresa--y otra vez del punto del no nativo--que el individuo al que esperabas siempre llegaba más o menos al mismo tiempo y que, de hecho, había establecido cierta costumbre predecible. 

¿Me explico? ¿Te aburro como siempre?

un saludo


----------



## Peterdg

Lurrezko oinak said:


> Esto es muy interesante. ¿Tú crees que explicaría el ejemplo que me rondaba por la cabeza, un caso de situación habitual en el que ambos modos me suenan naturales? *¿Estaría el matiz, pues, en el punto temporal en el que se sitúa el hablante?*
> 
> _Siempre te esperaba hasta que llegabas._
> _Siempre te esperaba hasta que llegaras._


 


The Prof said:


> I do hope you get a good answer to this, because exactly the same thoughts were going through my mind, too.


The concept "doubt"/"hypothesis"/"unreal"/"uncertain" is worthless for generating a decision on when to use subjunctive/indicative. Although the origin of the subjunctive lies in these concepts, the language has evolved in the mean time and the use of the subjunctive/indicative has followed its own way (including regional differences). Unfortunately, when you unravel the use of the subjunctive, you come to a pretty complex theory.

All recent works (that I know of) on the use of the subjunctive, are based on a standard work 'El subjuntivo, valores y usos" from J.Borrego, J.G.Asencio and E.Prieto. (BTW: Julio Borrego is the chief editor of the the New Spanish Grammar (NGLE), manual edition). The theory of the use of the verb moods in Spanish that is adhered to by the NGLE, is also based on this work (with some more recent insight adaptations though).

This theory starts from a strictly syntactical analysis of what you want to say. Before you can decide which mode to use, you have to know what type of sentence/subordinate you are using. Each type follows its own rules. Within these syntactical structures, semantics come into play. But it is a capital error to apply the semantic concepts and forgetting about the syntactical structures.

That's why I always (if I don't forget) say which type of grammatical structure we are talking about when I post something about the use of the subjunctive. The problem with this approach is that many people are not aware of syntactical structures. If you don't know what a "subordinate phrase" is or a "noun phrase" or an "adjective/relative phrase" is, it becomes very difficult.

However, I'm convinced that it is the only way to "understand"/"master" the subjunctive/indicative mechanics in Spanish if you're not a native speaker.


----------



## Lurrezko

donbill said:


> Estimado Lurrezko:
> 
> Habla el no nativo y, en su humilde opinión, dice que la segunda oración expresa un matiz de incertidumbre--_"hasta que llegaras y no sabía nunca cuándo ibas a llegar."_ La primera oración expresa--y otra vez del punto del no nativo--que el individuo al que esperabas siempre llegaba más o menos al mismo tiempo y que, de hecho, había establecido cierta costumbre predecible. ¿Me explico? ¿Te aburro como siempre?
> 
> un saludo



Sí, yo percibo el mismo matiz, el subjuntivo deja abierto el momento en el que tú llegabas (cuando quiera que fuese). Pero en ambos casos el sentido de la acción es habitual: yo te esperaba siempre, hasta que llegabas/llegaras. En este caso, y según la teoría expuesta, el uso del indicativo sería preceptivo, ¿no?

No quisiera aburrirte...


----------



## donbill

Lurrezko oinak said:


> Sí, yo percibo el mismo matiz, el subjuntivo deja abierto el momento en el que tú llegabas (cuando quiera que fuese). Pero en ambos casos el sentido de la acción es habitual: yo te esperaba siempre, hasta que llegabas/llegaras. En este caso, y según la teoría expuesta, el uso del indicativo sería preceptivo, ¿no?
> 
> No quisiera aburrirte...



Sabía que, siendo tan inteligentes los dos, íbamos a llegar a la misma determinación con respecto a esta cuestión tan intrigante.


----------



## donbill

Peterdg said:


> The concept "doubt"/"hypothesis"/"unreal"/"uncertain" is worthless for generating a decision on when to use subjunctive/indicative.



Don Pedro,

I respectfully submit that you have overstated the case. The role of semantics is, in my humble opinion, as essential in this particular use of the subjunctive as is syntax. Structure and message must coincide in the choice of mood. If the dependent clause is not there, there's no possibility for the subjunctive. If the lack of affirmation is not there, there's no need for subjunctive.

It has been proposed that there is only one rule for the subjunctive: affirmation vs. non-affirmation--that, of course, within the proper syntactical constraints.

And I really do mean I* respectfully* think the case is overstated! The world would be a boring place if we all agreed.  


Un saludo muy cordial


----------



## Peterdg

donbill said:


> Don Pedro,
> 
> I respectfully submit that you have overstated the case. The role of semantics is, in my humble opinion, as essential in this particular use of the subjunctive as is syntax. Structure and message must coincide in the choice of mood. If the dependent clause is not there, there's no possibility for the subjunctive. If the lack of affirmation is not there, there's no need for subjunctive.
> 
> It has been proposed that there is only one rule for the subjunctive: affirmation vs. non-affirmation--that, of course, within the proper syntactical constraints.
> 
> And I really do mean I* respectfully* think the case is overstated! The world would be a boring place if we all agreed.
> 
> 
> Un saludo muy cordial


No offense taken at all!!! And I actually agree with most of what you say. I agree that semantics are important in this case (and in all cases actually) *but only within the limits of the syntactical structure in which they appear*.

The problem I see is that people tend to use the "doubt"/"hypothesis"/"uncertainty"... paradigma to every verb they see, in whatever structure they see it. If you knew how many threads I have seen where people ask things like: "Si tenga/tengo dinero, me compro un coche": Do I need a subjunctive here? The fact whether I have money or not is hypothetical, isn't it? I have even seen a native Spanish speaker ask the question.

In my personal opinion, they should forbid to talk about "doubt"/"hypothesis" etc. when teaching the subjunctive. It gives people the feeling that there is a general, comprehensive, theory that explains it all and that enables you to decide between indicative/subjunctive by logically thinking about the meaning. Well, there isn't.

The example I always give is:
No sé si vendré/No sé si venga. The first used in Spain and unusual in most parts of Latin America; the second used in big parts of Latin America and unacceptable in most parts of Spain. This proves that the use of the subjunctive is an acquired process during childhood and there is no hidden, all encompassing theory as geographically homogeneous groups of speakers use either the first option or the second, with the same meaning.

Also, mechanics that work in one syntactical structure, do not work in others. In this thread, we were talking of adverbial temporal subordinates where the use of the subjunctive/indicative is ruled by the future aspect of the subordinate (with its nuances, as already explained above). Apply this same principle to relative clauses (subordinate clauses that act as an adjective to a noun) and you're awfully off track.

So, what I actually meant to say is that you can not consider semantics without first being aware of the syntactical structure you are using. And that is what most people forget (or were not taught to do).

About the affirmation/non-affirmation: I think this refers to the theory of declarative/non-declarative expressions. If so, it's an interesting theory, but also, it does not allow you to decide between subjunctive/indicative either although it looks more consistent to me than any other synthetic theory about the subjunctive. I have never studied it in much detail, but I did see some criticisms on it. I seem to remember something in the style of: 
No estoy seguro de que viniera/me pregunto si ha venido. How does this theory explain the difference in verbal mood here? Well, anyway, we're getting off topic with this subject, I'm afraid.


----------



## donbill

Peterdg said:


> So, what I actually meant to say is that you can not consider semantics without first being aware of the syntactical structure you are using. And that is what most people forget (or were not taught to do).



We agree! I think that the apparent discrepancy could be that I may approach more from semantics than from syntax while you seem to do just the opposite. The interesting thing is that we arrive at the same point! I agree with you that "doubt" is terribly misunderstood as it relates to the subjunctive. (It's similar to the misinformation about "estar" being used only to describe "temporary conditions".)

Un saludo


----------



## Jester94

So there are cases other than doubt/ignorance for which the subjunctive would be used then (I'm assuming something along the lines of set/colloquial expressions) ? 

Peterdg, if the syntax is important in whether subjunctive is needed, does this make the presence of doubt in the expression less essential when deciding over using the subjunctive? I'm beginning to think they have simplified the way we are taught it in school... However, if doubt/ignorance are just as important, I'm still tempted to put this into the subjunctive, as when I read the phrase in English, I always perceive an element of doubt as to whether the action/event will ever truly be over.  The proposed rule of 'affirmation vs non - affirmation' makes sense to me as a rule for the subjunctive (though it is clear now there cannot be one complete rule for such a complex and varied matter), expanding slightly upon what I have been taught.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this  I've become a bit of a grammar geek over the past year and this is fuelling the fires of my geekiness!


----------



## Peterdg

donbill said:


> We agree! I think that the apparent discrepancy could be that I may approach more from semantics than from syntax while you seem to do just the opposite. The interesting thing is that we arrive at the same point! I agree with you that "doubt" is terribly misunderstood as it relates to the subjunctive. (It's similar to the misinformation about "estar" being used only to describe "temporary conditions".)
> 
> Un saludo


I couldn't agree more. Indeed, the "estar"/"ser" opposition as an opposition between "temporary"/"permanent" is one of those old myths that keeps on living its own life although the RAE already admitted that this theory presented serious inconsistencies in 1973 in the "Esbozo". It looks like the "doubt" principle is going the same way.



Jester94 said:


> So there are cases other than doubt/ignorance for which the subjunctive would be used then (I'm assuming something along the lines of set/colloquial expressions) ?


Yes. For example: "Me molesta que fumes", "Es importante que leas este informe". Also, the other way around, there are cases that express doubt, that do not use the subjunctive, like the examples I gave in my other post: "no sé si vendré", "me pregunto si ha venido".



Jester94 said:


> Peterdg, if the syntax is important in whether subjunctive is needed, does this make the presence of doubt in the expression less essential when deciding over using the subjunctive?


That is a difficult question. The only thing I can say is that "doubt" and "uncertainty" are important in the syntactical contexts in which they are important. I'm aware of the fact that this is cryptic; what I actually want to say is that they are not more or less important than other criteria in certain contexts. I can't go into more detail because then I would be writing a grammar



Jester94 said:


> I'm beginning to think they have simplified the way we are taught it in school...


 Yes, that is probably true unless you recently studied Spanish at university level. 



Jester94 said:


> I've become a bit of a grammar geek over the past year and this is fuelling the fires of my geekiness!


So am I, so am I. (only for me, it's the last 20 years)


----------



## Jester94

Peterdg said:


> "Es importante que leas este informe"


 
Hmm, I always see this particular phrase as involving (though I now don't like using this word to describe the subjunctive, congrats guys!) an element of doubt - while it may be important that you read this, it is not definite that the advice/order will be followed. Yet another thing we have been taught in school... I think it seems to be taught that whether an action will definitely happen or not determines the use of subjunctive, but then this wouldn't apply to other examples that I have seen/ have been given in this thread 

No, still studying at sixth form level, so probably understandable that they simplify it to an extent. 

Good to know there are fellow grammar geeks out there


----------



## capitas

No se acaba hasta que se acaba.
Indicative. We are stating a real specific moment. Just at the point it ends, it's over.


----------



## loudspeaker

Hasta que + subjunctive/indicative

Correct me if I'm wrong but....

If future or uncertainty is implied, use SUBJUNCTIVE.
If the action is (or was) certain, use INDICATIVE.


Ellos van a trabajar hasta que tengan bastante dinero para salir.

 They are going to work until they have enough money to leave. 


Ellos trabajan hasta que el jefe les manda salir.
They work until the boss tells them to leave. 

Ellos trabajan hasta desplomarse. 
They work until they pass out.


----------



## Cenzontle

The original question was about "It ain't over 'til it's over" (pardon the "ungrammatical" "ain't"—that's how Yogi Berra said it).
I've always assumed Yogi said this during a baseball game that was not yet over, referring to that game specifically.  
The end of the game was in the future, and for that reason I felt that "...hasta que se acab*e*" sounded right.
But if we begin with "Nada...", that converts it into a general (timeless) statement, no longer referring only to the future, and that's how you get the indicative.

Don't think about "doubt", "denial", "emotion", "commanding" or any of those other conditions linked to the subjunctive:
"Hasta que" is a *time expression*, so all that matters is whether it refers to the future (-> subjunctive) or not (-> indicative).


----------



## KirkandRafer

No tiene mucho que ver dado que el autor preguntaba algo muy concreto, pero sin utilizar acabarse hay una frase mucho más idiomática en mi español y con un significado similar al original inglés: hasta el rabo todo es toro.


----------



## Cenzontle

El dicho se encuentra traducido en Wikiquote de la manera siguiente:
"El juego no se acaba hasta que se termina."


----------

