# Imperfect or present subjunctive clause...



## DareRyan

If a main clause is in the conditional mood, would the subordinate clause take the imperfect or present subjunctive mood. I.E.

Se sta nevicando, mi piacerebbe se tu ci restassi stasera.
(This would be my instinctive choice)

Or 

Se sta nevicando, mi piacerebbe se tu ci resti stasera
(Sounds fairly awkward to me)


----------



## fox71

Mi dispiace Dare, ma "SE STA NEVICANDO" non si usa in italiano (almeno in qto caso).
Io direi "Se stasera nevica mi piacerebbe che tu restassi"...

Oppure: "Se nevicherà"


----------



## DareRyan

Really...In this case I am trying to stress the fact that it IS snowing. "If it's snowing (Right now), I'd like you to spend the night there."

Maybe Nevica vs. the present progressive

Nevichera' in this case completely changes the meaning of the phrase


----------



## giacinta

DareRyan said:


> If a main clause is in the conditional mood, would the subordinate clause take the imperfect or present subjunctive mood. I.E.
> 
> Se sta nevicando, mi piacerebbe se tu ci restassi stasera.
> (This would be my instinctive choice)
> 
> Or
> 
> Se sta nevicando, mi piacerebbe se tu ci resti stasera
> (Sounds fairly awkward to me)


 

It has to be the imperfect subjunctive, I think.

However I would say "se stara' nevicando, (o se nevichera') stasera, mi piacerebbe che tu restassi la' "

You are talking about the future "stasera". 
And I would use "che" after "mi piacerebbe'.

It will be interesting to hear what the natives think

Giacinta


----------



## DareRyan

Well, Stasera and Nevicare are unrelated temporially in this case. The only thing I wish to apply a "Future Tense" connotation to is Restare. 


If it is snowing NOW, you will stay there THROUGH THE NIGHT


----------



## giacinta

But wouldn't you KNOW if it was snowing now?

Why use "se" ?
If you are some distance away and due to fallen snow the wires are down and you don't have a mobile phone or any means of communication (so you can only wonder if it is snowing), I would say "Se nevica in questo momento preferirei che tu restassi la' stasera.

I would use "preferire " rather than "piacere' in any event.

Giacinta


----------



## DareRyan

The intent is to say (If it is snowing now, wherever you may be, I'd make me happy if you didn't try to come home in it (The snow) tonight)


----------



## DareRyan

Maybe a "mock convo." would clarify things

(Between a man away in an airport and his wife)

Man: "Sì, nevica... non sono sicurro che ritornerò stasera. Pensano di cancellare il volo.

Wife: Che peccato! Ma, *se sta nevicando, mi piacerebbe se tu ci restassi stasera. *Non volare se credono che sia pericoloso!


----------



## stella_maris_74

I would say:
...preferirei che tu passassi la notte lì.
...preferirei che tu restassi lì.

"Restarci" has another connotation:
(from De Mauro)
re|stàr|ci

1 rimanere deluso, mortificato o sbalordito: _quando l’ho saputo ci sono proprio restata_ 
2 fam., morire, lasciarci le penne 
3 RE sett., fam., rimanere incinta

So beware! ;-)

Ciao,

dani


----------



## DareRyan

Well, so much for restarci... Yet another reason to have an irrational fear of the pronoun Ci and to a lesser extent Ne.
Thanks for the reply!

I guess my next question would be: Does Sta Nevicando not make sense in this context like everyone's been telling me? Because I will seriously need to reevaluate my entire concept of present progressive verbs if it doesn't.


----------



## Necsus

DareRyan said:
			
		

> Maybe a "mock convo." would clarify things
> 
> (Between a man away in an airport and his wife)
> 
> Man: "Sì, nevica... non sono sicurro che ritornerò stasera. Pensano di cancellare il volo.
> 
> Wife: Che peccato! Ma, *se sta nevicando, preferirei/vorrei che tu ci restassi lì, stasera. *Non volare se credono che sia pericoloso!


Anche se in effetti si tratterebbe di un periodo ipotetico della realtà, quindi con l'indicativo sia nella protasi che nell'apodosi:
'se sta nevicando, preferisco che tu rimanga lì'.


----------



## stella_maris_74

Hi DareRyan,
I don't think that "se sta nevicando" is wrong in the sentence you posted.
This is because "se" is used more in the "causative" sense of:
Visto che...
rather than in the dubitative sense.
See meaning number 3 here.

You can change your phrase to:

Wife: Che peccato! Ma, *visto che/dal momento che **sta nevicando, *preferirei che tu passassi la notte lì

and still it would make sense.

I hope this helps,

ciao,

dani


----------



## virgilio

DareRyan,
             In your sentence the clause "se tu ci restassi stasera" is subordinate to the clause "mi piacerebbe".
The conditional tense belongs to the *secondary* tense group and so any subordinate subjunctive has to be "imperfect". So your intuition - as far as tenses go - was right.
The two tense groups are:
Primary Tense Group: Present and Future
Secondary Tense Group: Imperfect, Conditional and Preterite (Passato Remoto)
The rule is that when the verb in the major clause belongs to the *primary* group, so also must any subjunctives in clauses dependent on that major clause.
And when the verb in the major clause belongs to the *secondary* group, so also must any subjunctives in clauses dependent on that major clause.
The tense of the major clause verb in your sentence "mi piacerebbe" is
 conditional, therefore secondary, and so only the imperfect subjunctive is available in any clause subordinate to that major clause.
Verbs in tenses like the Present Perfect and the Past Perfect are of  course present and imperfects respectively of the so-called 'auxiliaries' 
Hope this helps
Virgilio


----------



## audia

Hi Virg, I'm not sure about the present perfect.
Should I then say: 
Mi è piaciutto (primary group)
che tu rimanga li? (primary group)

Perhaps you could do it in the past perfect?


----------



## MünchnerFax

audia said:


> Hi Virg, I'm not sure about the present perfect.
> Should I then say:
> Mi è piaciut*t*o (primary group)
> che tu rimanga li? (primary group)
> 
> Perhaps you could do it in the past perfect?


Well, _passato prossimo _is *not* a present tense in Italian... 
Therefore, it belongs to the secondary group.

Anyway, in this case a _congiuntivo passato_ is needed:
_Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì._


----------



## audia

That was not clear to me from Virgilio's post:


> Verbs in tenses like the Present Perfect and the Past Perfect are of course present and imperfects respectively of the so-called 'auxiliaries'


Virgilio[/quote]
So in English present perfect is primary but passato prossimo is secondary?
Can I not say: Mi è piaciuto che tu sia rimasto lì?


----------



## virgilio

MünchnerFax,
This is news to me! Do you mean that, for example, "Ho scritto una lettera" *must* *always* be taken in its *assumed* secondary sequence and *never* in its original primary sense?
In other words, are you saying that "Ho scritto una lettera" can *not* mean "I *have* written a letter" and *must always* mean "I wrote a letter".
If so, I think I'll sue my teacher!
All the best
Virgilio

audia,
I'm awaiting MünchnerFax's reply on this important matter but in the meantime, you will know, of course, that in some parts of Italy (particularly in the north) the role of the Passato Remoto has been - in the spoken language, at any rate - subsumed by the Passato Prossimo and this means that a Passato Prossimo can be at different times "primary" or "secondary", depending on whether the speaker intends it as a "have done" or as a "did".
However, we must await MF's reply.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## MünchnerFax

virgilio said:


> MünchnerFax,
> This is news to me! Do you mean that, for example, "Ho scritto una lettera" *must* *always* be taken in its *assumed* secondary sequence and *never* in its original primary sense?
> In other words, are you saying that "Ho scritto una lettera" can *not* mean "I *have* written a letter" and *must always* mean "I wrote a letter".
> If so, I think I'll sue my teacher!
> All the best
> Virgilio


That "primary sense" has almost gone lost in Italian _passato prossimo_. It can mean "I have written a letter" as well as "I wrote a letter". This process is clear if you consider the Northern use and abuse of _passato prossimo_ instead of _passato remoto_.
The fact a "secondary group" subjunctive is always required in the subordinate clause is evidence of this.

_Ho la febbre, ho pensato__ che oggi fosse meglio stare a casa, quindi non sono venuto._ (whereas you'd say _I thought _and _I didn't come_)

_Non sono riuscito a evitare che Gianni e Lucia si vedessero ieri sera alla festa._
Sorry, I can't think of more examples at the moment! 

EDIT Notice that the right subjunctive is not a geographical matter, as one may infer from your last post.


----------



## audia

> Can I not say: Mi è piaciuto che tu sia rimasto lì?


[/QUOTE]


----------



## virgilio

MünchnerFax,
                  "That "primary sense" has almost gone lost in Italian _passato prossimo_. It can mean "I have written a letter" as well as "I wrote a letter".
 Thank goodness for that word "almost". So it *can* mean "I *have* written" and not "I *wrote*"
But you seem to be implying that the primary perfect meaning has already gone. Otherwise a present subjunctive must surely be possible, even if only occasionally( as audia is asking).
If a present subjunctive is *absolutely impossible* in a clause subordinate to a major clause containing a primary perfect tense, then there can be no "almost" about it! In that case the primary perfect would have become the passato remoto in those areas of Italy where the passato remoto has disappeared from the spoken language.
And in any case how about your own sentence:"_Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì._ Primary perfect major verb - present subjunctive subordinate verb?
All the best
Virgilio


----------



## MünchnerFax

virgilio said:


> And in any case how about your own sentence:"_Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì._ Primary perfect major verb - present subjunctive subordinate verb?


That's not a present subjunctive, that's a _congiuntivo passato_. Again, the word _passato_ appears. But I got your point and I agree, you can use this tense (_congiuntivo passato_) only with the present tense and the passato prossimo. And actually, that's the only right tense in this example, any other subjunctive tense wouldn't fit. This applies in particular to the present subjunctive: _rimanga_, in any case, would be plain wrong.
Furthermore, I gave you some examples where the right choice would be the _congiuntivo imperfetto_ (_rimanesse_).
I'll give you one more: _non sono mai stato in una città che avesse più di un milione di abitanti._
That would be a perfect example of the "present" meaning of the English present perfect!
(Bad sentence, though, sounds a bit weird. We'd say it another way.)


----------



## virgilio

MünchnerFax,
                  Thank you for your detailed reply. I'm not sure that I quite understand it, however. You seem to be saying that:
(1) "_Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì" _(present congiuntivo)
but
(2) "_non sono mai stato in una città che avesse più di un milione di abitanti_
(imperfect congiuntivo)
Both major verbs are in the same tense but the subordinate subjunctives, you say must be in different ones.
Then, _pour renfort de potage_, you add "Bad sentence, though, sounds a bit weird. We'd say it another way"
 I may have misunderstood you. If so, please excuse me. I'm trying to fathom out some kind of rule for tense sequence in Italian. The traditional one doesn't seem to apply - secondo te - in cases where the major verb happens to be passato prossimo.
We non-natives can't 'taste' the language, as you can, and we can't ask you about every little question that crops up and so we need rules, even when we acknowledge that no rule is 100% true.
To give you a clue, could (2) not be:"non sono mai stato in una città che abbia avuto più di un milione di abitanti"?
Which of the two sentences sounds weirder?
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## MünchnerFax

No, my apologies, that wasn't clear at all. Sorry.
I just mean we'd simply say "una città di più di un milione di abitanti", the same way you would say in English "a city with more than one million inhabitants" instead of "a city which has etc.". I "forced" that sentence to have a subjunctive in order to show which tense I'd use. Anyway, it is fully correct.

Your sentence (2) is possible, but has a different meaning: a city which had more than a million inhabitants in a period of his history (thus, not at the time of my visit).

EDIT I'm going to open a thread on this topic in the Italian Only forum, because I want to check some ideas of mine before posting them here, thus confusing you completely with some potential nonsense!


----------



## Jana337

MünchnerFax said:


> Anyway, in this case a _congiuntivo passato_ is needed:
> _Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì._


Mi fa piacere (ora) che tu rimanga lì (ora).
Mi fa piacere (ora) che tu sia rimasto lì (ieri).
Mi ha fatto piacere (ieri) che tu sia rimasto lì (ieri). - dice un madrelingua
Mi ha fatto piacere (ieri) che tu fossi rimasto lì (ieri). - dice la mia logica


----------



## audia

Hello Virgilio, thanks for the help --this is interesting .

1) "_Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì" _(present congiuntivo)
However you have said twice that the following is present congiuntivo but it is not it is congiuntivo passato. I wonder if we only have a terminology problem here. 

I read MF's IO post and believe my question was answered which was why I was corrected from :
Mi è piaciuto
to 
Mi ha fatto piacere
For anyone else interested, I believe that; mi è piaciuto is also ok.

Thanks to MF for trying to get to the bottom of this question.


----------



## MünchnerFax

audia said:


> I read MF's IO post and believe my question was answered which was why I was corrected from :
> Mi è piaciuto
> to
> Mi ha fatto piacere
> For anyone else interested, I believe that Mi è piaciuto is also ok.



Again, I wasn't clear enough. Sorry, it seems yesterday wasn't my day... 
I corrected _mi è piaciuto_ into _mi ha fatto piacere_ just for a matter of style. Your version was grammatically ok. 



> Mi ha fatto piacere (ieri) che tu sia rimasto lì (ieri). - dice un madrelingua
> Mi ha fatto piacere (ieri) che tu fossi rimasto lì (ieri). - dice la mia logica


Jana, I'm trying to think of a situation in which your second sentence would be suitable. If I heard this, I would expect there's a consequent action, as that is a _congiuntivo trapassato_.


----------



## virgilio

audia,
        Thanks for your reply. Re:
"_Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì" _(present congiuntivo)"
 Sorry, I did not make my meaning clear. I call this "present subjunctive" because the tenses which are called the perfect tenses in English (in Italian the "passato prossimo", "trapassato") are in both languages paraphrases, since neither language has perfect tenses, and those paraphrases consist of a verb ("avere" or "essere") and an adjective in the form of a 'past' participle (originally a perfect passive participle).
In the "passato prossimo" the verb is always present tense and in the "trapassato" the verb is always imperfect.
Hence in the clause "che tu sia rimasto lì" the *verb* ("sia") is present subjunctive, even though the whole paraphrase "sia rimasto" is usually in a kind of shorthand referred to as "passato prossimo" in Italian and as Present Perfect in English.

I hope this clarifies the point a bit.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## audia

Hi Virgilio,
I think the problem is that you created an English/Italian term so it is not clear which language you are speaking.
"_



Mi ha fatto piacere che tu sia rimasto lì" (present congiuntivo)"
		
Click to expand...

_


> Hence in the clause "che tu sia rimasto lì" the *verb* ("sia") is present subjunctive, even though the whole paraphrase "sia rimasto" is usually in a kind of shorthand referred to as "passato prossimo" ( congiuntivo passato) in Italian


and as Present Perfect in English.

If you call sia rimasto= present subjunctive ( in Italian congiuntivo passato)
Then what do you call rimanga =..........in English? (in Italian congiuntivo presente)

I got my terms from the WR verb conjugations.

 , Audia


----------



## virgilio

audia,
       I think the confusion may arise from an unfortunate choice of terms to describe tenses.
The term "congiuntivo" describes a "mode" (or "mood") of the verb's function, as also does "indicativo". The congiuntivo has slightly fewer tenses than the "indicativo", because it lacks future tenses, but both utilise tenses recognisably very similar:
e.g.
"hanno comprato" and "abbiano comprato"   "siete arrivati" and "siate arrivati"
Therefore it seems to me needlessly complicated to assign titles to each of the two tenses, as if they were not all but identical.
Plainly "hanno comprato" and "abbiano comprato" belong to the same time dimension (aka "tense")
In English we would call them Present Perfect Indicative and Present Perfect Subjunctive" respectively (and so also with "siete arrivati" and "siate arrivati")
It doesn't much matter what tense description you use for them but let them at least be the same, simply adding "indicativo" or "congiuntivo", as appropriate.
My own system is, I suppose, more 'logocentric' (word-centered) than some other people's. I think you need to be able first to fit *words* accurately into sentences before going on to phrases. That's why what interests me in a phrase like "sia rimasto" is the fact that the *verb* - which for me is always a single *word* - is congiuntivo presente.
I hope this helps.
 Virgilio


----------



## audia

"Hi Virgilio,
""My own system is, I suppose, more 'logocentric' (word centered) than some other people's.""
I guess we need to agree on a common "language"".

alla prossima, 
Audia


----------

