# passive se with with "a"



## msdg19

I am wondering if when using the passive se with the use of "a" after verbs such as asistir or the "personal a" if you leave the verb singular rather than making it plural.

Example:  Is it "se asisten a reuniones" or "se asiste a reuniones?"

Is it "se castigan a todos" or "se castiga a todos."  

I would have thought in both cases the verb would be plural but I am seeing the verb singular in some writings.


----------



## Zarax89

msdg, it´s a difficult question 
I am really not sure how it is right...

I think it should be in singular. "Se asiste (impersonal) a reuniones).

Se asisten sounds extrange...


----------



## Outsider

msdg19 said:


> I am wondering if when using the passive se with the use of "a" after verbs such as asistir or the "personal a" if you leave the verb singular rather than making it plural.
> 
> Example:  Is it "se asisten a reuniones" or "se asiste a reuniones?"


When _asistir_ means to attend, it is ordinarily an intransitive verb (check here), so it cannot be put in the passive voice.



msdg19 said:


> Is it "se castigan a todos" or "se castiga a todos."


Although the latter may actually not be so uncommon in speech and less careful writing.


----------



## msdg19

The textbook I am using teaches the verb with the passive se is singular when it is used with a singular noun and plural when used with a plural noun.  However, in it's examples it doesn't always do that.

Is it "se contesta llamadas telefónicas" or "se contestan llamadas telefónicas" and if it is correct that the verb is determined by the noun that follows it, then I don't understand why it wouldn't be "se asisten a reuniones" (Meetings are attended) unless the "a" changes things.  This dictionary also had in the definition of "se"=--
"se castiga a todos" that's why I thought possibly the "a" affected the verb for some reason.  Thanks all for your help.


----------



## Outsider

msdg19 said:


> The textbook I am using teaches the verb with the passive se is singular when it is used with a singular noun and plural when used with a plural noun.


The thing is that _se_ doesn't always represent a passive voice. It can only mark the passive when it's associated with a transitive verb.


----------



## FromPA

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the confusion is due to the singular form being an impersonal construction (one does something) and the plural form being a passive reflexive construction (some things are done).  To Outsider's and Zarax's points, you can't say "se asisten" (intending to say "meetings are attended") because asistir is intransitive and can't be turned into a passive reflexive.  But you can say "se asiste" (one attends meetings).   I hope a native can confirm this.


----------



## Zarax89

FromPA said:


> To Outsider's and Zarax's points, you can't say "se asisten" (intending to say "meetings are attended") because asistir is intransitive and can't be turned into a passive reflexive.  But you can say "se asiste" (one attends meetings).   I hope a native can confirm this.



Right  I think...


----------



## Pinairun

FromPA said:


> I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the confusion is due to the singular form being an impersonal construction (one does something) and the plural form being a passive reflexive construction (some things are done). To Outsider's and Zarax's points, you can't say "se asisten" (intending to say "meetings are attended") because asistir is intransitive and can't be turned into a passive reflexive. But you can say "se asiste" (one attends meetings). I hope a native can confirm this.


 
I agree.

_Se asist*e* *a* reuniones_ is an impersonal construction whose verb cann't agree with prepositional complement (_reuniones_). When impersonal, the verb always is in 3rd sing. person.


----------



## javier8907

I agree about the impersonal construction. It always takes 3rd person singular, just the same as in "Llueve".

However, I am afraid that Outsider made a gross mistake regarding the verb "castigar".

Either the sentence is impersonal, and therefore in 3rd person singular, with the personal "a" before "los niños", which is a direct object, or it is a passive voice sentence. If this is the case, "los niños", originally the direct object, becomes the subject of the sentence. That is why it should be "se castigan". But then, there is no personal "a", as it is used only for direct objects. So it is just the opposite:

"Se castiga a los niños." Right.

"Se castigan a los niños." Wrong, ungrammatical and -to me- awfully sounding.

"Se castigan los niños." Grammatically acceptable, although very awkward and, even changing the word order to make it more natural -"los niños se castigan"- very misleading, as it is much more likely to mean "the children punish each other" or even "the children punish themselves".

So my answer to the original question

"I am wondering if when using the passive se with the use of "a" after verbs such as asistir or the "personal a" if you leave the verb singular rather than making it plural."

is:

Verbs in Spanish ALWAYS agree with the subject, although in very few cases -much fewer than in English- this agreement can be "ad sensum". Therefore it is vital to know which is the subject.

If the construction is really a passive using "se", then the direct object turns into the subject, the personal "a" subsequently disappears and the verb must agree with the new subject.

If it is an impersonal, the verb has no subject and it must be in 3rd person singular, while the "a" (prepositional) remains where it was.

I hope I've made it clearer.


----------



## MarieSuzanne

Lo correcto es _Se castiga a los niños_, con el verbo en *singular*. Es una construcción *impersonal *donde el _se_ hace de sujeto, con el verbo en 3ª persona singular, y se antepone la preposición _a_ al complemento directo de persona_. _La razón de esta construcción es que, si se utilizara la pasiva refleja que se emplea con las cosas (_Se castigan los niños_), se podría confundir con una construcción activa con verbo reflexivo: _Los niños _(sujeto) _se castigan _(verbo reflexivo).


----------



## msdg19

Thank you everyone. This has been very helpful though I am left with some more questions...How do you tell the difference between impersonal _se and _passive _se?  _or is there a difference?  The textbook I am using teaches that the passive _se_  is used with third person singular _or_ plural, depending upon what you are talking about:

Aquí _se contesta_ el teléfono rápidamente y _se preparan_ informes diariamente.  

The reasoning is that the nouns that follow are the subject of the sentence.  _Is this correct?  _In English the translation would be:  Here the telephone is answered rapidly and reports are prepared daily.  To me grammatically, this is the passive voice and not necessarily impersonal, though I guess it could also be considered impersonal.  

The textbook goes on to use sentences like this:  En Japón se fabrican muchas computadores.  En esta tienda se vende lo mejor en tecnología.   And they translate it:  In Japon they make a lot of computers.  In this store they sell the best in technology.  

Thanks so much.  I am wanting to understand this for my students.  I think I understand now why the "se asiste a reuniones."  -- in this case "a reuniones" would be considered a prepositional phrase rather than the subject of the sentence.  Continued discussion would be great...


----------



## MarieSuzanne

Todos los ejemplos que has puesto son pasivas reflejas, sin preposición "a", en que el verbo debe concordar con el sujeto pasivo (_se contest*a* el teléfono _porque _el teléfono *es* contestado, se prepara*n *informes _porque _los informes *son *preparados_). 
La construcción impersonal se reserva para las personas y se utiliza para evitar la confusión con una oración activa con verbo reflexivo. Si yo dijera _Se liberaron los presos_, se podría interpretar que los presos se liberaron a sí mismos. Por eso se deja el verbo en *singular* y se añade la preposión "a": _Se liberó a los presos._


----------



## javier8907

MarieSuzanne said:


> Lo correcto es _Se castiga a los niños_, con el verbo en *singular*. Es una construcción *impersonal *donde el _se_ hace de sujeto, con el verbo en 3ª persona singular, y se antepone la preposición _a_ al complemento directo de persona_. _La razón de esta construcción es que, si se utilizara la pasiva refleja que se emplea con las cosas (_Se castigan los niños_), se podría confundir con una construcción activa con verbo reflexivo: _Los niños _(sujeto) _se castigan _(verbo reflexivo).



Hombre, el "se" nunca es sujeto. Tú misma has dicho que es una construcción impersonal, y precisamente impersonal es una frase, verbo, etc. que no tiene sujeto.


----------



## MarieSuzanne

La propia Gramática de la Academia dice que en estas construcciones el "se" tiene función de sujeto (como equivalente del _on _francés o el _hom _catalán, por ejemplo).


----------



## javier8907

msdg19 said:


> Thank you everyone. This has been very helpful though I am left with some more questions...How do you tell the difference between impersonal _se and _passive _se?  _or is there a difference?  The textbook I am using teaches that the passive _se_  is used with third person singular _or_ plural, depending upon what you are talking about:
> 
> Aquí _se contesta_ el teléfono rápidamente y _se preparan_ informes diariamente.
> 
> The reasoning is that the nouns that follow are the subject of the sentence.  _Is this correct?  _In English the translation would be:  Here the telephone is answered rapidly and reports are prepared daily.  To me grammatically, this is the passive voice and not necessarily impersonal, though I guess it could also be considered impersonal. Yes, you are right, that is why they are called "passive" even when they are not made from "ser" + participle. Incidentally, "se contesta el teléfono" sounds weird to me, as usually in Spanish we say "contestar al teléfono" as an intransitive verb where "al teléfono" is a prepositional phrase, even though we say "contestar algo" and then it is transitive, or "contestar a alguien", and then "a alguien" is an indirect object. But I would not go so far as to say it is plainly wrong.
> 
> The textbook goes on to use sentences like this:  En Japón se fabrican muchas computadores*¿?*.  En esta tienda se vende lo mejor en tecnología.   And they translate it:  In Japon they make a lot of computers.  In this store they sell the best in technology.  That is perhaps because whoever wrote the book thought that "In Japan a lot of computers are made" didn't sound good, and "A lot of computers are made in Japan" wasn't exactly the same, not because it is not a passive reflexive. The same for the store example.
> 
> Thanks so much.  I am wanting to understand this for my students.  I think I understand now why the "se asiste a reuniones."  -- in this case "a reuniones" would be considered a prepositional phrase rather than the subject of the sentence. Exactly.  Continued discussion would be great...


----------



## chicamak

MarieSuzanne said:


> Todos los ejemplos que has puesto son pasivas reflejas, sin preposición "a", en que el verbo debe concordar con el sujeto pasivo (_se contest*a* el teléfono _porque _el teléfono *es* contestado, se prepara*n *informes _porque _los informes *son *preparados_).
> La construcción impersonal se reserva para las personas y se utiliza para evitar la confusión con una oración activa con verbo reflexivo. Si yo dijera _Se liberaron los presos_, se podría interpretar que los presos se liberaron a sí mismos. Por eso se deja el verbo en *singular* y se añade la preposión "a": _Se liberó a los presos._


 
¿No sería "se contesta *al *telefonono"? ¿o es que yo lo he dicho mal toda mi vida?


----------



## MarieSuzanne

chicamak said:


> ¿No sería "se contesta *al *telefonono"? ¿o es que yo lo he dicho mal toda mi vida?



Amabas formas son correctas. Mira lo que dice el DPD:

*2.* Cuando significa ‘dar respuesta a la pregunta, llamada o comunicación de alguien’, puede construirse con complemento directo o con un complemento precedido de la preposición _a:_ _«Jamás contestó las preguntas que hacían sobre su vida» _(Azuela _Casa _[Méx. 1983]); _«El procesado contestó a sus preguntas»_ (_País _[Esp.] 3.6.97); _«La gerencia del Wyndham no contestó las llamadas de este diario»_ (_NDía_ [P. Rico] 23.10.97); _«Nadie contestaba a las llamadas del timbre»_ (_Mundo _[Esp.] 15.1.96).


----------



## javier8907

Es que contestar al teléfono no significa responder a lo que te dice el teléfono, sino atenderlo, con lo cual esta entrada no nos resuelve la duda.

Es curioso que sí diría "contestar la llamada", pero no "contestar el teléfono".


----------



## MarieSuzanne

Yo creo que es lo mismo "contestar la llamada" que "contestar (la llamada d)el teléfono".


----------



## javier8907

Es distinto por un motivo. Si tienes una llamada, en sentido figurado hay alguien que te llama, luego contestas (a) su llamada. El teléfono sería equiparable, en todo caso, alguien que te llama, y se podrá utilizar como objeto directo si se puede hacer lo mismo con una persona. He aquí la duda.


----------



## MarieSuzanne

No veo por qué identificas el teléfono con el que llama y no con la llamada. Cuando yo digo "contesta el teléfono", lo digo como síntesis de "contesta la llamada del teléfono".


----------



## javier8907

Algo así como "contesta a ese sonido (=el teléfono)"? Podría ser, aunque aquí no lo decimos así. En el caso de la oficina sería algo así como que tan pronto suena el ruido, hay alguien que lo contesta, ¿no?


----------



## MarieSuzanne

javier8907 said:


> Algo así como "contesta a ese sonido (=el teléfono)"? Podría ser, aunque aquí no lo decimos así. En el caso de la oficina sería algo así como que tan pronto suena el ruido, hay alguien que lo contesta, ¿no?



Así es. Por eso caben las dos interpretaciones, aunque creo que su uso varía según los países.


----------



## Justino2009

Ok, let me see if I have this straight.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  With impersonal constructions (3rd person singular) you *always* use the personal "a". 

_"Aquí se come *a* los caballos."
Here, one eats horses._

And for the passive voice, the personal "a" is dropped, the direct object now becomes the subject, and therefore the verb must agree with it.
_
"Aquí, se comen los caballos."
Here, horses are eaten.  _

Yet at the same time this is ambiguous because it could be taken as:

"Here, horses eat each other."  ???  

How would you make it clear that horses are eaten here, and that they don't eat each other?  Or is it that the construction already implies that horses are eaten, and that in order to say that horses eat each other, you must say "Aqui, los caballos se comen." ?

I'm sorry if this has already been explained and I missed it.


----------



## MarieSuzanne

Como bien dices, los animales pueden comerse a sí mismos. Por lo tanto, también aquí es preferible la construcción impersonal con "a", donde queda claro que los caballos son comidos por la gente.


----------



## ManPaisa

_



"Aquí, se comen los caballos."

Click to expand...

_


> _Here, horses are eaten. _
> 
> _Yet at the same time this is ambiguous because it could be taken as:_
> _"Here, horses eat each other." ??? _
> 
> _How would you make it clear that horses are eaten here, and that they don't eat each other? Or is it that the construction already implies that horses are eaten, and that in order to say that horses eat each other, you must say "Aqui, los caballos se comen." ?_
> 
> _I'm sorry if this has already been explained and I missed it. _


 
To eliminate the ambiguity you can also say: *Aquí comen (carne de) caballo*, which is also an impersonal construction.


----------



## msdg19

Thank you to all.  I have learned a lot.  I am also happy to see that this is more complicated than I thought and that it is fine for me to be confused!!!  MarieSuzanne, could you help me by supplying some reference information because I think I need to get the DPD and the Gramática de la Academia.  The second I can probably find, but what is the DPD?  Thanks!


----------



## javialacarga

Diccionario panhispánico de dudas.
Here you have access to both the DPD and the DRAE (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española): http://www.rae.es/rae.html


----------



## javier8907

Be careful, Manpaisa. "Aquí comen carne de caballo" is no impersonal sentence. The subject is an undetermined "they", just like the one used in English.

You could say "Aquí se comen caballos" or "Aquí los caballos se comen" (both passive reflexive), or "Aquí se come caballo" (impersonal), or even "Aquí el caballo se come", all with different nuances, which are, to my ear, more natural than "Aquí se come a los caballos", which is a bit humanizing the horses too much.


----------



## sna

Justino2009 said:


> _"Aquí, se comen los caballos."_
> _Here, horses are eaten. _
> 
> Yet at the same time this is ambiguous because it could be taken as:
> 
> "Here, horses eat each other." ???
> 
> How would you make it clear that horses are eaten here, and that they don't eat each other? Or is it that the construction already implies that horses are eaten, and that in order to say that horses eat each other, you must say "Aqui, los caballos se comen." ?


 
Aquí se come caballo


----------

