# Las solicitudes de amistad deben enviarse a personas. . . .



## Baltasar10

This is from Facebook:

"Las solicitudes de amistad deben enviarse a personas conocidas, como compañeros de clase, amigos, familiares o compañeros de trabajo. No envíes esta solicitud si no conoces a esta persona."


My question pertains to the passive "se" attached to the end of "enviar." The part before the first comma reads "The friendship requests should be sent to known personas." I concluded "se" must be passive since if it were impersonal se, "las solicitudes" would be the direct object, which would entail the direct object pronoun since the d.o. comes at the beginning (e.g. Las solicitudes de amistad deben enviárselas." 

Back to my main point: when are we allowed to attach the passive "se" to an infinitive. For example, 

Se venden libros (books are sold). Could the sentence "el libro no va a comprarse" be translated as "the book isn't going to be bought?" Or must we say "el libro no se va a comprar to convey this idea? 

Thanks.


----------



## Gamen

Ese "se" es un pronombre marca una acción impersonal que no tiene correspondencia exacta en inglés y por eso debe traducirse con una contrucción en voz pasiva: ""The friendship requests must/should be sent".

Otros ejemplos:
Se alquilan casas/ Se venden departamentos: es un uso impersonal y el verbo se conjuga en tercera persona plural como si fuera "ellos".
Igualmente, en español también podemos decir: "Las solicitudes de amistad deben ser enviadas a personas conocidas..."

Veamos esta oración como ejemplo:
"En español* puede decirse* de esa forma también": nuevamente el uso del "se" impersonal. También es correcto y equivalente decir: "en español *puede ser dicho* de esa forma también".

Cuando no se desea mencionar explícitamente a alguien, al agente de una acción, entonces se emplea el pronombre "se".

"Se hicieron (o se han hecho) muchos cambios" (no se sabe quién los hizo, no hay indicación de persona). En inglés debemos recurrir nuevamente a la oración pasiva para traducirlo: "A lot of changes were made or have been made".

Espero te sea útil.
Si no, repregunta.


----------



## colombo-aussie

Baltasar10 said:


> This is from Facebook:
> 
> "Se venden libros (books are sold). Could the sentence "el libro no va a comprarse" be translated as "the book isn't going to be bought?" Or must we say "el libro no se va a comprar to convey this idea?
> 
> Thanks.




You should say *"El libro no va a ser comprado". *The rest is already well explained by Gamen


----------



## Gamen

Exactly, we must say: *"El libro no va a ser comprado". 
"El libro no va a comprarse" is not correct.* It sounds like you are saying "the very book is not going to be bought by itself". But, if you say* "Los libros no van a venderse" o "los libros no van a ser vendidos", it is correct. *You are saying that the books are not going to be sold. Nobody is going to be able to sell them.


----------



## James2000

Baltasar10 said:


> Back to my main point: when are we allowed to attach the passive "se" to an infinitive.



As I understand it, you're _always _allowed to attach the passive 'se' to an infinitive (as with other infinitives), but I'm sure a native will confirm this.



Gamen said:


> *
> "El libro no va a comprarse" is not correct.* It sounds like you are saying "the very book is not going to be bought by itself".
> But, if you say* "Los libros no van a venderse" o "los libros no van a ser vendidos", it is correct. *



Gamen,

Is this just with 'comprar' that the 'pasivia refleja' doesn't work? 
Or is it a problem with the singular?

Would these work?

1. Los libros no van a comprarse.
2. El libro no va a venderse.


----------



## Gamen

Very good question!
You're right. It is "comprar" that it doesn't accept the "reflexive", It is not a question of singular or plural.
Other verbs in singular do accept the reflexive "se".
For instance, you can say: "*El libro no va a agotarse"* or "*El libro no se va a agotar"* (both equally correct= the book is not going to run out)
There are verbs that have the "se" "built in" because they are always used just as reflexive _*(sentarse), *_but other ones sometimes act as a reflexive and sometimes not, like *mirar.
*There are many verbs that can be used as pseudo reflexive with "se" or can be used without the "se" as well like: *morir, ir*: El murió o se murió/ él fue a comprar o él se fue a comprar (depends on the speaker's preference or the context)
I hope this helps.


----------



## James2000

Gracias Gamen.


----------



## Gamen

If you have any other question, just let me know James 2000. I polished up my previous publication to make it more clear.


----------



## Baltasar10

Thank you for the reply, Gamen. Allow me to summarize my understanding: The se can only be attached to the infinitive with verbs that already have the passive sense built in, like venderse, agotarse, morirse, etc (I am familiar with these types of "se" verbs with the passive built in). This would be why comprar is incorrect. 

Also, with "ir," we can't use the passive, "impersonal" se, as you described it, without confusion. That is why we can't say el libro no se va a comprar for "the book is not going to be bought." While we can indeed say "el libro no se va a vender" or "el libro no va a venderse," since venderse has the passive sense built in. Is this correct?


----------



## Gamen

Yes perfect!
In Spanish we use the verb "ir" with the object pronoun *me voy, te vas, se va, nos vamos, os vais, se van*, even though there's no reflexive function at all. This is called quasi reflexive function of the pronoun.
In the phrase with "mirar": "Ella se mira al espejo", "mirar" has, instead, a very clear reflexive function.

You are on track! very good!


----------



## Baltasar10

Thanks, Gamen! To clarify one more point: El libro no se va a vender can be translated "the book is not going to be sold?" I understand the quasi-reflexive function, but I wanted to assure it didn't affect verbs with the passive se built in, so to speak, such as venderse.


----------



## Gamen

That's correct. *El libro no se va a vende*r or *el libro no va a venderse* can be translated in English as *"the book is not going to be sold"*. You can't say in English (as far as know): *"the book is not hoing to get sold"*.
We  say "venderse" because the book does not execute the action of selling  but someone else not spedified, so we use the quasi reflexive to  indicate that there's someone who does it, although we don't know who. (impersonal use of the pronoun "se").

*For instace, look at these sentences: Se alquilan casas/ Se venden casas*. It is a very common phrase in Spanish to indicate, in an impersonal way, that there's a certain agent that  executes the action. The houses are not sold or rented by themselves,  otherwise we would say: Casas alquilan/ casas venden and that would make  no sense since those agents can not execute any action. 

On the other hand, it is important to underline that the "se" is always a third person mark for the object pronoun in Spanish.
Se  alquilan casas / se venden casas: there's someone else executing the  action and that is marked by the pronoun "se". The house is not the  agent that make the action as it is logical.

Los niños* se lavan* las manos = The kids (3rd person) wash their own hands. They don't wash something external to them as in "ellos laban (algo)"
El niño *se lava* las manos = The boy (3rd person) washes his own hands. He does not wash something external to him but himself.

Likewise, we say: *Se pintó la casa* or *la casa fue pintada.* (These two sentences are semanticslly equivalent) Someone else (not specified) painted the house. The house suffered the  action as a passive agent but, of course, it did not execute any action.  The "se" marks the action performed by someone else that is not "the house".


Some  times in English, this quasi reflexive use is translated with the  "get", besides the verb "to be": I got bored (me aburri) I got used to  getting up very early in the morning (*me acostumbré* a levantarme muy temprano a la mañana).
Other  times, the "se" can not be translated in English as in the Spanish verb  "ir": me fui (I left). Finally, when it has a real reflexive function,  in English that is marked through the pronouns "myself", "yourself",  "herself" and do on.

Could I develop and clarify more?


----------



## Baltasar10

Gracias. Creo que me es claro. "The book is not going to get sold" is possible in English. Como que no va a quedar vendido en español con la idea de terminar en un estado en vez de solamente ser vendido como "be sold" pero me resultan mas o menos iguales las expresiones.


----------



## neal41

_Se_ has multiple functions in Spanish.  It can indicate that an action is reflexive or that it is reciprocal.  _Dos ingleses se mataron_ can mean "Two Englishmen killed themselves" (reflexive) or it can mean "Two Englishmen killed each other" (reciprocal).  _Se_ is also used to convert active sentences into passive sentences.  This function of _se_ is called the _se_-passive.  In this case the verb agrees in number with the grammatical subject in the passive sentence, which was the object of the active sentence.  Thus the active sentence

_Vendimos veinte libros ayer._

becomes

_Se vendieron veinte libros ayer._

Or you can use the true passive and say _Veinte libros fueron vendidos ayer._

I don't think there is anything quasi-reflexive about this construction.  _Se_ is best understood as a marker that tells you the meaning of the sentence is passive.  The original sentence _Las solicitudes de amistad deben enviarse a personas . . _.  is an ordinary example of the _se_-passive.  The _se_-passive applies to a very large class of active verbs.  I don't know why it seems not to be applicable to _comprar_.

One reason for not referring to this construction as impersonal is that there is still another use of _se_ which is generally referred to as impersonal _se_.  The _se_-passive is used to passivize active sentences in which the subject is non-human.  If the subject is human, another construction (impersonal _se_) is used, possibly because of the reflexive and reciprocal uses of _se_.  If we want to say "Two Englishmen were killed", we don't say *_Dos ingleses se mataron_.  If we did say that, the sentence would have 3 possible meanings.  To avoid this excessive ambiguity we use another construction with _se_ in which the verb is always singular:  Se mató a dos ingleses.  This construction is called impersonal _se_.


----------



## Gamen

Excellent neal 41. Your knowledge in Spanish grammar astonished me! Vey clear your explanations and remarks.


----------



## Gamen

Yes, I agree with neal41. The sentence *"Dos ingleses se mataron"* is very ambiguous regarding the meaning that it entails. It can be imterpreted as:

1) Two English men committed suicide (because of the reflexve use of "se").
2) Two English men died because of an accident or something like that.
3) Someone else killed two men (but we don't know who).

Iin  this case I would incline to think that it is more suitable to employ  another expression adding the "agent" to get rid of the ambiguity, like:  "dos ingleses fueron muertos por la policia". Notice that here we use  "muertos" and not "matados", even though the original verb is "matar".
Another  choice can be to directly use the active form: "La policía mató a dos  ingleses". Thus, there's no ambiguity because it is clear who executed  the action and what the object or agent complement is.

The use of "se" in passive sentences or quasi reflexive ones many times gives ambiguity to the phrase because of its "impersonal nuance".

For instance, in the phrase:
*
Se castigó a los culpables (passive with "se") or its equivalent with "ser" "los culpables fueron castigados".*

Who did that? Who is the subject? We don't know. We only know that someone punished the guilty people.

Si  it is more explicit to say: "La justicia castigó a los culpables" or  "los culpables fueron castigados por la policia". (Better: Los culpables  recibieron castigo de/por parte de la policía). *"The justice* punished the guilty people" or "the *guilty people* was punished by the police". Here, both subject and object/agent complement are clear (justice vs guilty people).

Sometimes  the passive with "ser" is not possible in Spanish or it does't sound  natural. So it is preferable the passive with "se".


----------



## Baltasar10

Thanks for the input. I'm still curious as to why comprar is an exception to this rule. To test passive se attached to the infinitive applying to all verbs, can the two following sentences be translated passively? 

El niño desea imitarse (the boy wants to be imitated.) 
La niña desea quererse (the girl wants to be loved, (in addition to the possible "love herself"))

I chose imitar and querer because by rae.es dictionary, they don't have the passive se built in, just like comprar

Also, could "se debe enviar a personas..." be passive, as well as impersonal ? That is "it should be sent to personas,"as well as "one should send persons."


----------



## neal41

Here is my understanding of the matter:  Active voice sentences are basic.  A sentence in passive voice is the result of transforming an active voice sentence.  In English the object of the active sentence becomes the subject of the passive sentence, the verb form changes, and the subject of the active sentence can be included in the passive sentence as an agent preceded by the preposition 'by'.  The same mechanism exists in Spanish, and the result is called the true passive.  A very wide range of sentences can be passivized by this mechanism, and infinitives can be passivized in both languages.  'to be imitated' is a passive infinitive and "The boy wants to be imitated" will be "El niño desea ser imitado".

In Spanish there are at least 2 other mechanisms that create sentences whose meaning is passive, and these 2 mechanisms are very extensively used.  One is called _pasiva refleja_ in Spanish or _se_-passive in English.  The other is called _se impersonal_ or impersonal _se_.  The little word _se_ is very extensively used in Spanish.  In section 26.1 of _A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_ by Butt and Benjamin, there is a chart that gives 8 different uses of _se_.  In a previous message I gave an example of how the _se_-passive converts the active sentence _Vendimos veinte libros_ into the sentence _Se vendieron veinte libros_ or _Veinte libros se vendieron_.  By the way you generally cannot specify an agent in a _se_-pássive sentence.  Thus this construction is not as flexible as the true passive.

In my previous message I used the example _Se mataron dos ingleses_.  It can have a reflexive and a reciprocal meaning and is thus ambiguous.  You might think that it could also mean "Two Englishmen were killed" in accordance with the _se_-passive, but in fact the _se_-passive is NOT used to passivize active sentences with a human subject.  For that purpose a different construction is used, which is called impersonal _se_.  In this construction the verb is always singular and the personal _a_ appears.  We say _Se mató a dos ingleses_.  The meaning is passive.  Two Englishmen were killed in some unspecified way.  As with the _se_-passive, it is not possible to specify an agent.

All of this having been said, let us turn to the two sentences in your question.  In both cases you want to passivize an infinitive.  The two passive infinitives in English are 'to be imitated' and 'to be loved'.  My opinion is that neither the _se_-passive nor impersonal _se_ can be used to passivize infinitives, and hence your only choice in these two cases is the true passive.

_El niño desea ser imitado.
La niña desea ser amada._

By the way verbs with _se_ are referred to in Spanish and English as pronominal verbs.  Passivization is one of several possible functions of _se_.  I don't think it is correct to say that some verbs have the passive _se_ built in.  _Se_ can be used to passivize finite verbs in two different ways depending on whether the subject of the verb is human or not.

As to your last question _"se debe enviar a personas . . ."_ is an example of impersonal _se_, not the _se_-passive.  One way to conceptualize impersonal _se_ is to think of _se_ as meaning English 'one'.  I am not sure that's a good idea, but it is possible.

If you want to understand the structure of Spanish, the book by Butt and Benjamin is the best source in my opinion.


----------



## James2000

Baltasar10 said:


> Also, could "se debe enviar a personas..." be passive, as well as impersonal ? That is "it should be sent to personas,"as well as "one should send persons."





neal41 said:


> As to your last question _"se debe enviar a personas . . ."_ is an example of impersonal _se_, not the _se_-passive.



I would agree for this example, but depending on the situation, you can use the _pasiva refleja_ here in similar examples.  You're probably more likely to be sending something to somebody (and using the _pasiva refleja_), than sending somebody somewhere (and using the _impersonal_).

Perhaps a native (or guru) can can comment on the correctness of the following examples and their categorization.

Pasiva refleja:

Se debe enviar una carta al presidente.
Se deben enviar cartas a sus gobernadores. (from Google)

Impersonal:

 Se debe enviar a los mensajeros con las cartas originales al banco. (adapted from Google)
Se debe enviar al mensajero con la carta original al banco. (from Google)


----------



## neal41

James2000 said:


> I would agree for this example, but depending on the situation, you can use the _pasiva refleja_ here in similar examples.  You're probably more likely to be sending something to somebody (and using the _pasiva refleja_), than sending somebody somewhere (and using the _impersonal_).
> 
> Perhaps a native (or guru) can can comment on the correctness of the following examples and their categorization.
> 
> Yes, it would he helpful to have an authoritative statement as to what is actually said.
> 
> Pasiva refleja:
> 
> Ordinarily a redundant pronoun is used with indirect objects.  I suspect it would be better to insert 'le' and 'les'.
> 
> Se le debe enviar una carta al presidente.
> Se les deben enviar cartas a sus gobernadores. (from Google)
> 
> Impersonal:
> 
> Se debe enviar a los mensajeros con las cartas originales al banco. (adapted from Google)
> Se debe enviar al mensajero con la carta original al banco. (from Google)


----------



## Baltasar10

Thanks for the responses. That makes sense to me, neal. I didn't know you couldn't say se venden libros "por la biblioteca," por ejemplo, that is, there is no agent with this construction.


----------



## Gamen

I agree with neal41 who shows an excellent and undisputable command of Spanish grammar, but I’d like to point out some little issues that are grey as some linguistics are not completely agreed.
  I think that the passive se and the “se” as an exclusive mark of the reflexive or quasi reflexive function of the pronoun are both impersonal. For some linguistics the impersonal sentences are, however, only those in which it’s not possible in any way to find out the agent as in this case: “Se compra y se vende mucho más que antes en esta sociedad  posmoderna”. While in the "se passive sentences" it is possible to discover who the agent is, although not ever.

  These are “se passive” sentences:
*1)      Se castigó a los culpables: We don’t know who punished the guilty people
  2)      “Se debe enviar personas a…”: We don’t  know who wants to send the people to..*
  These two cases are "se passive sentences" with a quasi-reflexive function of se. They are passive sentences because they can be converted into a passive with the verb “ser”, since the passive sentences with se must necesssarily have a direct object:
  Los culpables fueron castigados.
  “Algunas personas deben ser enviadas a..”

When we cannot transform the sentence into a passive with “ser”, it is because there is no direct object in the sentence with se, as in these examples:
*A)     Ella se mira en el espejo.
  B)     Se despertaron temprano en el día de hoy.*

  In the first case there’s a “se reflexive” because the action is made by a person and it is received by the same person. This phrase admits the reinforcement “a sí mismo/a”, that is, “se mira a sí misma”. This sentence cannot be converted into a passive of any type, neither with “ser” nor with “se” because there’s no direct object ("Mirarse" here is an intransitive verb because has no direct object).
  The second case B could be a quasi-reflexive function of se (The verb “despertarse” does not accept the “a sí mismo” reinforcement)  This verb does not admit either a  direct object, so there’s no possible transformation into the se passive (or the passive with “ser”). The direct object of the active voice and the se passive is the subject of the passive voice. 
  In the “se passive”, the “se” is always quasi-reflexive. Never “reflexive”.

  As for the examples given by Baltasar10:
*El niño desea imitarse.
La niña desea quererse.*

  Here it is no possible the use of “se” to build a “se passive” because there’s no direct object. The action is made by the person and it is received by the same person. There’s no possible transformation into passive.
  If you say: 
  El niño desea imitarse.
La niña desea quererse.
  We always understand here that “the boy wants to imitate himself” and “the girl wants to love herself”. It is a reflexive use of the pronoun se. So, in thiese cases we cannot use the “se passive”, only the passive with “ser” as in English: “El niño desea ser imitado” y “la niña desea ser querida o amada”.
  Whenever you have a sentence with a reflexive meaning, there’s no possibility to convert it into the passive voice because to construct a passive voice you need a direct object, which you never have in the reflexive use of the pronoun se.

To sum up:
*On the one hand,* you have the pronoun se with a merely reflexive value, which does not admit a direct object and, therefore, nor a transformation into a passive sentence: “El niño se peina”. "La niña se quiere”.
*On the other hand*, you have the use of “the non reflexive se”, which admits a direct object that it is not “the first person” and the passive construction, either with “se” or with “auxiliary ser":
  “*Se vendieron* dos departamentos” (se passive).
  “Dos departamentos *fueron vendidos*” (passive with “ser”).

  I disagree with neal41 in that I do think there are Spanish verbs with the “se” “built in”. They are verbs that cannot be used without se or other pronoun according to the person it is about: *"arrepentirse", "atreverse"* (and most of the times:* "asombrarse"* and *"enojarse"*).

  Ella se arrepintió de haber insultado a su amigo Ernesto. (She regretted having insulted her friend Ernest).
  En la vida te tienes que atrever a todo. (You have to dare to everything in life).

  You never could say these aforementioned verbs (arrepentirse and atreverse) without the pronominal particle. This particle is built in the verb. You could never say “yo arrepentí de lo que hice“ or “Ella atrevió a cambiar de trabajo”. You must say: “Yo me arrepentí de lo que hice” o “Ella se atrevió a cambiar de trabajo.”
  I regretted what I did/ doing what I did
  She dared to change her job


----------



## Gamen

"Se venden libros en la biblioteca" is correct. It is a se passive with a direct object "libros". You don't have the agent, reason why you could think it is like a "impersonal sentence". The same sentence could be built through the English passive structure with, more or less, the same meaning: "los libros son vendidos en la biblioteca". Here it is not necessary to put the agent, because what it really matters is the fact that "the books are being sold". What's more, I wouldn't include the agent here. It doesn't sound natural if I did so. In this context, never mind who is selling the books, but it does that there are books on sale.


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> These are “se passive” sentences:
> *1)      Se castigó a los culpables: We don’t know who punished the guilty people
> 2)      “Se debe enviar personas a…”: We don’t  know who wants to send the people to..*
> These two cases are "se passive sentences" with a quasi-reflexive function of se. They are passive sentences because they can be converted into a passive with the verb “ser”, since the passive sentences with se must necesssarily have a direct object:
> Los culpables fueron castigados.
> “Algunas personas deben ser enviadas a..”
> 
> In linguistics as in other branches of science there is variation in terminology.  However, in this case neither the DPD nor _A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_ by Butt and Benjamin (far and away the best book on the subject in English, in my opinion) consider these sentences to be examples of '_se_-passive'.  The construction that the DPD describes as _pasiva refleja_ is the construction described by BB (Butt and Benjamin) as 'passive _se_'.  Hence I am going to assume that the terms _pasiva refleja_ and passive-_se_ have the same meaning.  The DPD says that the above sentences are _oraciones impersonales_.  The example in the DPD is "_Entre los gitanos se respeta mucho a los gitanos_."  Read Section 2.1(a) under 'Se'.  It is on page 590 in my copy.  It is of course available on line.  Various other constructions are also called _oraciones impersonales_.  Some of these constructions involve intransitive verbs.
> 
> In a previous message I said your sentences were examples of 'impersonal _se_'.  BB in section 28.5 uses another term "_Se_ + transitive verb + personal _a_" to describe such sentences and reserves the term 'impersonal _se_' for other cases.
> 
> The DPD in Section 2.1(b) discusses pasive refleja.  An example is "En la reunión se discutieron todos los temas pendientes"  Note the plural verb.


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> As for the examples given by Baltasar10:
> *El niño desea imitarse.
> La niña desea quererse.*
> 
> Here it is no possible the use of “se” to build a “se passive” because there’s no direct object. The action is made by the person and it is received by the same person. There’s no possible transformation into passive.
> 
> Baltasar10's native language is English and I focused my attention on the English sentences that he provided rather than on the Spanish ones.  One of Baltasar's sentences was "The boy wants to be imitated".  This sentence is not reflexive.  The infinitive is passive, and in the corresponding active sentence there is a direct object.  The active sentence is "The boy wants someone to imitate him."  The direct object is 'him'.  The passive version is "The boy wants to be imitated (by someone)" = "El niño desea ser imitado (por alguién)"  Here the active direct object just vanishes instead of becoming the passive subject.  I don't believe that any of the constructions with _se_ can be used in Spanish to passivize an infinitive, so we have to use the true passive.
> 
> The sentence that I am dealing with is not reflexive.
> 
> If you say:
> El niño desea imitarse.
> La niña desea quererse.
> We always understand here that “the boy wants to imitate himself” and “the girl wants to love herself”. It is a reflexive use of the pronoun se. So, in thiese cases we cannot use the “se passive”, only the passive with “ser” as in English: “El niño desea ser imitado” y “la niña desea ser querida o amada”.
> 
> I believe that "El niño desea imitarse" is reflexive.  The English sentence is then "The boy wants to imitate himself".  These sentences cannot be made passive in either language.  "El niño desea ser imitado" is the passivization of a different sentence and has no reflexive meaning.
> 
> Whenever you have a sentence with a reflexive meaning, there’s no possibility to convert it into the passive voice because to construct a passive voice you need a direct object, which you never have in the reflexive use of the pronoun se.
> 
> To sum up:
> On the one hand, you have the pronoun se with a merely reflexive value, which does not admit a direct object and, therefore, nor a transformation into a passive sentence: “El niño se peina”.
> 
> The DPD says that in the reflexive case the pronoun _se_ can function either as a direct object or an indirect object.  In your sentence _se_ is the DO.
> 
> La niña se quiere”.
> On the other hand, you have the use of “the non reflexive se”, which admits a direct object that it is not “the first person” and the passive construction, either with “se” or with “auxiliary ser":
> 
> Because of the many uses of _se_, the term 'the non reflexive _se_' could mean many things and hence is not very useful.


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> I disagree with neal41 in that I do think there are Spanish verbs with the “se” “built in”. They are verbs that cannot be used without se or other pronoun according to the person it is about: *"arrepentirse", "atreverse"* (and most of the times:* "asombrarse"* and *"enojarse"*).
> 
> I agree with your statement that there are verbs with a "built in" se.  Such verbs are discussed in DPD Section 1(d).  What I said was somewhat different.  I said
> 
> By the way verbs with _se are referred to in Spanish and English as pronominal verbs. Passivization is one of several possible functions of se. I don't think it is correct to say that some verbs have the passive se built in. Se can be used to passivize finite verbs in two different ways depending on whether the subject of the verb is human or not.
> _
> The pronoun _se_ is built in, but not 'passive _se'_.  'Passive _se'_ is a syntactic construction that uses _se_ to build sentences with a passive meaning.
> 
> Our discussion has been rather general.  There are specific aspects of these constructions that have been extensively discussed in this forum.  If I were more skilled, I would give you some links.  I may, in fact, be able to find some of these past discussions.  Pitt, a native speaker of German, is often a protagonist and has a very good understanding of the whole matter.
> 
> Ella se arrepintió de haber insultado a su amigo Ernesto. (She regretted having insulted her friend Ernest).
> En la vida te tienes que atrever a todo. (You have to dare to everything in life).
> 
> You never could say these aforementioned verbs (arrepentirse and atreverse) without the pronominal particle. This particle is built in the verb. You could never say “yo arrepentí de lo que hice“ or “Ella atrevió a cambiar de trabajo”. You must say: “Yo me arrepentí de lo que hice” o “Ella se atrevió a cambiar de trabajo.”
> I regretted what I did/ doing what I did
> She dared to change her job


----------



## Amapolas

> You never could say these aforementioned verbs (arrepentirse and atreverse) without the pronominal particle. This particle is built in the verb. You could never say “yo arrepentí de lo que hice“ or “Ella atrevió a cambiar de trabajo”. You must say: “Yo me arrepentí de lo que hice” o “Ella se atrevió a cambiar de trabajo.”
> I regretted what I did/ doing what I did
> She dared to change her job



If I remember correctly, these are called verbos cuasirreflejos (or cuasi reflejos or quasi reflejos). They do look like reflexive verbs but they are not. A rule of thumb to distinguish them is adding an object phrase: you can say "ella se vistió a si misma" but you cannot say "ella se arrepintió a sí misma". 

But back to the original question, I fail to see why the pronoun _se _cannot be added to the end of _comprar_. To me there is no difference between "no se puede comprar" and "no puede comprarse", such as there is none between "no puede venderse" and "no se puede vender". In both cases, out of context it could be interpreted as a reflexive action instead of a passive one (the book cannot sell/buy itself); however, good sense rules out the reflexive meaning. Of course, we could argue that the book went looking for customers to purchase it (a short story by Stefano Benni comes to mind) within the context of a fantasy tale, but that is stretching it a bit.


----------



## neal41

Aquí se tiene una explicación concisa de todo el asunto.

Acabo de aprender cómo reemplazar un enlace con una sola palabra (aquí 'aquí').  Ojalá salga bien.


----------



## Amapolas

neal41 said:


> Aquí se tiene una explicación concisa de todo el asunto.
> 
> Acabo de aprender cómo reemplazar un enlace con una sola palabra (aquí 'aquí'). Ojalá salga bien.



¿Cuál artículo específicamente? Revisé el de enclíticos pero no me aclaró sobre este punto.


----------



## neal41

Amapolas said:


> ¿Cuál artículo específicamente? Revisé el de enclíticos pero no me aclaró sobre este punto.



Busca 'se' en la casilla marcada "Escriba la palabra o tema objeto de su consulta".  Creo que hay manera de enviarte un enlace a esa parte del DPD, pero no sé cómo hacerlo.  Eso fue mi intención y me doy cuenta que no tuve éxito.


----------



## Amapolas

Lo hice así como dijiste y funcionó. Ahora me lo leo.


----------



## Gamen

After reading all the thread and other sources, I came to some conclusions, namely:
A)  In order that an active sentence can be transformed into passive voice,  the verb must be transitive, that is, it must have a direct object.
The intransitive verbs do not permit the passive voice construction.

Lets' take now this sentence.
*Ellos se saludaron.*
*Ellos se fueron en automóvil*
In this example there's no direct object, so we cannot convert it into a passive voice, neither the ordinary nor the "se passive".

B) Not all the active sentences with direct object can be transformed into "se passive".
We say in Spanish like in English:
El niño quiere ser imitado.
La niña quiere ser amada.

But  we cannot transform these sentences from "ordinary passive voice" into  "se passive" because we would change the original meaning.
If we say "el niño quiere imitarse", the meaning is "the boy wants to imitate himself".
If we say "la niña quiere ser amada", the meaning is "the girl wants to love herself.
In  the case of the verbs "imitar" and "mar" we cannot use the "se pasive"  to express the same meaning as the "ordinary passive with "ser".

C)  In the "se passive sentence", the "se" is quasi reflexive and has not  function neither as direct object nor as indirect object.

D) In  general terms, linguists assume that the impersonal sentences are those  ones that do not have a subject, neither explicit not tacit.
These impersonal sentences make reference to atmospheric phenomena: (But not always nor exclusively)
*Hace mucho calor
Amanece en el campo
Llaman a la puerta*

Furthermore, linguists called impersonal sentences a set of sentences built with "se" that are not the "se passive" ones:

Se persigue a los delincuentes.
Aquí se estudia y se trabaja.

In neither of these cases it is possible to determine a subject.

The "se passive sentences" do have a subject instead:

Se alquilan departamentos. 
The subject is "departamentos". It is a "se passive", which can be transformed into an "ordinary passive": 
"Los departamentos son alquilados" and also into an active voice with the corresponding changes: 
The subject "departamento" in the passive voice is transformed into the direct object in the active voice. Thus, we have:
"Alquilan departamentos" (tacit subject: they)

Other impersonal sentences: (Se + verb in singular + preposition "a")

"Se castiga a los culpables".
"Se venden casas".
(there's no possible subject)

If we want to construct a "se passive sentence", we have to use another structure:
"Se  castigan los culpables"  (where, the subject is "los culpables and the  verb agrees in number with the noun. In the impersonal sentence there's  no agreement between verb and noun and it is necessary to include the  preposition "a".
The ordinary passive sentence would be: "los culpables son castigados".

The dividing line between the "pasive se" and the "impersonal se" is rather blurred at first glance, but it does exists anyway. (At lest for the linguists)
on the other hand, the "se passive" -se castigan los culpables- is ambiguous, so it must be substituted by "Los culpables son castigados" (an ordinary passive voice) or by the impersonal "se catiga a los culpables".

"Se castigan los culpables" can mean:
Los culpables se castigan entre sí
Alguien castiga a los culpables
So there's a lot of ambiguity. It is not advidable to use a "se passive" with a "person subject". For that reason, to avoid "ambiguity" was created in Spanis the "impersonal se" with this structure (Se + verb in singular + preposition "a". Ejemplo: "Se encierra a los delincuentes".

I  saw previously the "passive se" as an impersonal sentence, but in  grammar the former one ("se passive") is distinguished from the impersonal, strictly  speaking, in that the "passive se" always have a subject, while the  impersonal ones, never.


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> B) Not all the active sentences with direct object can be transformed into "se passive".
> We say in Spanish like in English:
> El niño quiere ser imitado.
> La niña quiere ser amada.
> 
> But  we cannot transform these sentences from "ordinary passive voice" into  "se passive" because we would change the original meaning.
> 
> The above sentence are active voice, not passive voice.  '_El niño_' and '_La niña_' are the two subjects and '_ser imitado_' and '_ser amada_' are the two direct objects.  The two direct objects happen to be passive infinitives.  One generally talks about transforming active sentences into one or another type of passive sentence.  It is not really very common to talk about transforming ordinary passive into _se_-passive.  The second of the above active sentences can be transformed into passive voice.  I am going to do it in English.  Change the verb to 'desire'.  The sentence is "The girl desires to be loved."  The passive version is "To be loved is desired by the girl".  This sentence is completely grammatical although it is not something that people would say with any significant frequency.
> 
> I think that the introduction of passive infinitives complicates unnecessarily an already complicated topic.
> 
> If we say "el niño quiere imitarse", the meaning is "the boy wants to imitate himself".
> If we say "la niña quiere ser amada", the meaning is "the girl wants to love herself.  The girl wants to be loved.
> In  the case of the verbs "imitar" and "mar" we cannot use the "se pasive"  to express the same meaning as the "ordinary passive with "ser".
> 
> C)  In the "se passive sentence", the "se" is quasi reflexive and has not  function neither as direct object nor as indirect object.
> 
> 'Reflexive' has a clear meaning in syntax. It means that the subject of a sentence is identical with the direct object of that same sentence.  It's true that '_se_' here is neither a direct object nor an indirect object.  It also has nothing to do with reflexivity.  Different linguists use different terminology, and it may be that some linguists have used 'quasi-reflexive', but it does not seem to me to be an appropriate term here since '_se_' here is unrelated to reflexivity.
> 
> 
> 
> The "se passive sentences" do have a subject instead:
> 
> Se alquilan departamentos.
> The subject is "departamentos". It is a "se passive", which can be transformed into an "ordinary passive":
> "Los departamentos son alquilados" and also into an active voice with the corresponding changes:
> The subject "departamento" in the passive voice is transformed into the direct object in the active voice. Thus, we have:
> "Alquilan departamentos" (tacit subject: they)
> 
> Other impersonal sentences: (Se + verb in singular + preposition "a") This term is used in Butt and Benjamin with the same meaning as '_se-impersonal_' in DPD.
> 
> "Se castiga a los culpables".
> "Se venden casas".
> (there's no possible subject)
> 
> This last sentence is _pasiva refleja_, and '_casas_' is the subject.  "_Se vende casas_" with a singular verb is an example of _se-impersonal_.  It is accepted in some dialects and not in others.  In most dialects a speaker does not have a choice between _pasiva refleja_ and _se-impersonal_.  If the subject of the active sentence is human, or possibly animate, then _se-impersonal_ must be used.  If the subject is inanimate (like '_casas'_), then _pasiva refleja_ must be used.  In some dialects, especially in the Southern Cone, it is possible to use _se-impersonal_ with inanimate subjects.  These details have been discussed over and over in this forum.  I found a lot of these threads by searching for posts authored by Pitt.  Look at the titles.  I think you will see that they often deal with topics similar to what we are discussing here.
> 
> If we want to construct a "se passive sentence", we have to use another structure:
> "Se  castigan los culpables"  (where, the subject is "los culpables and the  verb agrees in number with the noun. In the impersonal sentence there's  no agreement between verb and noun and it is necessary to include the  preposition "a".  When the subject of the active sentence is human, _pasiva refleja_ is generally impossible.
> The ordinary passive sentence would be: "los culpables son castigados".
> 
> The dividing line between the "pasive se" and the "impersonal se" is rather blurred at first glance, but it does exists anyway. (At lest for the linguists)
> on the other hand, the "se passive" -se castigan los culpables- is ambiguous, so it must be substituted by "Los culpables son castigados" (an ordinary passive voice) or by the impersonal "se catiga a los culpables".
> 
> "Se castigan los culpables" can mean:
> Los culpables se castigan entre sí
> Alguien castiga a los culpables
> So there's a lot of ambiguity. It is not advidable to use a "se passive" with a "person subject". For that reason, to avoid "ambiguity" was created in Spanis the "impersonal se" with this structure (Se + verb in singular + preposition "a". Ejemplo: "Se encierra a los delincuentes".
> 
> I  saw previously the "passive se" as an impersonal sentence, but in  grammar the former one ("se passive") is distinguished from the impersonal, strictly  speaking, in that the "passive se" always have a subject, while the  impersonal ones, never.


----------



## Gamen

Ok, I agree with you neal41. The examples "El niño quiere ser imitado" and "La niña quiere ser amada" are definetely active voice. I made an involuntary mistake. I meant, some verbs are not likely to be converted into "se passive" as "imitar" and "amar" due to the fact that the meaning changes.
"Imitarse" is not equivalent to "ser imitado"
"Amarse" is not equivalent to "ser amado"

Where I put the phrase "la niña quiere ser amada" I really wanted to write "la niña quiere amarse". In this case, the translation is certainly "the girl wants to love herself".


----------



## Gamen

You are right. "Se impersonal" is preferable with human or animate  subjects since thus the ambiguity is dispelled. When the subject is  human and we use a "se passive" (as in "se castigan los culpables"), we  don't know if the action is carried out by the subject or by someone  else.
If the subject is inanimate, it is definitely preferable the use of the "se passive" (as in "se venden casas").
I  wouldn't use "se vende casas", but "se venden casas". The lack of  agreement in number sounds incorrect to me and, on the other hand, "se  vende casas" is impersonal and, therefore, more ambiguous.

Yes, you're right too in that the sentence "se venden casas" is pasiva refleja (or rather pasiva cuasi refleja).


----------



## spainman

Thank you this was a great help. I´m beginning to understand a little bit more clearly the different uses of se
spainman


----------

