# one rule for the subjunctive?



## donbill

This is a follow-up to a recent thread. The idea of one rule to explain the subjunctive/indicative contrast is described by John Bergen in his article "One Rule for the Spanish Subjunctive." It can be found in _Hispania_ (1978), the journal of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese.

Bergen's idea is that the subjunctive/indicative contrast depends on affirmation vs. non-affirmation (or affirmation vs. the absence of affirmation). 

The following sentences are mine, not Professor Bergen's, and they reflect only a limited area of the contrast. I'm curious as to what los foreros think about the idea. The "b" sentence is an affirmation that contrasts with the "a" sentence, which is not. And I apologize for the length of the post.

1a. Quiero que estudies más. (I can't affirm that you will.)
1b. Sé que estudias mucho. (I can verify it.)
2a. Dudo que vayan a llegar a tiempo. (obvious lack of affirmation.)
2b. Estoy seguro de que van a llegar a tiempo. (positive belief)
3a. Es terrible que no hayan llegado a tiempo. (a reaction to a fact rather than an affirmation of it)
3b. Veo que han llegado. (an empirically verifiable fact)
4a. Buscamos un libro que explique cómo usar el subjuntivo. (We can't affirm its existence. We don't have it yet.)
4b. Tienes el libro que explica cómo usar el subjuntivo. (it exists; I know it)
5a. Vamos a empezar cuando llegue el profesor. (his arrival can't be affirmed yet)
5b. Es la misma rutina todos los días: empezamos cuando llega el profesor. (it happens everyday)
6a. El profesor habla lentamente para que sus alumnos entiendan la explicación. (we can't affirm that they will understand)
6b. El profesor habla lentamente de modo que sus alumnos entienden la explicación. (_de modo que_ can be followed by subjunctive; using indicative with it here affirms the student's understanding.)

What do you think about the idea? Are there subjunctive uses for which it would not work?
And one more comment: the affirmation or lack thereof applies only to the dependent clause, not to the entire sentence.


----------



## donbill

Plangam said:


> La regla excluiría la siguiente oración, ¿no?
> 
> "A lo mejor/Tal vez/Quizá eso es..."
> 
> Dejando esto aparte, cada una de tus oraciones es perfecta al igual que cada una de tus deducciones sobre el uso que acompaña a estas.
> 
> 
> 3b. No veo que hayan llegado. (this is exactly the same as 1b (we can verify that we can't see that...), but we use the subjunctive, and this is because we can't prove that they have not arrived...right, but now this should be applied to 1b too. So all sentence beginning with "No sé si..." should use the subjunctive, ¿hmm?)



No creo que excluya a lo mejor/tal vez/quizá. Esperemos las respuestas de otros foreros. ¿No sería posible usar el subjuntivo con cada una de estas expresiones para expresar la falta de afirmación?

La afirmación o falta de la misma tiene que ver con la cláusula subordinada. Por eso, veo ninguna (o poca) diferencia entre_ Dudo que hayan llegado y No veo que hayan llegado_.


----------



## capitas

I think that it is just making too plain/simple the use of subjunctive.
Most of your examples change the verb/sentence construction to confront indicative vs subjunctive. The ones which don't do it do not show at all affirmation/non affirmation. Buscamos un libro que explica/explique. You would express something similar with  definite/non definit article "el libro que explica" vs "un libro que explica", and in this case it would be nonsense speaking about aff/non affirmation.  
Moreover, most of spanish patterns use indicative when affirmative and subjunctive when negative, though the speaker expresses the same affirmation/non affirmation on what is being stated.
Creo que vienen vs No creo que vengan.
In short, you all (we all) would be quite satisfied if this (or whatever) rule applied.


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> I think that it is just making too plain/simple the use of subjunctive.
> Most of your examples change the verb/sentence construction to confront indicative vs subjunctive. The ones which don't do it do not show at all affirmation/non affirmation. Buscamos un libro que explica/explique. You would express something similar with  definite/non definit article "el libro que explica" vs "un libro que explica", and in this case it would be nonsense speaking about aff/non affirmation.
> 
> 
> Moreover, most of spanish patterns use indicative when affirmative and subjunctive when negative, though the speaker expresses the same affirmation/non affirmation on what is being stated.
> Creo que vienen vs No creo que vengan.
> In short, you all (we all) would be quite satisfied if this (or whatever) rule applied.



But el libro proves the point. It has been identified, so we can affirm its existence.
There's a lot of difference in Busco un libro que lo explique and Busco el libro que lo explica.


----------



## Obnubilado

Can't think, off hand, of an example where this wouldn't apply, though in truth haven't been thinking too long about it, will give it some more thought.

What I will say is that it is an interesting way of looking at the subjuctive, especially for a Spanish teacher who is teaching English speakers, and may help clarify an area that is hugely difficult for people who have English as a first language, as the subjunctive mood is almost unknown in English. It's such a foreign concept for us Anglophones that anything that can clarify is useful.


----------



## duvija

Cada vez que leo una teoría sobre cómo usar el subjuntivo, se me paran los pelitos de la nuca. Por ahora no vi ninguna que realmente abarque la totalidad. Por supuesto, la explicación de aff/non es buena, pero no es completa (y se basa en cambios de estructura, como señaló capitas.

4a. Buscamos un libro que explique cómo usar el subjuntivo. (We can't affirm its existence. We don't have it yet.) *And never will*.
4b. Tienes el libro que explica cómo usar el subjuntivo. (it exists; I know it) *It doesn't exist, really...
*
*And clearly in these sentences, 'el' vs. 'un' do the work. If we switch'em: *
*4a'  Buscamos el libro que explica...*
*4b'  Tienes un libro que explique...*
*We are not changing the verbs, just the article def/indef.*

*It's worth a try... Is there a list of constructions that recquire the subj. that we could try and see? doubt, emotions, etc.? (I mean, in a link, here in this forum?).
*


----------



## Peterdg

As I already said in the other thread, this theory looks more consistent to me than any other synthetic theory I've seen about the use of the subjunctive. However, as also already pointed out in the other thread, what about:

"Me pregunto si está en casa." You can hardly call that an affirmation. In Spain, the subjunctive here would be regarded as unacceptable.

There are other constructions in which one allows for the subjunctive and the other doesn't and in which I can't see any semantic difference as to the affirmation/non-affirmation:

"¿Crees que tengamos/tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
"¿No crees que tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"

The first one accepts the subjunctive; the second one does NOT (for some reason)

Another one: 

"Acaso/quizá/tal vez viene/venga".

"A lo mejor viene". A lo mejor does NOT allow the subjunctive although it means exactly the same as quizá/tal vez/acaso. 

There are also regional differences:

1) "Nunca creí que sobreviviera".
2) "Nunca creí que sobreviviría".

1) would be normal in Spain. 2) would be regarded as, at least, unusual in Spain, if not incorrect to some. 

However, in México (and perhaps in other parts of LA), 1) would mean "I never expected he'd survive" (and actually, I don't say anything of the fact whether he survived or not) and 2) would mean "I never expected he'd survive, but he did".


----------



## donbill

duvija said:


> Cada vez que leo una teoría sobre cómo usar el subjuntivo, se me paran los pelitos de la nuca. Por ahora no vi ninguna que realmente abarque la totalidad. Por supuesto, la explicación de aff/non es buena, pero no es completa (y se basa en cambios de estructura, como señaló capitas.
> 
> 4a. Buscamos un libro que explique cómo usar el subjuntivo. (We can't affirm its existence. We don't have it yet.) *And never will*.
> 4b. Tienes el libro que explica cómo usar el subjuntivo. (it exists; I know it) *It doesn't exist, really...
> *
> *And clearly in these sentences, 'el' vs. 'un' do the work. If we switch'em: *
> *4a'  Buscamos el libro que explica...*
> *4b'  Tienes un libro que explique...*
> *We are not changing the verbs, just the article def/indef.*
> 
> *It's worth a try... Is there a list of constructions that recquire the subj. that we could try and see? doubt, emotions, etc.? (I mean, in a link, here in this forum?).
> *



My point in making this post is not to claim that there is a one-rule answer to all uses of the subjunctive, but to say that there may be something that can serve as point of departure for non-natives. We have to have a cognitive base from which to start because we don't have the native's intuitive grasp.

As for the list of expressions, they all fall into to categories that govern subjunctive use. In my opinion, it's easier to grasp the concept and learn to categorize than it is to memorize lists.

And I agree fully that there will never be a foolproof explanation of something as matizado as the subjunctive is!

saludos


----------



## donbill

Peterdg said:


> As I already said in the other thread, this theory looks more consistent to me than any other synthetic theory I've seen about the use of the subjunctive. However, as also already pointed out in the other thread, what about:
> 
> "Me pregunto si está en casa." You can hardly call that an affirmation. In Spain, the subjunctive here would be regarded as unacceptable.
> 
> There are other constructions in which one allows for the subjunctive and the other doesn't and in which I can't see any semantic difference as to the affirmation/non-affirmation:
> 
> "¿Crees que tengamos/tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
> "¿No crees que tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
> 
> The first one accepts the subjunctive; the second one does NOT (for some reason)
> 
> Another one:
> 
> "Acaso/quizá/tal vez viene/venga".
> 
> "A lo mejor viene". A lo mejor does NOT allow the subjunctive although it means exactly the same as quizá/tal vez/acaso.
> 
> There are also regional differences:
> 
> 1) "Nunca creí que sobreviviera".
> 2) "Nunca creí que sobreviviría".
> 
> 1) would be normal in Spain. 2) would be regarded as, at least, unusual in Spain, if not incorrect to some.
> 
> However, in México (and perhaps in other parts of LA), 1) would mean "I never expected he'd survive" (and actually, I don't say anything of the fact whether he survived or not) and 2) would mean "I never expected he'd survive, but he did".



I did not intend for sentences such as "Me pregunto si está en casa" to even enter into the debate. With extremely rare exceptions, present subjunctive does not follow _si_. 

And, true, regional differences always enter into the equation. And there are always complications. As you point out _a_ _lo mejor_ calls for indicative, even though it means essentially the same as _tal vez_ and _quizas_. (But even here, regional differences enter. What's true for the Peninsula is not always so for America in terms of tendencies of usage and with regard to what is actually heard as opposed to what is prescribed.)

So my desire for this thread is that it die a quiet death and not trouble foreros any further.

Un saludo

As I pointed out in my response to duvija, I posed the question to address a point of departure rather than to propose a cure for all of the subjunctive ills of the world.


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> Creo que vienen vs No creo que vengan.



This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Both of the sentences in their entirety affirm something.

_Creo que vienen_ affirms that I think they're coming.
_No creo que vengan_ affirms that I don't think they are coming.

But the point is not the affirmation of the whole sentence; it is the affirmation or lack of affirmation concerning the contents of the dependent clause.

I have not presented my case well. And as I have already stated, I know that this "rule" doesn't solve all problems related to the subjunctive. The subject is too vast and it has too many variations that are acceptable in one region and totally rejected in others.

I contend that there is a context that can legitimately contradict many of our most dearly held prescriptive rules, but I have not intended in this post to try to cast those rules in an unfavorable light, but rather to present some ideas for consideration.


----------



## duvija

donbill said:


> This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Both of the sentences in their entirety affirm something.
> 
> _Creo que vienen_ affirms that I think they're coming.
> _No creo que vengan_ affirms that I don't think they are coming.
> 
> But the point is not the affirmation of the whole sentence; it is the affirmation or lack of affirmation concerning the contents of the dependent clause.
> 
> I have not presented my case well. And as I have already stated, I know that this "rule" doesn't solve all problems related to the subjunctive. The subject is too vast and it has too many variations that are acceptable in one region and totally rejected in others.
> 
> I contend that there is a context that can legitimately contradict many of our most dearly held prescriptive rules, but I have not intended in this post to try to cast those rules in an unfavorable light, but rather to present some ideas for consideration.


 
The theory is extremely interesting. We have to check it with facts, one by one. We know nothing will solve everything, but it's worth while to take a second look. 
I'm afraid we can always shove some reasons into anything (we are great for that stuff ), but let's do it one example at a time.


----------



## capitas

duvija said:


> The theory is extremely interesting. We have to check it with facts, one by one. We know nothing will solve everything, but it's worth while to take a second look.
> I'm afraid we can always shove some reasons into anything (we are great for that stuff ), but let's do it one example at a time.


I must admit that, though I don't like it as a whole, it si by far the best theory about subjunctive that I've never heard. 
As I said before in some other threads, I must conceed how lucky Spanish speaking natives are who have not go deal with learning subjunctive.
I'll give it a new look.
Just to start with, Peterdg's examples sounds all correct to me (the six of them):
"¿Crees que tengamos/tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
"¿No crees que tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
With "creer que", the difference between indic/subjnc. is just a matter of time: indicative present, subjundtive future.


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> I must admit that, though I don't like it as a whole, it si by far the best theory about subjunctive that I've never heard.
> As I said before in some other threads, I must conceed how lucky Spanish speaking natives are who have not go deal with learning subjunctive.
> I'll give it a new look.
> Just to start with, Peterdg's examples sounds all correct to me (the six of them):
> "¿Crees que tengamos/tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
> "¿No crees que tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
> With "creer que", the difference between indic/subjnc. is just a matter of time: indicative present, subjundtive future.



Hola capitas,

I thought that this thread was going to follow the path of the dinosaurs to extinction, but it's still breathing! Oh, no!

The trouble (problem) with this idea (theory)--and I admit that some points are extremely hard to explain and that I have great difficulty trying to do so--is that it sometimes permits degrees of flexibility that contradict standard usage. Sometimes, in fact, an incorrect use can even substantiate the theory's validity. For example, according to virtually all grammar books, _a lo_ _mejor_ is always used with indicative. Nevertheless, and probably because of the similarity in meaning of _a lo mejor_ to _tal vez_ and _quizas_--both of which can also be used with subjunctive--_a lo mejor_ occasionally crosses the line of prescriptive correctness and is paired with a subjunctive verb. In all likelihood this is because it has taken on the idea of (forgive me, peterdg!) doubt, or as Bergen would categorize it, non-affirmation. So in this "incorrect" use of subjunctive with _a lo mejor_--por muy infrecuente que sea--we see the impact of semantics in the selection of mood. And it seems to me that the principal idea behind Bergen's position is that semantics, within constraints of syntax, is a crucially important element of the subjunctive/indicative contrast and that it deserves more importance than it has received.

Apologies to all for the length of the post!

Saludos


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> "¿Crees que tengamos/tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
> "¿No crees que tenemos/tendríamos que invertir más dinero?"
> With "creer que", the difference between indic/subjnc. is just a matter of time: indicative present, subjundtive future.



¡Ay, capitas! No me gusta decirlo, pero esta vez no estoy de acuerdo contigo. Puede ser que me haya equivocado, que no haya entendido bien o, lo más probable, que simplemente necesite analizarlo más a fondo. Pero has dicho, "With _creer que_, the difference between indic/subjnc. is just a matter of time: indicative present, subjunctive future." 

Desde mi perspectiva, tiene que ver más con el mensaje que con la cronología.

¿Crees que tengamos que invertir más dinero [ahora/en el futuro]? (=yo lo dudo; no estoy seguro)
¿Crees que tenemos que invertir más dinero [ahora/en el futuro]? (= yo, sí lo creo)
¿No crees que tenemos que invertir más dinero [ahora/en el futuro]? (= yo, sí; me imagino que tú también vas a decir que sí)

Pero podemos crear versiones paralelas en pasado, ¿no?

¿Creías que tuviéramos/teníamos que invertir más dinero [en aquel momento/al mes siguiente]?
¿No creías que teníamos que invertir más dinero [en aquel momento/al mes siguiente]?

Si he entendido mal, te pido perdón por haberte hecho sufrir con este post.

Un saudo


----------



## Istriano

donbill said:


> Es terrible que no hayan llegado a tiempo. (a reaction to a fact rather than an affirmation of it)
> .



Well, in Latin America you can also hear

_''Que terrible que no llegaron a tiempo''_ 
instead of _''Es terrible que no hayan llegado / llegaran a tiempo.''_

They both have the same idea, but in one sentence subjunctive is used, and in the other one it's not.


----------



## capitas

We can't always agree.
¿Crees que tengamos que invertir más dinero? Do you think that we will have (in the future) to invest more money?
¿Crees que tenemos que invertir más dinero? Do you think that we have (just now) to invest more money? 
With "tenemos" I'm sure that it is the presnent investment what I'm thinking of.
With "tengamos" I admit that both future and present investment is posible.
I don't like your sentences with simple past ( I don't like "Creías que tuviéramos"). Lets try with past perfect.
Creía que habíamos tenido que invertir más dinero.
Creía que hubiéramos tenido que invertir más dinero.
I don't like either.
MAybe "creer que" in affirmative and interrogative is one of your "regionalismos", for subjunctive hardly works in the present but neither in the past nor pastperfect.
Your dinosaure is still alive, but I just can't do anything to help it. As I said, your-Bergen's theory-idea-trouble-problem-matter-staff??? is the best explanation for subjunctive use.


----------



## donbill

Istriano said:


> Well, in Latin America you can also hear
> 
> _''Que terrible que no llegaron a tiempo''_
> instead of _''Es terrible que no hayan llegado / llegaran a tiempo.''_
> 
> They both have the same idea, but in one sentence subjunctive is used, and in the other one it's not.



Absolutely! Expression of reaction (es terrible, es interesante, etc) show both possibilities very frequently in Latin American Spanish.


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> I don't like your sentences with simple past ( I don't like "Creías que tuviéramos"). Lets try with past perfect.
> Creía que habíamos tenido que invertir más dinero.
> Creía que hubiéramos tenido que invertir más dinero.
> .



Hola capitas,

I must correct something here: My sentences with past were *questions*, not *statements*. I would not say "*_Creías que tuviéramos/hubiéramos tenido...." _I would say, however, _"¿Creías que tuviéramos que invertir más dinero?"_ Do you find the question acceptable? grammatical?

un saludo


----------



## Istriano

donbill said:


> This is a follow-up to a recent thread. The idea of one rule to explain the subjunctive/indicative contrast is described by John Bergen in his article "One Rule for the Spanish Subjunctive." It can be found in _Hispania_ (1978), the journal of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese.



More often than not, the rules for subjunctive are very relative (''logic in the minds of language users''), especially if we try to compare the differences between  _Classical Spanish ~ Modern Spanish ~ Portuguese._


1) with SI

Modern Spanish:
_Te llamaré si *estoy *__en casa.
_
Classical and legalese Spanish:
_Te llamaré  si *estuviere *en casa._

Portuguese:
_Te chamarei se *estiver *em casa._

In this case Modern Spanish replaced future subjunctive with present indicative.

2)  with CUANDO

Modern Spanish:
_Te llamaré cuando *esté *en casa.
_ 
Classical  and legalese Spanish:
_Te llamaré  cuando *estuviere *en casa._

Portuguese:
_Te chamarei quando *estiver *em casa._


In this case Modern Spanish replaced future subjunctive with present subjunctive.


----------



## blasita

First of all, I ´d like to say I´m just learning/trying to brush up on my Spanish grammar now; shame on me !  I´ve skimmed through everyone´s comments,  and learnt from every post.  Very interesting idea and thread, donbill.  Just a few thoughts:

This meaning of  ´*creer*´: tener por cierto algo que el entendimiento no alcanza, aunque no esté comprobado; maybe our ´grammatical mind´ makes us take it as something sure, even though it´s not been proved. This is why we use the indicative (or conditional; not pure subjunctive) in  _Creo que lo hará _(pero yo no diría _Creo que lo haga_). Here we may be more sure than in _Espero que lo haga_; in which the speaker might be less sure. Besides, I think that _Confío en que lo hará_ y _Espero que lo hará_ are not considered grammatically correct (but I´d say them ), but _Creo que lo hará_ is correct.
We may see *´A lo mejor´* more probable, and this may be reason why we use, at least in Spain (but not in some South American countries), the indicative instead of the subjunctive.

Anyway, please *correct me* because I could be wrong in all this.  Un saludo a todos.


----------



## capitas

donbill said:


> Hola capitas,
> 
> I must correct something here: My sentences with past were *questions*, not *statements*. I would not say "*_Creías que tuviéramos/hubiéramos tenido...." _I would say, however, _"¿Creías que tuviéramos que invertir más dinero?"_ Do you find the question acceptable? grammatical?
> 
> un saludo


Forgive me, Don Bill. I don´t know what I was thinking about..
¿Creías que tuvieramos que invertir? Did you think that in the future of the past we had to invest? I find it much more than acceptable (I'd say it), but I'm not sure whether its just a subjunctive or a conditional. 
¿Creías que teníamos que invertir? Did you think that at that point you wer thinking you had to invest?
It matches with my idea of indicative-present and subjunctive-future.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> This meaning of  ´*creer*´: tener por cierto algo que el entendimiento no alcanza, aunque no esté comprobado; maybe our ´grammatical mind´ makes us take it as something sure, even though it´s not been proved. This is why we use the indicative (or conditional; not pure subjunctive) in  _Creo que lo hará _(pero yo no diría _Creo que lo haga_).
> We may see *´A lo mejor´* more probable, and this may be reason why we use, at least in Spain (but not in some South American countries), the indicative instead of the subjunctive.
> 
> Anyway, please *correct me* because I could be wrong in all this.  Un saludo a todos.



Very good observations from the angloparlante point of view! _"Creer"_ bothers some English-speaking learners of Spanish for exactly the reason that you've stated: it expresses opinion about something that hasn't been proved yet. We apparently take affirmative belief with some degree of faith in order to justify using indicative with it. (As I mentioned in a post a long time ago, I've heard educated native speakers of Latin-American Spanish use  affirmative _creer _+ subjunctive [Creo que lo haga, Creo que sea posible, etc.], but I wouldn't dare do it for fear of breaking una regla inquebrantable.)

The uses of subjunctive with *a lo mejor* that I have referred to come from Latin American sources. I wonder if some of the Latin American foreros find such use to be at all acceptable.

I don't think you're wrong at all!


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> Forgive me, Don Bill. I don´t know what I was thinking about..
> ¿Creías que tuvieramos que invertir? Did you think that in the future of the past we had to invest? I find it much more than acceptable (I'd say it), but I'm not sure whether its just a subjunctive or a conditional.
> ¿Creías que teníamos que invertir? Did you think that at that point you wer thinking you had to invest?
> It matches with my idea of indicative-present and subjunctive-future.



Te absuelvo, hijo mío. 

No problem at all. I just didn't want you think that I was so clueless about this whole issue.

Un saludo


----------



## albertovidal

Donbill:
Cómo explicaríamos entonces estos ejemplos donde el uso del subjuntivo y del indicativo no modifica el sentido de la oración:
_Me da lo mismo si venís o no a cenar con nosotros_.
_Me da lo mismo que vengáis o no a cenar con nostros_.
En España y Argentina, por lo menos, son correctas ambas estructuras sintácticas.


----------



## donbill

abertovidal said:


> Donbill:
> Cómo explicaríamos entonces estos ejemplos donde el uso del subjuntivo y del indicativo no modifica el sentido de la oración:
> _Me da lo mismo si venís o no a cenar con nosotros_.
> _Me da lo mismo que vengáis o no a cenar con nostros_.
> En España y Argentina, por lo menos, son correctas ambas estructuras sintácticas.



Creo--y no estoy seguro--que tiene que ver con la estructura. "Si" en la primera oración y "que" en la segunda influyen en la selección del modo. Vamos a ver si otros foreros tienen opiniones al respecto.

Gracias por la pregunta.


----------



## capitas

donbill said:


> Creo--y no estoy seguro--que tiene que ver con la estructura. "Si" en la primera oración y "que" en la segunda influyen en la selección del modo. Vamos a ver si otros foreros tienen opiniones al respecto.
> 
> Gracias por la pregunta.


 
_Me da lo mismo si venís o no a cenar con nosotros_.
_Me da lo mismo que vengáis o no a cenar con nostros_.

I agree with what Abertovidal means. Both constructions seem right to my ear, they express exactly the same idea, one with subjunctive and another with indicative. He means (correct me if I'm wrong) that IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SEMANTICS, but just A MATTER OF USES-SINTAXIS (¿SINTACTICS?).


----------



## blasita

> Cómo explicaríamos entonces estos ejemplos donde el uso del subjuntivo y del indicativo no modifica el sentido de la oración:
> Me da lo mismo si venís o no a cenar con nosotros.
> Me da lo mismo que vengáis o no a cenar con nostros.



Tienes razón, aberto, no lo modifica, pero no te/os parece que estamos en lo mismo, es decir que el indicativo quizás lo usaría más cuando estoy más seguro (me han dicho que seguramente vendrán pero me da igual), y el subjuntivo (me han podido decir que no es seguro vengan). (??)

Seguramente estaré equivocada, pero es solamente mi idea.  Es cuestión de matices. Saludos.


----------



## albertovidal

blasita said:


> Tienes razón, aberto, no lo modifica, pero no te/os parece que estamos en lo mismo, es decir que el indicativo quizás lo usaría más cuando estoy más seguro (me han dicho que seguramente vendrán pero me da igual), y el subjuntivo (me han podido decir que no es seguro vengan). (??)
> 
> Seguramente estaré equivocada, pero es solamente mi idea.  Es cuestión de matices. Saludos.


En realidad, no creo que sea así.
No me importa, *en ambos casos*, cuál es la decisión que tomen. Yo no asumo absolutamente nada, por cuanto desconozco cuál será su respuesta.
Saludos
Alberto


----------



## blasita

> En realidad, no creo que sea así.
> No me importa, en ambos casos, cuál es la decisión que tomen. Yo no asumo absolutamente nada, por cuanto desconozco cuál será su respuesta.
> Saludos
> Alberto



OK, tienes razón que me da igual su decisión.  Yo estaba hablando más de lo que la probabilidad de que vengan, independientemente de lo que hagan.

Pero, como he dicho, estaré equivocada.  Y teniendo en cuenta tus conocimientos, seguro que lo estoy.

Un saludo .


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> _Me da lo mismo si venís o no a cenar con nosotros_.
> _Me da lo mismo que vengáis o no a cenar con nostros_.
> 
> I agree with what Abertovidal means. Both constructions seem right to my ear, they express exactly the same idea, one with subjunctive and another with indicative. He means (correct me if I'm wrong) that IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SEMANTICS, but just A MATTER OF USES-SINTAXIS (¿SINTACTICS?).



I think you're correct, capitas. To me it's purely a matter of syntax here; two ways (different structures) to communicate the same message.


----------



## albertovidal

blasita said:


> OK, tienes razón que me da igual su decisión.  Yo estaba hablando más de lo que la probabilidad de que vengan, independientemente de lo que hagan.
> 
> Pero, como he dicho, estaré equivocada.  Y teniendo en cuenta tus conocimientos, seguro que lo estoy.
> 
> Un saludo .


Blasita:
Independientemente de los conocimientos que tengas (y creo ya haberte dicho, en otro mensaje, que disiento contigo porque, para mí, tienes mucho conocimiento/talento y, además, mucho tiempo por delante para aprender más-como todos nosotros-), lo importante es que intervienes en los foros dando tu opinión -que no es poca cosa- sobre temas que, muchas veces, no están al alcance de todos.
Un gran saludo y mis humildes felicitaciones por tu esfuerzo para aprender!
Alberto


----------



## Peterdg

I just love this thread


donbill said:


> My point in making this post is not to claim that there is a one-rule answer to all uses of the subjunctive, but to say that there may be something that can serve as point of departure for non-natives. We have to have a cognitive base from which to start because we don't have the native's intuitive grasp.


 It certainly is a better point of departure than doubt/hypothesis/uncertainty/irreality. The key point is however, not to present it as a generative theory, but merely as an explicative theory.


donbill said:


> Creo--y no estoy seguro--que tiene que ver con la estructura. "Si" en la primera oración y "que" en la segunda influyen en la selección del modo. Vamos a ver si otros foreros tienen opiniones al respecto.
> 
> Gracias por la pregunta.





capitas said:


> _Me da lo mismo si venís o no a cenar con nosotros_.
> _Me da lo mismo que vengáis o no a cenar con nostros_.
> 
> I agree with what Abertovidal means. Both constructions seem right to my ear, they express exactly the same idea, one with subjunctive and another with indicative. He means (correct me if I'm wrong) that IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SEMANTICS, but just A MATTER OF USES-SINTAXIS (¿SINTACTICS?).


As many of you will know, I couldn't agree more with this. In this case, it's purely syntactical. In fact, in my opinion, in 90% of the cases where the subjunctive is used, it's the syntax that determines the choice, not the semantics (in previous threads, I called this the "mechanical" use of the mood). Of course, in cases where you do have the choice between the two moods, then it is semantics that comes into play. (BTW, 90% is an arbitrary number. It's not based on anything scientific).


duvija said:


> The theory is extremely interesting. We have to check it with facts, one by one. We know nothing will solve everything, but it's worth while to take a second look.
> I'm afraid we can always shove some reasons into anything (we are great for that stuff ), but let's do it one example at a time.


The concise way it is presented now, doesn't offer enough elements to judge it in depth of course. I read some things about the theory (but in my case it was called declarative/non-declarative instead of affirmative/non-affirmative). DonBill has already given some examples, but I can add some other paradigms.

_Me molesta que fumes_. You're not saying/declaring/affirming that I'm smoking; instead you are saying that you are troubled with it. 

_Veo que fumas_. You're actually also saying/affirming/declaring that I'm smoking.

_No veo que fumes_. You're not saying/affirming/declaring that I'm smoking. I may or may not be. You're saying you don't see it.

Next example taken from the NGLE.

_No oí que me estuvieran llamando_. You're not saying/affirming/declaring that they called you. You're just affirming you didn't hear. You may or may not have been called.

_No oí que me estaban llamando_. Here you affirm that they did call you (and also that you didn't hear it). Although the NGLE and "Subjuntivo, valores y usos" say this is valid, I suppose there will be native speakers that will not accept the use of the indicative in this structure.

It even makes the use of the indicative/subjunctive after _aunque _plausible. The current theory says that you use the subjunctive after _aunque_ when the speaker assumes that what he says after aunque is information that is already known to his audience. If, on the other hand, it is new information, then you use the indicative.

New information=you declare/affirm it ---> indicative
Known information=you don't (have to) declare/affirm it (as it is already known) ---> subjunctive

Anyway, the reason of my arguments is not to promote this theory as "the" way to teach the subjunctive. But, if the need arises to give people a feel on the nature of the subjunctive, I think it is worthwile considering this one (certainly preferable over the doubt/hypothesis/uncertainty stuff).


----------



## donbill

Peterdg said:


> I just love this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It even makes the use of the indicative/subjunctive after _aunque _plausible. The current theory says that you use the subjunctive after _aunque_ when the speaker assumes that what he says after aunque is information that is already known to his audience. If, on the other hand, it is new information, then you use the indicative.
> 
> 
> Exactly! *Aunque sea viejo, es fuerte. (sabemos que es viejo; que sea viejo no sorprende a nadie)
> Aunque es viejo, es fuerte. (y es posible que no sepas que es viejo; es por eso que te lo digo)*
> 
> Anyway, the reason of my arguments is not to promote this theory as "the" way to teach the subjunctive. But, if the need arises to give people a feel on the nature of the subjunctive, I think it is worthwile considering this one (certainly preferable over the doubt/hypothesis/uncertainty stuff).



peterdg,

I am so glad you chimed in again! (Please excuse my intrusive remarks on aunque, above.)

And I am not promoting this idea as THE way either, but I think it's interesting to consider. In the 70's and 80's many articles were written on a "semantic approach to the subjunctive." The purpose--and this goes against your position somewhat--is that if the learner could grasp meaning, then learning syntax would be easier to master.

I felt terrible after the initial responses to this thread! I feel somewhat redeemed now--especially since you say that you love it!  

As always, it has been a pleasure to read your contributions.

Un saludo


----------



## Lurrezko

donbill said:


> So my desire for this thread is that it die a quiet death and not trouble foreros any further.



I foretell a long and promising life for this thread. I am sorry for having opened Pandora's box...


----------



## donbill

Lurrezko oinak said:


> I foretell a long and promising life for this thread. I am sorry for having opened Pandora's box...



Pues, si no me hubieses pedido que participara en otro hilo, no se me hubiera ocurrido empezar este y todo el mundo estaría contento. I hope you're proud of yourself! (dicho con sarcasmo, por supuesto)

Pero ¿por qué no has hecho ni siquiera una contribución al tema?


----------



## albertovidal

Muy bueno lo tuyo donbill!
En el foro no hay que arrojar una piedra y, luego, esperar que los demás la recojan!


----------



## Obnubilado

donbill said:


> The idea of one rule to explain the subjunctive/indicative contrast



Ah yes, One rule to rule them all, One rule to find them....


----------



## Peterdg

donbill said:


> peterdg,
> 
> I am so glad you chimed in again! (Please excuse my intrusive remarks on aunque, above.)
> Well, I do have a job during the day, so sometimes my reaction may come a little late
> 
> And I am not promoting this idea as THE way either, but I think it's interesting to consider. In the 70's and 80's many articles were written on a "semantic approach to the subjunctive." The purpose--and this goes against your position somewhat--is that if the learner could grasp meaning, then learning syntax would be easier to master.
> 
> I felt terrible after the initial responses to this thread!
> I didn't know what the objective was. Now that I know, I'm happy.
> I feel somewhat redeemed now--especially since you say that you love it!
> 
> As always, it has been a pleasure to read your contributions.
> 
> Un saludo


 I have already said this in other threads, but I'll repeat it here since this is a more "conceptual" thread on how to present/tackle the subjunctive.

There is no easy way to teach the subjunctive/indicative in Spanish. It is my conviction that the only fruitful (¿?) approach is the systematic one. Unfortunately, none of the (recent, I mean of the last 20 years) textbooks intended for Spanish students, uses that approach. When I look at what's available today, it seems that pictures are more important than sensible text. It looks attractive, but...

From my perspective, the starting point should be the syntactical analysis. What is important?

Noun phrases (subordinadas sustantivas)
Relative (adjective) phrases (subordinadas adjetivas/relativas)
Adverbial phrases (subordinadas adverbiales)
Conditional sentences (frases condicionales)
Independent clauses
In 3. a subdivision in:
Temporal
Concessive
Causal (don't know if the words exists in English)
Excluyentes
Finales
That would be a pretty good syntactical starting point.

If you don't have this base, how for Pete's sake do you explain the following?

_Es una vergüenza que la casa esté sucia._
_Es una vergüenza lo sucia que está la casa._

The first one because it follows the rules for noun phrases (frases sustantivas), the second because it follows the rules for relative phrases (frases adjetivas/relativas).


----------



## capitas

Obnubilado said:


> Ah yes, One rule to rule them all, One rule to find them....


And  one  rule  to  submit  them  and  tie  them  down  into the darkness.... 
Language is...... MYYY  PREEECIOUUUUS!


----------



## donbill

Agreed! and you may be relieved to know that my day-job starts again on Monday, so I'll be posting less--maybe.

I agree that the only way to approach the subjunctive for non-natives is to do so systematically. To learn it you have to know what kinds of* structures* it occurs in and the kinds of *messages* it conveys. Structure and message are keys! I also agree that most texts have to be "cute" rather than substantial these days.

Sorry that my original post was unclear--and it was.

Saludos


----------



## albertovidal

Peterdg said:


> I have already said this in other threads, but I'll repeat it here since this is a more "conceptual" thread on how to present/tackle the subjunctive.
> 
> There is no easy way to teach the subjunctive/indicative in Spanish. It is my conviction that the only fruitful (¿?) approach is the systematic one. Unfortunately, none of the (recent, I mean of the last 20 years) textbooks intended for Spanish students, uses that approach. When I look at what's available today, it seems that pictures are more important than sensible text. It looks attractive, but...
> 
> From my perspective, the starting point should be the syntactical analysis. What is important?
> 
> Noun phrases (subordinadas sustantivas)
> Relative (adjective) phrases (subordinadas adjetivas/relativas)
> Adverbial phrases (subordinadas adverbiales)
> Conditional sentences (frases condicionales)
> Independent clauses
> In 3. a subdivision in:
> 
> Temporal
> Concessive
> Causal (don't know if the words exists in English)
> Excluyentes
> Finales
> That would be a pretty good syntactical starting point.
> 
> If you don't have this base, how for Pete's sake do you explain the following?
> 
> _Es una vergüenza que la casa esté sucia._
> _Es una vergüenza lo sucia que está la casa._
> 
> The first one because it follows the rules for noun phrases (frases sustantivas), the second because it follows the rules for relative phrases (frases adjetivas/relativas).


Taking your phrases as a reference:
Es una vergüenza que la casa esté sucia (subjuntivo)
Es una vergüenza si la casa está sucia (indicativo)
Either I make these phrases in the subjunctive or indicative tenses the meaning doesn't change at all.
This is my opinion.
Regards and my best compliments for such a cultured person!
Alberto


----------



## duvija

Peterdg said:


> I have already said this in other threads, but I'll repeat it here since this is a more "conceptual" thread on how to present/tackle the subjunctive.
> 
> In 3. a subdivision in:
> Temporal
> Concessive
> Causal (don't know if the words exists in English)
> Excluyentes
> Finales


Let me enjoy this one:
 Causal (don't know if the words exists in English)
Causatives is more common.

and then, ta rán ta rán !!! ...the word*s *exist*s*? Pick and choose, sg. or pl?
Oh, it feels so good...


----------



## Peterdg

duvija said:


> Let me enjoy this one:
> Causal (don't know if the words exists in English)
> Causatives is more common.
> 
> and then, ta rán ta rán !!! ...the word*s *exist*s*? Pick and choose, sg. or pl?
> Oh, it feels so good...


Eres increíble


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

Well, I don't know where to start with this, how did I miss this thread?!
Peterd directed me here from a thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=10317315 where he was helping me with my difficulties with a similar theory: that of José Ruiz-Campillo ( http://www.educacion.es/redele/revista1/placido.shtml http://marcoele.com/el-subjuntivo-es-logico/ and especially http://www.cervantes-muenchen.de/es/05_lehrerfortb/Actas05-06/3JosePlacido.pdf ).

The theory of Ruiz-Campillo is very similar, that of declaration versus non-declaration, the difference lies in that, for him, declaration includes supposition as well as assertion (affirmation).

Let me illustrate with the areas where his theory works best before moving on to the area that gives me trouble, and to those areas where it can inform the debate on this thread.

Declaration is broadly speaking that which takes place in independent clauses:-

she's rich/ I will do it/ it will arrive late = assertion

es rica/lo haré/va a llegar tarde = afirmación

he must be crazy/that will be the reason =supposition

debe de estar loco/por eso será = supocisión

Reasons are also assertions, I do not really understand why this should be so (except with new information) but it can be proved by showing that they appear in independent clauses (anything that appears in an independent clause is a declaration by definition):

A: mi novia me acaba de dejar
B: Pues, hombre, ¡la engañaste con otra!

My failure to appreciate this last point caused me some confusion in the other thread.

Now importanty in a subordinate clause not everything is a declaration (assertion or supposition), and in these cases Spanish will (according to the theory) use the subjunctive.

sé que lo hará (mi afirmación/assertion)
es verdad que tiene pulgas (afirmación/assertion generalizada)
dice que es rico (la afirmación de otro)
te repito que está cerrado (te repito mi previa afirmación)

supongo que lo hará (mi supocisión/supposition)
se cree que tiene pulgas (supocisión/supposition generalizada)
cree que es rico (supocisión de otro)

Importantly you can give previous suppositions even if they were wrong and are no longer held

creía que era rico, pero no lo es

and even your previous assertions without implying that they are still defended

les dije que era muy antipático, pero resulta que es un cielo

My failure to appreciate this was what caused me difficulties with recordar in the other thread.

BUT

No es verdad que sea rico (no quiero afirmarlo ni suponerlo, entonces no es una declaración, lo que se afirma es que eso no es cierto)

no digo que tenga pulgas (no lo afirmo ni lo supongo)

no creo que venga (ya irán cogiendo el tranquillo)


This also works for any verb describing an objective, it would be a bit contradictory to say you want something and at the same time say you think it will happen, that doesn't work (not even in English, which is generally much more relaxed about using the indicative [I request that he does it/ I request that he do it]) EVEN IF YOU DO (though theere is nothing to stop you putting this belief in a seperate clause):

quiero que lo haga y creo que lo hará

I hasten to clarify that English does not always avoid the indicative in these sentences by using the subjunctive, it uses a complicated array of structures (e.g. speaking about tomorrow's meeting: It is essential that he be here on time/ it is essential that he should be here on time/ it is essential for him to be here on time/ his being here on time is essential; but not it is essential that he is here on time), but English is not the issue here.

This explains a great many examplees

es necesario que la compres cuanto antes
me pidieron que se lo dijera
te sugiero que vayas inmediatamente
les aconseja que vengan a la reunión
me han prohibido que vaya a la fiesta
no voy a permitir que me lo quites
le di dinero para que comprara la pelota
lo haré con tal de que me ayudes

In all these examples the subordinate clause refers to an objective- something that should or should not happen, and NOT to something that is being declared (neither asserted nor supposed), regardless of whether you could declare it (as an assertion or supposition) or not.

es necesario que la compres cuanto antes y sé que lo harás
me pidieron que se lo dijera y claro que lo hice
le he sugerido a roberto que vaya inmediatamente, y creo que lo hará porque es muy sensato

etc etc

This explains verbs like decir/insistir/recordar/advertir/repetir etc, which can be both verbs of reporting (and therefore introduce declarations) and verbs of command (and therefore introduce objectives).

Ruiz-Campillo's theory also explains relative clauses. If i refer to sometone who speaks German then I am declaring (specifically asserting) that she does so, I am declaring my knowledge of something or someone specific.

busco a la secretaria que habla alemán

this relative clause is a way of joining two seperate declarations, namely

1) una secretaria habla alemán
2) la busco

thus if I declare that I know or suppose that she speaks German then I make it clear to you that I have someone specific in mind.

this is clearer in the following exchange

A: ¿Qué haces?
B: Estoy buscando a una secretaria que habla alemán, ¿la conoces?

This relative clause can also be split up into two seperate declarations, namely

1) estoy buscando a una secretaria
2) esta habla inglés

Now if I'm NOT refering to someone or something in particular, if that person or thing is not already identified, how can I declare knowledge of it's qualities?! Therefore I would say,

Busco una secretaria que hable alemán (tenemos, ¿no?)

Here I am only talking about desirable characteristics of someone not yet identified, so I can't declare knowledge of this person (regardless of how sure I am that they exist!).

if we split THIS relative clause up we get

1) busco una secretaria
2) necesito/quiero/es preciso/etc que hable alemán

and thus you can see that her speaking german is NOT declared

Similarly:

necesito la pluma que pinta bien (declaro mis conocimientos de una pluma ya identificada)

= necesito una pluma que tú podrás identificar + esta pluma pinta bien

necesito una pluma que pinta bien (declaro mis conocimientos de una pluma especifica que yo ya tengo identificada aunque tú no).

necesito una pluma + esta pluma pinta bien

necesito una pluma que pinte bien (no sé que pluma será pero ¡que pinte bien!)

necesito una a pluma + necesito que pinte bien

This last example is instructive because I can be 100% sure that there IS such a pen available, and even where to find it, but regardless I cannot declare my knowledge of something not previously identified in my mind. I may even know for sure that I have several such pens available, but if I don't care which I am given then I don't have a specific identified pen in mind.

Ruiz-Campillo is very careful to seperate this from the use of the definite article, the definite article implies that something is identifiable FOR THE LISTENER; the use of the indicative implies that something is already identified by the speaker- the two do not always co-incide, thus his example "tráeme el vaso que esté mas limpio" refers to one specific glass which you will be able to identify but that I have not yet identified.

So this system also explains questions:

¿hay alguién aquí que hable inglés? (If I'm asking then I can't have someone specific in mind)

and negations:

no veo nada que sirva (nothing is by definition not a specific identified thing)
 (continued on next message)


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

continued from above

Ruiz-Campillo then rextends this system (most of the examples are his) from talking about objects and people

la secretaria que habla alemán/ la que habla alemán
una cosa que tiene pelos/ lo que tiene pelos

to *places*

el sitio que te dije/ donde te dije (the specific identified place)
el sitio que te dijera/ donde te dijera (I don't know what place that was, although you obviously do)
*
manner*

la manera en que lo hace/ como lo hace (the specific identified way he does it)

la manera en que lo haga/ como lo haga (whatever manner that is).

We can even play games with this

haz lo que quieras

I may know exactly what you want to do, but by not identifying it (in effect saying: do whatever it may be that you want) I am in effect saying I wash my hands of the situation.
In English we use "whatever" to convey this meaning, but we also use it to convey habitual situations, which would be indicative in Spanish

*quantities*

la cantidad que/cuanto necesitas vs necesites

and finally we get to *moments of time* now I'm not sure I uderstood this right but here goes my attempt (if it makes no sense then it is my fault,  not that of the theory)

In "lo hice cuando llegaron" I make two declarations

1) llegaron en un momento dado
2) En ese momento lo hice

Similarly

"cuando viene le hago un pastel" includes two declarations

1) tiene la costumbre de venir
2) en esas ocasiones le hago un pastel

Compare these two examples with the following

"cuando venga voy a hacerle un pastel"

This contains the assertion that I will make him a cake, but it does not contain the assertion that he will come

it doesn't matter how certain I am that something will happen, we are giving a condition for something to happen

voy a salir cuando se ponga el sol

I am 100% certain that the sun will set, in fact far far more certain than I am that I will go out (which I do declare), but that is not what is happening here, I am stating the condition for my going out, rather like you do with "con tal de que" (or in a negative sense with "a no ser que" or "a menos que").

Similarly for "future in the past", thus

lo hice cuando llegaron (in a specific moment characterised by their arrival)

dije que lo haría cuando llegaran (I claimed that their arrival was the condition to be fulfilled before I would do it)

I think I may have got a little confused with time, but I hope to put the cat amongst the pigeons with this post, so hopefully someone will read my links and come back and explain what I got wrong. In the meantime this understanding works OK for me.

Now we get to the final bit that the theory purports to explain, and the bit that gives me difficulty.

In sentences such as, "es increíble que sea rico", "es normal que así sea"etc I am not declaring that he is rich, or that it is like that, this is taken for granted, what is being declared is that it is incredible, or normal.

Other examples

me alegro mucho de que
no es una casualidad que
es lógico que
es interesante que
parece mentira que

etc

And this does make sense to me, but sometimes I get confused, for instance in the following exchange

A: No sabía que estabas aqui en Quito
B: Hace seis meses que estoy aqui (A está viendo que estoy)

Here you can SEE I'm here, so surely that should be taken for granted and therefore the only thing being declared would be that my being here amounts to 6 months. And yeet it is indicative, so it clearly is being declared.

One clue is that you clearly CAN declare things that are known to both parties

Hombre, ¡estás aqu!"

Hopefully some of you will read the links and explain what I have misunderstood. For those who do not have time I include the description of the _Gramática básica del estudiante del español_, which uses the scheme of Ruiz-Campillo (one of the authors) to explain the subjunctive

..."pero cuando esa información *está ya aceptada* como verdadera o posible, y solo queremos hacer *un comentario o una voloración personal sobre ella*, usamos siempre *subjuntivo* [o infinitivo]" (negrita en oríginal)


The above is the basic theory, but Ruiz-Campillo explains that you can play certain games with it in order to mark fine distinctions. You cannot play games with objectives cross:quiero que lo hará) or relative clauses cross:no hay nada que sirve), but you can with emotional reactions

lo importante es que mañana estés aqui a tiempo (this is an objective, and you cannot play games here)

but

lo importante es que has/hayas llegado sano y salvo

You can also play games with verbs of reporting

No he dicho que soy/sea genial

But he notes that learners are always safe to stick to the non-game version.

Finally I would like to comment on a few things.

1) the theory does not work after si (as Ruiz-Campillo admits) as it has a seperate syntax (one, moreover that is very simple and easy to learn).  As Istriano said above it used to have a future subjunctive.

2) use of subjunctive with quizá(s) and talvéz: Ruiz-Campillo does not mention this, but I think that this may be a leftover from some older system which is retained when speakers want to sound elegant, modern words for perhaps, such as "a lo mejor" "igual" etc seem to take the indicative. It would be interesting if anyone had historical data to confirm or refute tis hypothesis

3) use of subjunctive afte aunque:

where aunque = "even if" then you are clearly neither asserting nor supposing what follows, but rather describing a (negative) condition which you assert will not impede the action in main clause from taking place, so you always use the subjunctive

lo haré aunque todos intenten impedirmelo

Here I am not declaring (asserting or supposing)  that they will try to stop me, I am asserting that a certain condition (that of all trying to stop me) wil not be sufficient to stop me from doing it

where aunque = even though it can be more complicated, it depends whethere we are declaring what follows or not, *usually* with new information (for the listener) we will declare it (use indicative) and with assumed information we will not (and therefore use subjunctive)...but I think it is more complex than that (and falls into that aspect of the theory that I find confusing), so I don't pretend to understand it fully.


well, I apologise for the rambling length of this post, I hope that my bringing this amazing theory of Ruiz Campillo into the discussion helps this hread to move on, and also that you guys can read the links and help me to understand it more fully (it is an annoying irony that you have to be able to read Spanish to find a good description of the subjunctive).


----------



## Peterdg

Stuart,

You'll have to allow me some time to review all this. It's quite some information.


----------



## donbill

Peterdg said:


> Stuart,
> 
> You'll have to allow me some time to review all this. It's quite some information.



Ditto!


----------



## donbill

stuartshaw.cfc said:


> (it is an annoying irony that you have to be able to read Spanish to find a good description of the subjunctive).



Actually, there are many good descriptions in English. Two good ones are William Bull, _Spanish for Teachers_ (1965) and Stanley Whitley, _Spanish/English Contrasts_ (2006? Georgetown University Press). Both are applied linguistics texts. The Whitley text provides an ample bibliography for further research.


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

donbill said:


> Actually, there are many good descriptions in English. Two good ones are William Bull, _Spanish for Teachers_ (1965) and Stanley Whitley, _Spanish/English Contrasts_ (2006? Georgetown University Press). Both are applied linguistics texts. The Whitley text provides an ample bibliography for further research.



I had already bought and have read the book you refer to by Whitely, in it he discusses several theories (including that of Bull), but never really reaches a concluson that can be used by learners (I think his discussion is meant to help those who already speak Spanish to TEACH it, at least that's the impression I get) such as myself, though I don't deny I found it useful.
As for further research I don't deny that Whitley provides a lot of references, but I don't have access to a university library so it is of no use to me (I think the same applies to the majority of learners). Again I think he provides this for teachers and students at university (most of whom *will* have access to these publications).


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

Regarding games it is interesting to note that the U.S. Foreign Service Institute in their Spanish Basic Course (1957?) claims:-

No creo que Mario vaya = I don't *think *that Mario is going

and

No creo que Mario va = I *don't *think that Mario is going

Thus in the second instance I am negating a thought (mario va) that has  been attributed to me and that I report in the subordinate clause;  whereas the frst sentence is just a straightforward opinion - that I  don't think he'll go.

This fits with Ruiz-Campillo's example:

"Yo no he dicho que somos hermanos"

The unmarked form ("no he dicho que seamos hermanos") just means that I  am not asserting that we are brothers, the form in indicative takes up a  previous declaration (somos hermanos)  and denies it (perhaps somebody  claimed I said it and I am putting my listener straight that I did not  say it)

or similarly

"Yo no he dicho que somos hermanos" can mean we *are *brothers but I didn't say so.

In either case "que somos hermanos" is being treated as something already said.

Now, here is where you can help me. If I have understood right then the contexts would be something like the following two.

CONTEXT ONE

A: _pues tú tienes la culpa de que te despidieran por andar por ahí diciendo que eres más importante que el jefe_
B: _yo nunca he dicho que soy más importante_ que él (of course I know that you could use _sea_ in this example, but is _soy_ also correct?)

CONTEXT TWO

A: _a lo mejor no te dió el puesto porque tu hermano trabaja en la misma oficina_
B: _no le he dicho que somos hermanos_

Have I undestood correctly? Are my mini-dialogues correct? If not can you illustrate contexts where you *would* use the indicative with "no decir"?

Thanks in advance


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

Hi guys! Could someone please tell me whether my last post is correct or not?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## duvija

stuartshaw.cfc said:


> Hi guys! Could someone please tell me whether my last post is correct or not?
> Thanks in advance.



Too many sentences, but they are ok.


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

Thanks, Duvija.


----------



## BobbyR

I am learning Spanish so I think this does simplify use of the subjunctive for me.  Nothing covers everything so purist versus comprehension will go on ad nauseam...since English has virtually done away with the subjunctive, I find it refreshing when one understands my Spanish even when grammatically incorrect.  Of course, correction is always appreciated and necessary.  For native Spanish speakers, does Creo que no llueva mañana or Creo que no llueverá mañana or Creo que no llueve mañana make any difference?  As a native Spanish speaker would you be entirely confused or would you understand what I am trying to say?  Have at it, purism versus comprehension...muchas gracias.


----------

