# Yo les advertí que permanecieran en casa



## queen12

Is it correct?

i warned that he stayed home

Or should I use: I warned him to stay home? I know this is correct. But, the one above?

Another example: 

I know this is correct: I believed him to be good.
But this: I believed he was good.


----------



## Cal inhibes

Ambas son correctas. Warn puede ser transitivo (warned him) o intransitivo (I warned that I would turn left)
Saludos


----------



## Bevj

'I warned that he stayed home' *no* es correcto.
'I warned him to stay (at) home.


----------



## queen12

No me queda claro... A quién hago caso?

Jajja


----------



## SevenDays

queen12 said:


> No me queda claro... A quién hago caso?
> 
> Jajja



Se entiende que con el verbo "warn", la _advertencia_ va dirigida a una persona o entidad específica. Dicho de otra manera, el complemento del verbo "warn" necesita su propio sujeto o referente. Esto se ve en_ I warned *him *to stay home_, donde "him" es el foco de la advertencia y el sujeto del infinitivo. En "I warned that he stayed home", el complemento de "warn" ("that he stayed home") no tiene referente específico (no podemos hablar precisamente de "sujeto" porque lo que viene con "that" no es un verbo, como lo es el infinitivo "to stay," aunque esto ya es otro tema), por lo tanto el mensaje queda _cojo_. Puede ser que un contexto más amplio se entienda que el referente queda_ implícito_ (si te das una vuelta por internet, verás que la estructura "I warned that" no es tan rara), pero así como presentas el ejemplo, _a secas_, no es muy fácil procesar el significado completo. Por eso, vale la pena agregar el referente: _I warned *everyone* that he stayed home; I warned *the president* that he stayed home; I warned *the committee* that he stayed home_. 

Saludos


----------



## queen12

Gracias amigo. Entonces: 'I warned them that they stayed home' is the same as 'I warned them to stay home'

Is it right?

Estas son frases adicionales para ver si he pillado la estructura.

I told him to be a good person. I tell him he was a good person.

Or I advised him that he took the bus. I advised him to take the bus.

Entiendo que son gramaticalmente correctas. Pero dependiendo del contexto o estilo una mejor q otra. Cierto? Solo quiero saber si son gramaticales.

Siento poner tantas frases, pero quiero aclarar el concepto y con una no sé si lo haría. Thanks!


----------



## SevenDays

Antes de seguir con más explicaciones; ¿te interesa la traducción de un contexto en español? Entonces, habrá que tener la frase en castellano. ¿O simplemente quieres ver si todos tus ejemplos están bien construidos en inglés?

Saludos


----------



## queen12

Gracias por toda tu ayuda, amigo!

Sí, me gustaría saber si están bien, tanto gramaticalmente y como creo que son. Por eso, te daré lo que yo intento decir.

*El primer ejemplo:
*
I warned them that they stayed home' is the same as 'I warned them to stay home'

Las dos las interpreto igual:* Yo les advertí que permanecieran (subjuntivo) en casa. *Omito el *'should' +inf *por *pasado simple, *el cual creo que se podría añadir en el promer ejemplo.

*La segunda:
*
I told him to be a good person. I tell him he was a good person.

Intento decir: *Yo le dije que era una buena persona. 

La tercera:

*I advised him that he took the bus. I advised him to take the bus.

También creo que es lo mismo:*  Yo le aconsejé que tomara el bus/ Yo le aconsejé tomar el bus. *Omito el *'should' +inf **por **pasado simple
**

Un saludo.

edit:

Ahora que lo pienso, mis primeros pensamientos creo que están errados.

otro intento:


*I warned them that they stayed home' is the same as 'I warned them to stay home'
*
 Yo les avisé que ellos permanecieron en casa** yo les advertí que permanecieran en casa/yo les advertí de permanecer en casa. *
Second:

I told him to be a good person. I tell him he was a good person.

*Yo le dije que sea una buena persona. ** Yo le dije que era una buena persona. *Third:

I advised him that he took the bus. I advised him to take the bus.

*Yo le aconsejé que el tomó el bus (esta me da que está mal **). **Yo le aconsejé tomar el bus/Le aconsejé que tomara el bus. *
Creo que ahora lo pienso bien. Es esto correcto o sigo errado?


----------



## SevenDays

queen12 said:


> Gracias por toda tu ayuda, amigo!
> 
> Sí, me gustaría saber si están bien, tanto gramaticalmente y como creo que son. Por eso, te daré lo que yo intento decir.
> 
> *El primer ejemplo:
> *
> I warned them that they stayed home' is the same as 'I warned them to stay home'
> 
> Las dos las interpreto igual:* Yo les advertí que permanecieran (subjuntivo) en casa. *Omito el *'should' +inf *por *pasado simple, *el cual creo que se podría añadir en el promer ejemplo.
> 
> *La segunda:
> *
> I told him to be a good person. I tell him he was a good person.
> 
> Intento decir: *Yo le dije que era una buena persona.
> 
> La tercera:
> 
> *I advised him that he took the bus. I advised him to take the bus.
> 
> También creo que es lo mismo:*  Yo le aconsejé que tomara el bus/ Yo le aconsejé tomar el bus. *Omito el *'should' +inf **por **pasado simple
> **
> 
> Un saludo.
> *



Ah, vale; gracias. En la primera tenemos un problema. Si bien es cierto que el pasado de indicativo puede tener un valor de subjuntivo y no de tiempo gramatical (por ejemplo, _If I stayed home_), en otros contextos se pierde este valor y toma prominencia el significado indicativo netamente temporal. Por eso, "I warned them that they stayed home" no es lo mismo que "I warned them to stay home". Necesariamente tienes que introducir el sentido subjuntivo con "should": _I warned them that they *should* stay home_. La segunda "I told him (that) he was a good person" está bien para "le dije que era una buena persona". "I told him to be a good person" está bien construida, pero es más bien un mandato ("le dije que fuera una buena persona"). Para la tercera, vale lo de la primera: "took" asume su valor de tiempo pasado indicativo; necesitamos "should": _I advised him that he *should* take the bus_ equivale a _I advised him to take the bus_. Me parece que las estructuras con "to" son más comunes que las con "that" (o, de otra manera, que las con "that" son más bien formales), pero no te lo podría asegurar.

Saludos


----------



## queen12

entiendo que el to tiene modo subjuntivo y que el that con pasado simple carece de ello -omitiendo el condicional-. Necesariamente hay que añadir should para dar carácter subjuntivo en la cláusula that. Es así. Entonces, mi único que ejemplo que carecería de sentido es:

I advised him that he took the bus. No tiene sentido porque sería 'yo le aconsejé  que el tomó el bus. 

Muchas gracias!! 

Es así?

edit:

_motivo: añadir información y agradecimientos._


----------



## k-in-sc

SevenDays said:


> Ah, vale; gracias. En la primera tenemos un problema. Si bien es cierto que el pasado de indicativo puede tener un valor de subjuntivo y no de tiempo gramatical (por ejemplo, _If I stayed home_), en otros contextos se pierde este valor y toma prominencia el significado indicativo netamente temporal. Por eso, "I warned them that they stayed home" no es lo mismo que "I warned them to stay home". Necesariamente tienes que introducir el sentido subjuntivo con "should": _I warned them that they *should* stay home_. La segunda "I told him (that) he was a good person" está bien para "le dije que era una buena persona". "I told him to be a good person" está bien construida, pero es más bien un mandato ("le dije que fuera una buena persona"). Para la tercera, vale lo de la primera: "took" asume su valor de tiempo pasado indicativo; necesitamos "should": _I advised him that he *should* take the bus_ equivale a _I advised him to take the bus_. Me parece que las estructuras con "to" son más comunes que las con "that" (o, de otra manera, que las con "that" son más bien formales), pero no te lo podría asegurar.


"Warned/advised to" definitely is more common and also more correct, because those verbs already contain the "should" element. But "I *told* them they should take the bus" is perfectly common and correct, although slightly different in meaning from "I told them to take the bus."
The best thing for Spanish speakers to do is forget about trying to use the English subjunctive and use the infinitive instead, like us


----------



## queen12

Ahora que pienso, cómo puedo diferenciar?

Yo les dije que tomaran el bus. Yo les dije que tomen el bus.

Las dos las traduciría como: I told them to take the bus?

cuál es la pequeña diferencia en significado de la que hablas, Kinsk?

Esa es mi duda


----------



## queen12

Any help for my last question? Please!


----------



## k-in-sc

queen12 said:


> Yo les dije que tomaran el bus. Yo les dije que tomen el bus.
> 
> Las dos las traduciría como: I told them to take the bus?


No difference in tense.
"I told them they should do it" sounds more like a suggestion, while "I told them to do it" could be a suggestion or an order.


----------



## Cal inhibes

SevenDays said:


> Se entiende que con el verbo "warn", la _advertencia_ va dirigida a una persona o entidad específica. Dicho de otra manera, el complemento del verbo "warn" necesita su propio sujeto o referente. . . .
> Saludos


No es necesario que exista ese referente. La advertencia puede hacerse en sentido general. I warned about an inminent fire. I warned that I was turning left. Los diccionarios ingleses lo aceptan como verbo intransitivo, de modo que no es indispensable un complemento directo. 
Saludos


----------



## k-in-sc

Those examples don't sound very good to me. They sound like something is missing.


----------



## aztlaniano

queen12 said:


> I warned them that they stayed home' is the same as 'I warned them to stay home'


No, no es lo mismo.
I warned them to stay home: Les avisé que quedasen en casa.
I warned them that they stayed home. Les avisé (a A y B, por ejemplo) (del hecho de) que ellos (probablemente C y D, y no A y B) quedaban en casa.


----------



## queen12

Entiendo entonces que: 'I warned them to stay home' es lo mismo que ''I warned them that they stay home' o con should, más formal.

Pero entonces no veo la diferencia que en español vemos entre: 'yo les advertí que permanezcan en casa' y 'yo les advertí que permanecieran en casa'. Entonces supongo ese matiz en inglés se obtiene del contexto?


----------



## FromPA

queen12 said:


> Entiendo entonces que: 'I warned them to stay home' es lo mismo que ''I warned them that they stay home' o con should, más formal.
> 
> Pero entonces no veo la diferencia que en español vemos entre: 'yo les advertí que permanezcan en casa' y 'yo les advertí que permanecieran en casa'. Entonces supongo ese matiz en inglés se obtiene del contexto?




''I warned them that they stay home" is simply not idiomatic.  You could say "I warned them that they should stay home"  or "I warned them to stay at home," but the subjunctive can only be used after a verb of influence if the direct object of the verb is the desired action ("that they stay at home"), not the person to be influenced ("them"). For example, in the sentence "I suggest (that) you stay home,"  the entire subordinate clause is the direct object of the main verb, and the receiver of the suggestion (you) is the subject of the subordinate clause in subjunctive mood; "you" is not the direct object of the main verb.


----------



## k-in-sc

'I warned them that they stay home' 
aztl, what were you thinking?!


----------



## queen12

K-in-sc, no entiendo por qué dices que está mal. Tengo entendido que el should puede ser omitido en British English, no sé si en American English será lo mismo, aunque he visto que los americanos emfatizáis más el subjuntivo. Quizá es eso lo que te hace pensar que está mal? 

Gracias por vuestra ayuda


----------



## k-in-sc

FromPA explained it in #19. We do use the subjunctive, but only when it's appropriate, which it isn't here.


----------



## aztlaniano

k-in-sc said:


> FromPA explained it in #19. We do use the subjunctive, but only when it's appropriate, which it isn't here.


I guess you (and PA) are right; the "them" in the middle impedes the use of a proper subjunctive construction.


----------



## SevenDays

Yes, FromPA is talking about the _mandative subjunctive_, expressions involving _command, demand, recommendation_, which become the complement of the verb, and in which the subjunctive is represented by the bare infinitive._ I demand that they *stay* home_. Structurally, the verb "warn" doesn't behave like a mandative subjunctive; it requires a direct object, which breaks the link between the verb and the "that-clause" typical of mandative forms. The implication is that "stay" now assumes indicative/factual meaning rather than mandative meaning. That is, if I hear "I warned them that they stay home," I interpret that _"them" stay home_ (a fact) and that's what I'm warning _someone else_ about. In other words, "them" and "they" don't represent the same person. Given the syntactic and semantic nature of "warn," for it to mean what Spanish says in "les advertí," we need "should:" _I warned them that they *should stay* home_. Now, "them" and "they" properly mean the same people.

Cheers


----------



## queen12

I conclude that you mean that: if it is the same object, the right form is: *I warned them that they should stay home,* as them and they are the same ones.

if not the same, I can say:* I warned them that they stay home, it is right because they are not the same ones, they and them are not the same object.

*If I say: I warned them that they stay home, when the two objects are the same, then 

Are my thoughts right or wrong?


----------



## SevenDays

Cal inhibes said:


> No es necesario que exista ese referente. La advertencia puede hacerse en sentido general. I warned about an inminent fire. I warned that I was turning left. Los diccionarios ingleses lo aceptan como verbo intransitivo, de modo que no es indispensable un complemento directo.
> Saludos



Depende. Si el verbo se usa con un significado activo, el verbo "warn" necesariamente es transitivo, pues la advertencia siempre va dirigida a _alguien _(el complemento directo), incluso en un sentido general; por eso k-in-sc nos dice que a "I warned about an imminent fire" _le falta algo_. En contextos donde no aparece un CD, los participantes en el discurso entenderán a quién va el mensaje, o nosotros, como observadores externos, simplemente _agregamos_ el CD al procesar la información, pero el verbo "warn" sigue siendo transitivo.  "Warn" asume un significado intransitivo propiamente tal, sin CD, en las construcciones pasivas: _They had been warned about an imminent fire_. Pasamos la frase a la versión activa, y el CD ya es necesario; por ejemplo: _I warned *them* about an imminent fire_.

Saludos


----------



## SevenDays

queen12 said:


> I conclude that you mean that: if it is the same object, the right form is: *I warned them that they should stay home,* as them and they are the same ones.
> 
> if not the same, I can say:* I warned them that they stay home, it is right because they are not the same ones, they and them are not the same object.
> 
> *If I say: I warned them that they stay home, when being the two objects are the same, then
> 
> Are my thoughts right or wrong?



Yes, technically, you are right. Syntactically, "I warned them that they stay home" is a properly constructed sentence. But remember, this isn't just a matter of syntax. *Meaning *is important. Before putting any sentence together, the question is _what am I trying to say, and am I saying it properly?_ (so that I won't be misunderstood). If you mean "les advertí que permanecieran en casa" then you need "I warned them that they should stay home."

Cheers


----------



## FromPA

queen12 said:


> "* I warned them that they stay home, it is right because they are not the same ones, they and them are not the same object."
> 
> *No, it's not idiomatic, and it does nothing to eliminate the potential ambiguity of using a pronoun in place of a proper noun.   For example, if you are warning someone that they should not allow their children to go out, you could say "I warned them that they should not allow them (their children) to go out"  or "I suggested that they not allow them (their children) to go out."
> 
> "If I say: I warned them that they stay home, when being the two objects are the same, then.  Are my thoughts right or wrong?"
> 
> Again, it's not idiomatic.  You have 2 conflicting direct objects:  "them" and "that they stay home."   Who the pronouns are referring to has nothing to do with it.


----------



## queen12

SevenDays said:


> Depende. Si el verbo se usa con un significado activo, el verbo "warn" necesariamente es transitivo, pues la advertencia siempre va dirigida a _alguien _(el complemento directo), incluso en un sentido general; por eso k-in-sc nos dice que a "I warned about an imminent fire" _le falta algo_. En contextos donde no aparece un CD, los participantes en el discurso entenderán a quién va el mensaje, o nosotros, como observadores externos, simplemente _agregamos_ el CD al procesar la información, pero el verbo "warn" sigue siendo transitivo.  "Warn" asume un significado intransitivo propiamente tal, sin CD, en las construcciones pasivas: _They had been warned about an imminent fire_. Pasamos la frase a la versión activa, y el CD ya es necesario; por ejemplo: _I warned *them* about an imminent fire_.
> 
> Saludos


What about this sentence: 

The government warned that changes in taxation system may be taken. 

Here then I understand the verb is transitive because the indirect object (people) is understood perfectly, isn't it?

by the way, thanks Seven and FromPA


----------



## FromPA

queen12 said:


> What about this sentence:
> 
> The government warned that changes in taxation system may be taken.
> 
> Here then I understand the verb is transitive because the indirect object (people) is understood perfectly, isn't it?
> 
> by the way, thanks Seven and FromPA



This is quickly getting beyond my grammatical expertise, but it seems to me that there is no indirect object in this sentence and there doesn't need to be by the nature of the verb involved (warn). It's not that the IO is understood, it's that the recipient of the warning is not identified at all. We can only guess who the government is warning (Does the concept of an impersonal indirect object exist?? I don't think so.).  If there were an identified recipient of the warning in this sentence, that recipient would necessarily be the direct object, not the indirect object. It's the nature of the verb "warn" that the object, if there is one, can only be a person. With the verb "warn," you cannot use the construction "I warned it (DO) to him (IO)." This construction is just not possible for this verb.  It has to be "I warned him (DO) about it (prepositional phrase modifying the verb warn - i.e., not a DO)."    The subordinate phrase in your sentence ("that changes in taxation...") is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb warn (or so I believed, but it doesn't answer an adverbially question: when, why, how, where?).   

With other verbs of influence, it is possible to have a direct object that is not a person.  For example,  "I suggested it to him" is perfectly acceptable.  It's the nature of the verb "warn" that is creating the confusion here.


----------



## queen12

Thanks for your help, fromPA and Seven, if I tell you the truth I am finding quite difficult to understand it , but because of your replies I have been able to drawn a few conclusions which are very appreciated and helpful for me.


----------



## SevenDays

queen12 said:


> What about this sentence:
> 
> The government warned that changes in taxation system may be taken.
> 
> Here then I understand the verb is transitive because the indirect object (people) is understood perfectly, isn't it?
> 
> by the way, thanks Seven and FromPA



Let’s compare these sentences:

1. _I warned about an imminent fire_
2. _The government warned that changes in the taxation system may be taken_

In 1. and 2. "warned" is a transitive verb. The syntactic problem with 1. is that "about an imminent fire" is a _prepositional phrase_, but prepositional phrases don't function as direct objects. That's why it feels like something is missing. Saying that “warned” is intransitive doesn’t quite fix the problem _for syntax, _given the nature of the verb “warn.” Add a direct object, and syntax is happy: _I warned_ *them/the town* _about an imminent fire_. On the other hand, 2. is ok because "that-clauses" are _nominal_ in nature, and so they can function as direct objects. Syntax doesn't care *who* is being warned, only that whatever fills the "direct object" box can properly function as a direct object. Semantics, of course, cares. In "the government warned that changes in taxation may be undertaken," we understand that the warning is for us, for people. In other words, we, in our minds, add the missing direct object: _the government warned *people* that changes_ ...(Keep in mind that "people" is the direct object, not indirect. If we add “people” to the sentence, the "that-clause" is moved from the direct position spot and becomes a _complement of the direct object_.) If the government had _someone else_ in mind (for example "the business community" and not "people"), then the sentence must include the actual DO: _the government warned_ *the business community* _that changes in the taxation system may be taken_. 

Let's go back to that other sentence, "I warned them that they stay home." As long as it's clearly understood who is 'them" and "they," the sentence works. Take this dialogue (with apologies to Abbot and Costello):

_Sargeant: Did you finish the investigation?
Detective: Yes. And we found that the bad people stay home; they never go out.
S: That's your conclusion? That they stay home?
D: Yes.
S: The horror! Did you warn Homeland Security and the FBI that they stay home?
D: Yes. I warned them that they stay home.
S: And? What did they say?
D: They said it's a bad sentence because it has two direct objects.
S: What!? Did you make it clear that "them" is the direct object and the "that-clause" is the complement of the direct object?
D: Yes. but then they said that I shouldn’t be telling them what to do.
S: What?
D: They said that they are big people, and that they decide when to go out, and when to stay home.
S: No! No! Did you specifically say on the phone that "them" refers to "Homeland Security and the FBI" and that "they" refers to "the bad people"?
D: Yes, but they still hung up on me._

Of course, it doesn't have to be a silly dialogue for "I warned them that they stay home" to work. The point is that the sentence is well-structured (everything is in its proper place, from a syntactic perspective), but the sentence has to be in the right context to make sense.

Cheers


----------



## FromPA

A very creative and effective dialogue.  It demonstrates that the construction is possible when the verb "warn" is used with a completely different meaning (as if this verb were not already confusing enough).  "Warn" is not being used as a verb of influence in your sentence (meant to influence some action).  It's meaning is more along the lines of "inform," and consequently, the subordinate clause would not be in subjunctive mood, which would only be evident when dealing with the 3rd person singular (I warned them that he stays at home on Mondays).


----------



## queen12

Ahora ya lo he entendido de todo. Gran diálogo y gran respuesta   

Me ha gustado mucho la explicación. Muchas veces me centro en si la estructura gramatical es correcta y se me olvida que lo importante es transmitir el mensaje de forma adecuada y eliminando cualquier caso de ambigüedad, siempre que sea posible.  Parece obvio pero bueno jaja.

No sé cómo te puedo pagar esto, pero aquí mi enhorabuena!


----------

