# se ofrece/ofrecen muchas clases



## organnie

Hi,

I have been practicing with online quizes to try and learn the difference between the impersonal se and the passive se. Take the following sentence for example..."En mi universidad __________ (ofrecer) muchas clases interesantes". I chose "se ofrece" (impersonal se) as the answer thinking the sentence translated to "In my university they offer many interesting classes". But the correct answer was "se ofrecen" (passive se) translating the sentence to "In my university many interesting classes are offered". What clue was there that would have alerted me to the fact that it should have been passive and not impersonal?  Thanks, Ann


----------



## Fer BA

Ann:

We'll have to wait somebody that masters this much better than me, but, in my mind, both cases are cases of impersonal _se_. 

Into Spanish if you say _muchas clases_, you have to say _se ofrece*n*_ (pl. form). That was your clue.
If you say _una clase_, you have to say _se ofrece (sing. form)._

Passive voice, would be, in your case. _Muchas clases son ofrecidas. _Grammatical but very unusual (very unusual in Spain, not that much in America).

Both are impersonal _se. Se ofrecen _is not a passive form.


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

No you are a native and all of it is passive se I believe.  When you want to say that something is being done on something else without naming the agent, in English we most often use "to be"+"past participle."  Such a construction is possible in Spanish but not used in conversation.  "reflexive pronoun"+verb is preferred.  

"Classes are offered at the university" is in Spanish "Classes offer themselves at the university"

=Las clases se ofrecen a la universidad

Do you understand why it has to be a plural, ofrecen, and not ofrece?  

The Spanish construction actually makes logical sense if you think about it anyways.


----------



## Peterdg

Hi,

Your question is a good one.

Here (DPD) you can find a comprehensive explanation of both structures.

In short, if the complement of the active transitive verb is a determined person or persons (and therefor preceded by the preposition "a"), you use the "se impersonal" structure. If the complement is a thing (or things), you use the pasiva refleja.

In your specific case, if you want to follow the rules, since "muchas clases" is not a person, you should use the pasiva releja and the number of the subject and the verb have to coincide. "se oferece*n* muchas clases".

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Magmod

organnie said:


> Hi,
> 
> En mi universidad __________ (ofrecer) *muchas clases interesantes*".


  You must use the plural and always look at what follows which is the subject of the sentence.  As you know the verb agrees with the subject.

He sees me.
Classes are offered


----------



## St. Nick

Organnie, you need to change your strategy.  Instead of using the pronoun "they," use the pronoun "one" when determining whether the sentence is impersonal:

_"En mi universidad one offers muchas clases interesantes."_

It doesn't make sense, does it?  So in this case, the structure is passive.  The passive _se_ is a form of the verb 'ser':

_"En mi universidad muchas clases interesantes are offered."
_
The DPD isn't very useful in this situation because the Academy categorizes passive structures under the heading of 'Impersonal.'


----------



## XiaoRoel

La _pasiva refleja_ de alguna manera también ofrece el rasgo de _impersonalidad_ ya que _no expresa el agente_ de la acción. La gran diferencia entre el _se_ impersonal y el pasivo es que la construcción con *se pasivo*, al llevar *sujeto paciente* (el OD en voz activa) admite el plural si ese sujeto paciente va en plural, mientras que el *se impersonal* es una construcción _activa_ que admite OD pero no tiene sujeto y por eso el verbo va en la *3ª persona del singular*, que es una no-persona verbal, la forma que adquieren los verbos impersonales en español.


----------



## Magmod

XiaoRoel said:


> La _pasiva refleja_ de alguna manera también ofrece el rasgo de _impersonalidad_ ya que _no expresa el agente_ de la acción. La gran diferencia entre el _se_ impersonal y el pasivo es que la construcción con *se pasivo*, al llevar *sujeto paciente* (el OD en voz activa) admite el plural si ese sujeto paciente va en plural, mientras que el *se impersonal* es una construcción _activa_ que admite OD pero no tiene sujeto y por eso el verbo va en la *3ª persona del singular*, que es una no-persona verbal, la forma que adquieren los verbos impersonales en español.


 En otras palabras ¿se puede decir también?:

En mi universidad  se ofrece  muchas clases interesantes  
como has dicho st nick


----------



## St. Nick

Magmod said:


> En otras palabras ¿se puede decir también?:
> 
> En mi universidad  se ofrece  muchas clases interesantes
> como has dicho st nick


I haven't used the verb phrase "se ofrece" in my response.  Why?  Because it would be an inaccurate usage in this situation.


----------



## Magmod

St. Nick said:


> I haven't used the verb phrase "se ofrece" in my response. Why? Because it would be an inaccurate usage in this situation.


 
 I was waiting for *XiaoRoel* to answer .

This is because I think *se ofrece* is also correct, because as you said is to consider it literally as *one offers *


----------



## St. Nick

Magmod said:


> I was waiting for *XiaoRoel* to answer .
> 
> This is because I think *se ofrece* is also correct, because as you said is to consider it literally as *one offers *


Sorry, I misunderstood.

I suggested that she try to insert the pronoun "one."  Then below, I point out that it doesn't make sense.


----------



## roanheads

But
" Se les ofrece a los alumnos muchas clases interesantes "

Many interesting classes are offered to the pupils.


----------



## FromPA

How about the plural impersonal option? "Ofrecen muchas clases" - they offer many classes.


----------



## ChocolateLover

Hello,

I think you can say "uno ofrece clases=se ofrece clases" or "se ofrecen clases=las clases son ofrecidas."

Regards


----------



## Fer BA

Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> No you are a native and all of it is passive se I believe. When you want to say that something is being done on something else without naming the agent, in English we most often use "to be"+"past participle." Such a construction is possible in Spanish but not used in conversation. "reflexive pronoun"+verb is preferred.
> 
> "Classes are offered at the university" is in Spanish "Classes offer themselves at the university"
> 
> =Las clases se ofrecen a la universidad
> 
> Do you understand why it has to be a plural, ofrecen, and not ofrece?
> 
> The Spanish construction actually makes logical sense if you think about it anyways.


 
Meyer:

First of all I made a mistake, I stand corrected. It's passive _se. _

Being a native, as you can see in here, means nothing. 

Now, when it comes to what's used.... I'd never say _En la Universidad *se* ofrecen clases_ but _En la Universidad ofrecen clases (_or_ En la Universidad hay clases)_. I'm completely aware that the passive _se_ is widely used in Spain and that the regular passive is not used there, but I'm from the Cono Sur and in here is exactly the opposite. We don't say _En el SXIX se construyeron muchos edificios_ but _En el SXIX fueron construidos muchos edificios_ and such. To me, the passive _se _sounds a little bit weird...

And finally, I'm completely lost in here:

Classes are offered at the university" is in Spanish "Classes offer themselves at the university"

Either my English is not working anymore or my Spanish is very different from yours...   what did you mean?


----------



## mhp

organnie said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have been practicing with online quizes to try and learn the difference between the impersonal se and the passive se. Take the following sentence for example..."En mi universidad __________ (ofrecer) muchas clases interesantes". I chose "se ofrece" (impersonal se) as the answer thinking the sentence translated to "In my university they offer many interesting classes". But the correct answer was "se ofrecen" (passive se) translating the sentence to "In my university many interesting classes are offered". What clue was there that would have alerted me to the fact that it should have been passive and not impersonal?  Thanks, Ann



   As they have told you, both impersonal (_se ofrece_) and passive reflexive (_se ofrece_n) are possible. But, and this is a big BUT, the normal construction is passive reflexive---I don't think an online grammar tutorial will teach that impersonal with SE is even possible in this case since this not considered good grammar in standard Spanish:

_Se ofrecen muchas clases_ (passive reflexive)  (passive: grammatical subject: _muchas clases_)
_Se ofrece muchas clases_ (impersonal)  (active: SE as an indicator of impersonality)
_ofrecen muchas clases_ (impersonal)  (active: tacit subject)


----------



## Peterdg

Fer BA said:


> Meyer:
> 
> And finally, I'm completely lost in here:
> 
> Classes are offered at the university" is in Spanish "Classes offer themselves at the university"
> 
> Either my English is not working anymore or my Spanish is very different from yours...  what did you mean?


Hi Fer,

There's nothing wrong with your English 

I think it's a didactical trick. People (English native speakers, Dutch natives speakers) sometimes get lost with the many posibilities of the use of "se" in Spanish. 

Hence, to clarify the gramatical structure of the sentence and the function of "se" in the sentence, teachers sometimes translate the Spanish construct literally into the native language of the students. This results in "unusual" English (or Dutch in my case), but it makes it clear how the Spanish construct works gramatically.

Meyer, if you don't agree, please feel free to shut me up


----------



## Peterdg

mhp said:


> As they have told you, both impersonal (_se ofrece_) and passive reflexive (_se ofrece_n) are possible. But, and this is a big BUT, the normal construction is passive reflexive---I don't think an online grammar tutorial will teach that impersonal with SE is even possible in this case since this not considered good grammar in standard Spanish:
> 
> _Se ofrecen muchas clases_ (passive reflexive)  (passive: grammatical subject: _muchas clases_)
> _Se ofrece muchas clases_ (impersonal)  (active: SE as an indicator of impersonality)
> _ofrecen muchas clases_ (impersonal)  (active: tacit subject)


Exactly!

And, in , "se" is the grammatical subject and the verb goes in singular. As I indicated in my previous post, the RAE is not very happy with this possibility (since "clases" are things and not "determined persons")


----------



## XiaoRoel

_Cada vez se ve menos el *se* impersonal_ en anuncios (era su sitio habitual) _sustituido_ generalmente por la _pasiva refleja_ que como dije en otro mensaje _está cerca de la impersonalidad al no presentar al agente_.
_Se ofrece clases_, o como arriba dijeron _se les ofrece clases_ son frases impersonales, cada vez menos usadas, pero _gramaticales_. Es muy típico todavía ver este se impersonal en los _anuncios_ de venta y alquiler de pisos que se colocan en las ventanas que dan a la calle como reclamo: _se vende_; _se_ _alquila_. _Cuando el OD es doble_ aún se ven más anuncios: _se vende ladrillo y cemento_; _se vende madera troceada y carbón_.


----------



## Pitt

Peterdg said:


> Exactly!
> 
> And, in , "se" is the grammatical subject and the verb goes in singular. As I indicated in my previous post, the RAE is not very happy with this possibility (since "clases" are things and not "determined persons")


 
*Se ofrece muchas clases. *

A mi entender SE es una marca de impersonalidad, no es un sujeto.


----------



## Peterdg

Pitt said:


> *Se ofrece muchas clases. *
> 
> A mi entender SE es una marca de impersonalidad, no es un sujeto.


Sí, sé que la RAE lo llama "signo de indeterminación" (que corresponde a su "marca de impersonalidad") por motivos etimológicos.

Pero tendría que leer lo que dice María Moliner al respecto. Nos presenta una exposición de dos columnas para explicar que la función de "se" en estas construcciones realmente es la de un sujeto para terminar con el cometario que "La RAE se resiste a reconocer a "se" carácter de sujeto tan ajeno a su valor etimológica...". (DUE, María Moliner, Tomo 2, páginas 1116 y 1117).

Entonces, para hacerlo más fácil para entender esta construcción, sobre todo para hablantes no nativos, conviene mejor decir que "se" es el sujeto singular, así que el verbo también va en singular. 

Para decirle la verdad, el término "marca de impersonalidad", desde mi punto de vista, es un término gramaticalmente vacío. Es como decir: "no sabemos lo que es; llamémoslo "marca de impersonalidad". 

Y, ¿Qué hace una marca de impersonalidad? ¿Qué consecuencias tiene? ¿Implica un verbo en tercera persona singular?

Por estas razones, yo prefiero decir que este "se" es sujeto. (y me siento muy bien con esto, apoyado por María Moliner)


----------



## mhp

I agree with Pitt. I have seen in some recent posts this SE being called "the subject" of the sentence. I don't know if there is a reputable grammar book that makes this classification, but I find it surprising. I can see how such a classification can be made from a semantic point of view, but grammatically SE is not a subject pronoun.

PS. Peterdg: I didn't see your reply before posting mine.
If you note the SE in a passive reflexive is also an indicator that has no grammatical role, not even from a semantic point of view---it is simply an indicator that marks this structure.


----------



## Peterdg

@mhp

Well, about "the reputable grammar", I guess María Moliner can be considered a monument, at least in my eyes.

Basically, what she says is: in these constructions, "se" is the subject, but the RAE doesn"t want to call it that way on etimological grounds.

About the "se" in the pasiva refleja, I must admit I haven't given it much thought yet as it doesn't represent any grammatical difficulty (in my simple mind, it's just as if it were a reflexive verb with a passive meaning). But if you want, I can see what MM has to say about it (I know she also dedicates about 1 column to it, just didn't read it yet as it does not present any grammatical difficulty to non-native speakers).


----------



## mhp

I have a MM too, but I have no idea where it is. I agree that it is a reputable grammar book, but I found some of the explanations in the book unacceptable. One of the main reasons I stopped using the book was its claim that an indirect object can be introduced with 'para'. But if it says that SE is a _singular _subject pronoun, that's another good reason, at least for me, to stay away from it.


----------



## Pitt

mhp said:


> I agree with Pitt. I have seen in some recent posts this SE being called "the subject" of the sentence. I don't know if there is a reputable grammar book that makes this classification, but I find it surprising. I can see how such a classification can be made from a semantic point of view, but grammatically SE is not a subject pronoun.


 
Thanks for your comment. I have taken from the DPD:
*2.*_ Se_ indicador de oraciones impersonales o de pasiva refleja
*2.1. *La palabra _se_ sirve hoy para formar dos tipos de oraciones: impersonales y de pasiva refleja.
*a) *En las oraciones impersonales, llamadas así por carecer de sujeto gramatical, la forma _se_ precede siempre a un verbo en tercera persona del singular.


----------



## mhp

Pitt said:


> Thanks for your comment. I have taken from the DPD:
> *2.*_ Se_ indicador de oraciones impersonales o de pasiva refleja
> *2.1. *La palabra _se_ sirve hoy para formar dos tipos de oraciones: impersonales y de pasiva refleja.
> *a) *En las oraciones impersonales, llamadas así por carecer de sujeto gramatical, la forma _se_ precede siempre a un verbo en tercera persona del singular.



Yes, that is a very good point. They are called impersonal exactly because they do not have a grammatical subject. It is an oxymoron to say that an impersonal (something without a grammatical subject) has a grammatical subject. I guess the desire to call SE the subject is due to semantic meaning "se ve a Juan" = "uno ve a Juan". Because SE and UNO have the same syntactic position, it may confuse some to think of SE as a grammatical subject.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Tanto ese *se* como ese *uno* son como el _*on*_ del francés: *morfemas libres* que marcan la impersonalidad. Peterdg en este caso cae en lo que se llama una _*contradictio in terminis*_: una oración con verbo _impersonal_ (siempre en _3ª pers. del sing._ con *se*, *uno* o en verbos *impersonales* *por naturaleza* como _haber_) _no_ puede tener _sujeto_ por definición.


----------



## ChocolateLover

> una oración con verbo _impersonal_ (siempre en _3ª pers. del sing._ con *se*, *uno* o en verbos *impersonales* *por naturaleza* como _haber_) _no_ puede tener _sujeto_ por definición.


 
¿Nos podrías dar un ejemplo, por favor?

¿Te refieres a algo así?

Impersonales por naturaleza:
Uno ha de estudiar

Gracias


----------



## XiaoRoel

Ese uno no es el pronombre indefinido, como no es este se del que hablamos el pronombre reflexivo. Son dos elementos morfológicos (como la -s de plural. la -a del femenino o la -o de 1ª persona en los verbos) que impersonalizan, es decir imposibilitan la expresión del agente. Estas oraciones no son impersonales por naturaleza (por naturaleza serían las que se construyen con verbos sólo impersonales: hay, llueve, hace sol, etc.) son impersonalizadas morfosintácticamente, es decir, por medio de morfemas libres (morfemas-palabra).


----------



## Pitt

mhp said:


> Yes, that is a very good point. They are called impersonal exactly because they do not have a grammatical subject. It is an oxymoron to say that an impersonal (something without a grammatical subject) has a grammatical subject. I guess the desire to call SE the subject is due to semantic meaning "se ve a Juan" = "uno ve a Juan". Because SE and UNO have the same syntactic position, it may confuse some to think of SE as a grammatical subject.


 
I understand it like this:

_Se ve a Juan._ 
Se = marca de impersonalidad

_Uno ve a Juan._
Uno = sujeto

Is this correct?


----------



## ChocolateLover

Muchas gracias

Ahora lo entiendo

Saludos


----------



## roanheads

Pasando el rato, nada más.
También del DPD.---- " SE " indicador de oraciones impersonales y de pasiva refleja.
2.1 (a) --no debe ponerse el verbo en plural cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo, pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y el sujeto, y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo ; así hoy no sería correcta una oración como
X " se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta ."
en lugar de,
" se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta ".

Fijaos en como se trata de " se " como sujeto , ( entre el verbo y el sujeto ) ¿ o es que me equivoco ?

Un par de comentarios más de la misma entrada.
2.2
Así pues, las oraciones impersonales ( se + verbo singular, tercera persona + preposición "a" ) nacen solo referidas a personas. 
( *Para evitar ambigüedad )*

2.2 A continuación, como ya bien se sabe ,

De acuerdo con esta distribución de uso la construcción impersonal no es normal ni aconsejable cuando el complemento directo denota cosa.

En negrita es de mi parte.

Por último, ya se ha debatido este tema de " se " muchas veces en el foro hasta " ad nauseam " y a mi parecer, no se haya terminado en consenso total nunca "

Por tanto " Feliz Semana Santa a todos. "


----------



## mhp

roanheads said:


> Fijaos en como se trata de " se " como sujeto , ( entre el verbo y el sujeto ) ¿ o es que me equivoco ?


Yes, you have misunderstood. 

In passive reflexives there is indeed a a grammatical subject. The article that you reference address the confusion between these two kind of structures. Passive reflexvives have a subject, which the verb has to agree with. In impersonals with SE, there is no subject and the verb must appear in third person singular.


----------



## roanheads

Well,in the same paragraph,
2.1 headed Oraciones Impersonales the following example is included as an Impersonal use of " se " -- not pasiva, which is in paragraph ( b)
The example is "Entre los gitanos se respeta mucho a los ancianos "
which is the same construction as " se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta.

The DPD appears to consider these as an impersonal use of " se " whether passive or otherwise.


----------



## mhp

roanheads said:


> Well,in the same paragraph,
> 2.1 headed Oraciones Impersonales the following example is included as an Impersonal use of " se " -- not pasiva, which is in paragraph ( b)
> The example is "Entre los gitanos se respeta mucho a los ancianos "
> which is the same construction as " se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta.
> 
> The DPD appears to consider these as an impersonal use of " se " whether passive or otherwise.



Yes, they are impersonal and there is no grammatical subject. Note that there is indeed a grammatical subject in the English translation of these sentences.


----------



## roanheads

mph.
The fact is that the DPD ( RAE) writes as I have already quoted above in #32, -----
" no debe ponerse el verbo en plural cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo plural, pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y *el sujeto,* y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo." ( end of quote )

The example given is.
X  " se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta."   ( wrong )!
en lugar de ,
" se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( correct )

where " muchos famosos " is obviously the complemento direct,
and where the singular verb agrees with " se " ( which the DPD says is the *sujeto )*

This example is not a passive reflexive but the evolved structure with " se " to avoid 
a passive ambiguity with persons.
I assure you that after many years of Spanish, I feel very comfortable with impersonal  " se " and passive " se " in its various forms , in their translation into English, and vice versa, where the use of English pronouns is pragmatic common sense.
I totally agree with Peter, ---for  " no hispanico hablantes" we have to translate the " se family " into credible translations to our national language ( whichever it may be ) and I continue to agree with Peter that what I consider as " grammatical games " only serve to complicate life for beginners in Spanish.

Referring to the French " on " which was mentioned previously, this recalls to me as a kid in French class the classical song,
 "Sur le pont d'Avignon " where we were taught that the " on " in this context should be translated as " they "and not as " one ", because the song refers to a group of people dancing, holding hands in a circle.
Therefore " they " is the correct pragmatic translation.

Anyway, se acabó la fiesta, have a nice day !


----------



## mhp

roanheads said:


> mph.
> In impersonal sentences no debe ponerse el verbo en plural (like _vieron _in the example given blow) cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo plural (like _muchos famosos_ in the example below) , pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y *el sujeto *(which an impersonal does not have)*,* y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo (which an impersonal does have)." ( end of quote )
> 
> The example given is.
> X  " se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta."   ( wrong )!
> en lugar de ,
> " se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( correct )



I think the text is quite clear. However, I have added somethings in blue. Hope it helps. 

Essentially, it is saying the verb should not agree with the direct object because a direct object does not function like subject of a sentence. In the fragment that you have chosen, it doesn't explicitly say that an impersonal does not have a subject. But Pitt (in post#25)  has already quoted the section of the DPD that explicitly states this. An impersonal sentence, by definition, does not have a subject. If a sentence has a subject, then it cannot be called impersonal.


----------



## ampurdan

I agree with mhp on his reading of the DPD.

I agree with roandheads and Peterdg on their view that Spanish should be translated to the proper structures of the foreign language, BUT Spanish should not be understood through these foreign structures, for there is a great risk of confusion.

Saying that "se" in impersonal constructions is the subject of the sentence is quite surprising to me too. Without having read María Moliner's explanation, in addition to other objections already expressed in this thread, this one occurs to me:

A subject should not be there when the verb is used in non-personal tenses. However, "se" is there when used in non-personal tenses:

"Considerándo*se*las de esta manera en la ciudad, María y Juana decidieron marcharse a otro lugar".
"Al vér*se*las llegar a la nueva ciudad, empezaron los rumores".


----------



## roanheads

Ampurdan,
My quotes , as above ,before the additions in blue by " mph "referring to " se" as subject, are taken directly from the DPD.
Saludos.


----------



## Fer BA

roanheads said:


> También del DPD.---- " SE " indicador de oraciones impersonales y de pasiva refleja.
> 2.1 (a) --no debe ponerse el verbo en plural cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo, pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y el sujeto, y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo ; así hoy no sería correcta una oración como
> X " se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta ."
> en lugar de,
> " se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta ".
> 
> Fijaos en como se trata de " se " como sujeto , ( entre el verbo y el sujeto ) ¿ o es que me equivoco ?


 
Roanheads,

Just a quick note...Creo que asumes que el DPD indica que el _se_ es el sujeto por la frase _la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y el sujeto. _Entiendo que la manera en que lo expresa el DPD es un tanto confusa, pero aquí está citando una regla general -y no del se pronominal-que yo leería así:

_En los casos en los que una frase tiene sujeto gramatical, la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y el sujeto. Nunca se da entre el verbo y el complemento, tenga o no tenga la frase un sujeto gramatical._


----------



## mhp

roanheads said:


> Ampurdan,
> My quotes , as above ,before the additions in blue by " mph "referring to " se" as subject, are taken directly from the DPD.
> Saludos.


Hi roanheads,

No one questions the accuracy of the quote. What is in question is your understand of the text. The text does not imply that impersonal sentences have a grammatical subject. 

Again, let me stress that "impersonal", as used in Spanish grammar, *means *that there is no grammatical subject.



Fer BA said:


> aquí está citando una regla general



Thank you for "throwing me a hand"


----------



## ampurdan

Roanheads,



> My quotes , as above ,before the additions in blue by " mph "referring to " se" as subject, are taken directly from the DPD.


I know. I agree with FerBA and mhp's posts. The paragraph which you quote from says: 

"En las oraciones impersonales, *llamadas así por carecer de sujeto gramatical*, la forma _se_ precede siempre a un verbo en tercera persona del singular. (...). *No debe ponerse el verbo en plural cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo plural, pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y el sujeto, y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo*; así, hoy no sería correcta una oración como _Se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta,_ en lugar de _Se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta_. Tampoco es correcto hacer concordar el verbo de la oración impersonal con otro tipo de complementos preposicionales".

You cannot put the verb in plural because the verb must agree with the subject, not with a plural direct object. In this impersonal construction, unlike in "pasiva refleja" what follows the verb is a direct object (complemento directo) and not the subject, because there is no grammatical subject. The verb always stays in singular. By no means it states that "se" is the subject of impersonal sentences.

That is what the DPD excerpt means.


----------



## roanheads

ampurdan,
Fortunately I am very familiar with " se " in all its various structures, but to read these quotes from DPD must be very confusing to beginners, and I must say that the impression given to me is that " entre el verbo y sujeto " refers to the example following in the text.
Perhaps a confused mistake from the DPD ? It certainly appears to lack clarity in that context
To non  "hispano hablantes",  we have to work out our own salvation.!
Saludos.


----------



## ampurdan

This is the reasoning:

General rule for all kinds of sentences:
"La concordancia de número solo se da entre verbo y el sujeto, y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo".
General rule for all impersonal sentences:
"Las oraciones impersonales no tienen sujeto gramatical".
Proposition about "se" impersonal sentences:
"Las oraciones impersonales pueden llevar complemento directo en plural".

Therefore,

"Cuando las oraciones impersonales lleven complemento en plural, no se debe concordar el verbo con el complemento en plural, porque en toda frase el verbo concuerda con el sujeto, no con el complemento directo".

I agree that it can be confusing, but that's what it says.


----------



## roanheads

Buenos días,
Thank you for your comments.
Yes and it is not only confusing to " foresteros " , but also to the numerous " hispanohablantes " that I have seen in the foro with similar difficulties.
It is very easy to reiterate quotes from DPD or elsewhere, in a knowledgeable way, that a impersonal " se " sentence lacks a grammatical subject, but how does that help in teaching a beginner to analyse and translate a sentence that has no grammatical sense without a subject ?
mph agrees that angloparlantes require to add our own subject pronoun to a translation and I see "Pitt " on #30 still has not had an answer to his request for an opinion on whether " uno ve a Juan" is the equivalent to " se ve a Juan".
To me a sentence like " se ve a Juan en la fiesta " is a use of the " evolved unambiguous passive which says literally in perifrastic "Juan es visto en la fiesta "
( which sounds horrible " ) and which I would translate in English, " John is seen at the party .

Anway, Ampurdan, in the same way that over years a passive "ambiguous" reflexive like " los ladrones se detienen " evolved to unambiguous " se detiene a los ladrones",
hopefully a "se " impersonal will evolve to be acknowledged as a pronoun subject.
and there may just be a sign that this is occuring. ¡ Ojalá !

¡ Y espero que los culés ganen a Real este fin de semana !

Saludos.


----------



## Peterdg

@Roanheads

In another thread, I quoted María Moliner about this. See here. To her opinion, this "impersonal se" *is* a grammatical subject and should be considered that way. But, other grammarians do not subscribe to that point of view.


----------



## mhp

Just a quick note: Every English sentence has a grammatical subject. Not  all Spanish sentences have grammatical subject. This is not only  limited to impersonals with SE. For example:

Hay tres coasa=There are three things
Hoy ha llovido = today, it has rained
Están llamando a la puerta = Somebody is at the door
Se come bien en España = Food is good in Spain.

None of the Spanish sentences has a subject---they are all impersonal  sentences. But no matter how you translate these sentences, they always  have a grammatical subject in English.


----------



## roanheads

Peterdg said:


> @Roanheads
> 
> In another thread, I quoted María Moliner about this. See here. To her opinion, this "impersonal se" *is* a grammatical subject and should be considered that way. But, other grammarians do not subscribe to that point of view.


 
Peter,
Good luck to Maria, at least it is a start !


----------



## roanheads

mhp said:


> Just a quick note: Every English sentence has a grammatical subject. Not all Spanish sentences have grammatical subject. This is not only limited to impersonals with SE. For example:
> 
> Hay tres coasa=There are three things
> Hoy ha llovido = today, it has rained
> Están llamando a la puerta = Somebody is at the door
> Se come bien en España = Food is good in Spain.
> 
> None of the Spanish sentences has a subject---they are all impersonal sentences. But no matter how you translate these sentences, they always have a grammatical subject in English.


 
mph,
Yes but we all know that only " se " provides a problem.
Regarding " Food is good in Spain " I would be inclined to " People eat well in Spain "

But that is " poca cosa "

God only knows what a beginner thinks of this thread, could be enough to make a person give up studying.
But it passes the time ! not great weather for the garden at the moment and who knows ? maybe we have stirred up something good.---like having more grammarians like María.
Chao.


----------



## ampurdan

Thank you, roanheads, for reminding us about the original question of this thread:



organnie said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have been practicing with online quizes to try and learn the difference between the impersonal se and the passive se. Take the following sentence for example..."En mi universidad __________ (ofrecer) muchas clases interesantes". I chose "se ofrece" (impersonal se) as the answer thinking the sentence translated to "In my university they offer many interesting classes". But the correct answer was "se ofrecen" (passive se) translating the sentence to "In my university many interesting classes are offered". What clue was there that would have alerted me to the fact that it should have been passive and not impersonal?  Thanks, Ann



According to the Spanish Academies, in the standard usage, impersonal "se" is mostly used when the direct object needs to be preceded by preposition "a" (mainly when we're talking about a person or a specified group of people): "Hoy se educa muy mal a las nuevas generaciones".

"Pasiva refleja" is used when the sentence, if it were in the active voice, would have a direct object which doesn't need to be preceded by "a" (mainly when we talk about things or unspecific people): "En mi universidad se ofrecen muchas clases interesantes". 

However, "En mi universidad se ofrece muchas clases interesantes" might be OK in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.


----------



## Fer BA

roanheads said:


> ...It is very easy to reiterate quotes from DPD or elsewhere, in a knowledgeable way, that a impersonal " se " sentence lacks a grammatical subject, but how does that help in teaching a beginner to analyse and translate a sentence that has no grammatical sense without a subject ?
> mph agrees that angloparlantes require to add our own subject pronoun to a translation and I see "Pitt " on #30 still has not had an answer to his request for an opinion on whether " uno ve a Juan" is the equivalent to " se ve a Juan".
> *To me a sentence like " se ve a Juan en la fiesta " is a use of the " evolved unambiguous passive which says literally in perifrastic "Juan es visto en la fiesta "*
> ( which sounds horrible " ) and which I would translate in English, " John is seen at the party .


Roanheads:

There's a subtle difference in the constructions I quoted in blue (in my mind, at least). Even horrible, _Juan es visto_ en la fiesta begs for an agent of the action, _se ve a Juan en la fiesta_, does not. I mean....there's a reason why we use impersonal sentences, it's not a grammatical _capricho _but something a little bit different. I'm not a grammarian and at the end of the day it's all the same to me if we define *se* as a grammatical subject or not, what I understand (what I feel, the way my brain works) is that the impersonal se reflects the fact that some ways of expressing things do not have any kind of agent but are mere descriptions of a current state of things, even there's a verb other than _ser_ or _estar_. _Se come bien en España_ is a perfect example of that.

mhp:
I think that _están llamando a la puerta _is a little bit different...the fact that we don't know who might be knocking at the door doesn't imply that we don't assume that there's an action and an agent. I mean, the subject could be undetermined, but there's a subject there.


----------



## mhp

Fer BA said:


> mhp:
> I think that _están llamando a la puerta _is a little bit different...the fact that we don't know who might be knocking at the door doesn't imply that we don't assume that there's an action and an agent. I mean, the subject could be undetermined, but there's a subject there.


   It may be appropriate to quote the section of the DPD that defines what is meant by “impersonal”:

*«impersonal.* Se dice de las oraciones o construcciones que carecen de sujeto (→ sujeto): _Hace frío; Había varios testigos en la sala; Nevaba intensamente._ Se aplica asimismo a algunas de las que lo tienen tácito o en las que recibe interpretación genérica, como en _Se vive bien aquí_ o _Llaman a la puerta_. Se dice también de los verbos (→ verbo) y perífrasis verbales (→ perífrasis, 2) que no pueden llevar sujeto, como _nevar, haber _o_ haber que_ + infinitivo.»


----------



## Barbara S.

Se dice "se venden verduras en el mercado" "Se vende el coche" entonces "se ofrecen clases". It's not the same as the true passive which normally requires an agent. "El cuadro fue pintado por Picasso."


----------



## Fer BA

mhp said:


> It may be appropriate to quote the section of the DPD that defines what is meant by “impersonal”:
> 
> *«impersonal.* Se dice de las oraciones o construcciones que carecen de sujeto (→ sujeto): _Hace frío; Había varios testigos en la sala; Nevaba intensamente._ Se aplica asimismo a algunas de las que lo tienen tácito o en las que recibe interpretación genérica, como en _Se vive bien aquí_ o _Llaman a la puerta_. Se dice también de los verbos (→ verbo) y perífrasis verbales (→ perífrasis, 2) que no pueden llevar sujeto, como _nevar, haber _o_ haber que_ + infinitivo.»


 
First things first: you're absolutely right, under the DPD definition, all your 4 sentences are _impersonales._ I don't want to dispute anything in here or discuss with the DPD, my point was basically about the impersonal in the sense of _no agent executing an action_ type of sentence. I grant that if we ask 4 different grammarians we might get 5 different opinions about this. For me, _están llamando a la puerta_ is not a _pure_ impersonal sentence (at least, in the sense I always understood it - no agent whatsoever), but something closer to a _sujeto tácito._


----------



## roanheads

Fer,
I agree with you that to me also " están llamando a la puerta " rather implies the mysterious " they ", and although impersonal, is not quite in the same category as " se "
I like as a good example of the impersonal --  " se duerme por la tarde en España "

Referring to  "se ve a Juan en la fiesta " surely the  agent is understood ." Juan es visto en la fiesta *por sus amigos  ( o los demás ) *----which still sounds horrible !

Saludos.


----------



## mhp

roanheads said:


> Fer,
> I agree with you that to me also " están llamando a la puerta " rather implies the mysterious " they ", and although impersonal, is not quite in the same category as " se "
> I like as a good example of the impersonal --  " se duerme por la tarde en España "
> 
> Referring to  "se ve a Juan en la fiesta " surely the  agent is understood ." Juan es visto en la fiesta *por sus amigos  ( o los demás ) *----which still sounds horrible !
> 
> Saludos.




"The mysterious they" in "están llamando a la puerta" is no different than "a mysterious someone" in "se ve a Juan". 

Note that no "mysterious they" exists as a grammatical subject in the Spanish sentence since it cannot be made explicit: "ellos están llamando a la puerta" is quite different from the impersonal construction "están llamando a la puerta"

In an impersonal construction with a *tacit *subject, the verb is either in third person plural (están llamando a la puerta) or it is third person singular (se ve a Juan). In the latter case, SE is simply an indicator to mark this structure as impersonal. No indicator is used in the first case; context is used to determine impersonality.


----------



## kaoruca

XiaoRoel said:


> La _pasiva refleja_ de alguna manera también ofrece el rasgo de _impersonalidad_ ya que _no expresa el agente_ de la acción. La gran diferencia entre el _se_ impersonal y el pasivo es que la construcción con *se pasivo*, al llevar *sujeto paciente* (el OD en voz activa) admite el plural si ese sujeto paciente va en plural, mientras que el *se impersonal* es una construcción _activa_ que admite OD pero no tiene sujeto y por eso el verbo va en la *3ª persona del singular*, que es una no-persona verbal, la forma que adquieren los verbos impersonales en español.


Tienes mucha razón. Vamos a ver. La *pasiva refleja* tendría sujeto ("las clases"), por lo que tendríamos que poner el verbo en 3ª persona plural ("se ofrecen"), ya que el sujeto está en plural y es 3ª persona. 

Pero si lo que queremos formar es una *frase impersonal*, dicha frase no lleva sujeto - como su propio nombre indica - y "las clases" sería objeto directo y, como no concordaría el verbo con ningún sujeto, el verbo debe ir en singular "se ofrece".
Espero haber ayudado.

Por cierto, la pasiva refleja no es una oración impersonal. Por eso identificamos a su acompañante su sujeto paciente (*Se* venden *casas*).* Vs*
*Se* vende *casas* (aquí la frase sería impersonal, ya que "casas" no sería sujeto -no concuerda en nº con el verbo-, sino Objeto Directo).


----------



## kaoruca

Peterdg said:


> Sí, sé que la RAE lo llama "signo de indeterminación" (que corresponde a su "marca de impersonalidad") por motivos etimológicos.
> 
> Pero tendría que leer lo que dice María Moliner al respecto. Nos presenta una exposición de dos columnas para explicar que la función de "se" en estas construcciones realmente es la de un sujeto para terminar con el cometario que "La RAE se resiste a reconocer a "se" carácter de sujeto tan ajeno a su valor etimológica...". (DUE, María Moliner, Tomo 2, páginas 1116 y 1117).
> 
> Entonces, para hacerlo más fácil para entender esta construcción, sobre todo para hablantes no nativos, conviene mejor decir que "se" es el sujeto singular, así que el verbo también va en singular.
> 
> Para decirle la verdad, el término "marca de impersonalidad", desde mi punto de vista, es un término gramaticalmente vacío. Es como decir: "no sabemos lo que es; llamémoslo "marca de impersonalidad".
> 
> Y, ¿Qué hace una marca de impersonalidad? ¿Qué consecuencias tiene? ¿Implica un verbo en tercera persona singular?
> 
> Por estas razones, yo prefiero decir que este "se" es sujeto. (y me siento muy bien con esto, apoyado por María Moliner)


 
Personalmente, creo que María Moliner se equivoca. Cada idioma tiene lo que tiene. 
Lo veo como cuando me encuentro a profesores diciéndoles a niños de 3 años que "Happy Birthday" en inglés se pronuncia "japi beibi", porque así les es más fácil. Una pérdida de tiempo y enseñarles un error que luego tendrán que corregir. 
El "se" es una marca de impersonalidad en el idioma español. No creo que eso sea difícil. Juer, fíjate en los phrasal verbs. A ver si nos los pueden simplificar y la posición de los objetos (si este va entre medias del verbo y la preposición o tras ésta) también nos lo podrían simplificar. Es lo que es y una vez que se aprende bien, pues ya está.
Y se dice "perro" y no "guaguau", aunque te resulte más difícil de pronunciar. No sé si me entendéis.


----------



## kaoruca

roanheads said:


> mph.
> The fact is that the DPD ( RAE) writes as I have already quoted above in #32, -----
> " no debe ponerse el verbo en plural cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo plural, pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y *el sujeto,* y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo." ( end of quote )
> 
> The example given is.
> X " se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( wrong )!
> en lugar de ,
> " se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( correct )
> 
> A ver, guapetón/a. La primera frase se puede decir en español, pero NO es IMPERSONAL, ya que "muchos famosos" es el sujeto gramatical de "vieron", aunque se utilizaría más la segunda, que SÍ es IMPERSONAL.
> 
> En cuanto a lo de que "se" es sujeto porque equivaldría a "uno" y así es más fácil: ¿en una fiesta sólo lo vio uno? ¿Y si lo vieron más, cómo justifico el singular de la pasiva? El "se" en la segunda frase denota rasgo de impersonalidad. Llamemos a las cosas por su nombre.


----------



## mhp

kaoruca said:


> X " se vieron *a* muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( wrong )!
> La primera frase se puede decir en español, pero NO es IMPERSONAL, ya  que "muchos famosos" es el sujeto gramatical de "vieron", aunque se  utilizaría más la segunda, que SÍ es IMPERSONAL.



I'm sorry. But that sentence is incorrect. It is not passive reflexive since _muchos famosos_ is not the subject (note the preposition). If you drop the preposition, the sentence is grammatically correct, but not recommendable as passive reflexive because it could easily be interpreted as these people seeing each other.


----------



## kaoruca

You're right, I forgot to erase the "a" in the first sentence (That's because it is sometimes said, though that's wrong).Thanks for the correction.


----------



## chicachicle

mhp said:


> As they have told you, both impersonal (_se ofrece_) and passive reflexive (_se ofrece_n) are possible. But, and this is a big BUT, the normal construction is passive reflexive---I don't think an online grammar tutorial will teach that impersonal with SE is even possible in this case since this not considered good grammar in standard Spanish:
> 
> _Se ofrecen muchas clases_ (passive reflexive)  (passive: grammatical subject: _muchas clases_)
> _Se ofrece muchas clases_ (impersonal)  (active: SE as an indicator of impersonality)
> _ofrecen muchas clases_ (impersonal)  (active: tacit subject)




Sorry but _se ofrece muchas clases_ is not correct.
The point here is that passive reflexive sentences do have a subject, like in the sentence we've been given. In se ofrecen muchas clases, *clases* is the subject of the sentece. However, if you are given an impersonal sentence using the verb "ser" such as _]Se come bien en España_, there is no subject. This is an impersonal sentence using verb "ser".
So coming back, se ofrece clases is absolutely wrong since the subject and the verb don't match gramatically.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Chicachicle


----------



## mhp

chicachicle said:


> Sorry but _se ofrece muchas clases_ is not correct.
> The point here is that passive reflexive sentences do have a subject, like in the sentence we've been given. In se ofrecen muchas clases, *clases* is the subject of the sentece. However, if you are given an impersonal sentence using the verb "ser" such as _]Se come bien en España_, there is no subject. This is an impersonal sentence using verb "ser".
> So coming back, se ofrece clases is absolutely wrong since the subject and the verb don't match gramatically.
> I hope this helps.
> Regards
> Chicachicle



You'd be right if it were passive. It is not. It is impersonal. This construction is neither common nor recommended, but it is grammatically correct. That is what my post that you quoted was saying. 

For more information, you can read point 2.2 here.
«De acuerdo con esta distribución de uso, la construcción impersonal no  es normal ni aconsejable cuando el complemento directo denota cosa; no  obstante, en algunas zonas de América...»


----------



## roanheads

mhp said:


> "The mysterious they" in "están llamando a la puerta" is no different than "a mysterious someone" in "se ve a Juan".
> 
> Note that no "mysterious they" exists as a grammatical subject in the Spanish sentence since it cannot be made explicit: "ellos están llamando a la puerta" is quite different from the impersonal construction "están llamando a la puerta"
> 
> In an impersonal construction with a *tacit *subject, the verb is either in third person plural (están llamando a la puerta) or it is third person singular (se ve a Juan). In the latter case, SE is simply an indicator to mark this structure as impersonal. No indicator is used in the first case; context is used to determine impersonality.


 
mph,
Sorry , but I don't agree. As you well know , it is normal, unless included for emphasis, in Spanish, to omit the verb pronoun, which is understood by the verb ending.
Therefore, in a sentence like " están llamando a la puerta " it would be very normal to take the subject pronoun " ellos "( perhaps referirng to friends ) as understood , as in standard Spanish, as well as a possible impersonal sense
Which, at the moment at least,a pronoun can not be understood, as we have been hearing ad nausem with " se "
, so I repeat that it is not in the same category as " se " in the context of this thread.


----------



## roanheads

kaoruca said:


> roanheads said:
> 
> 
> 
> mph.
> The fact is that the DPD ( RAE) writes as I have already quoted above in #32, -----
> " no debe ponerse el verbo en plural cuando la oración impersonal lleva un complemento directo plural, pues la concordancia de número solo se da entre el verbo y *el sujeto,* y no entre el verbo y el complemento directo." ( end of quote )
> 
> The example given is.
> X " se vieron a muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( wrong )!
> en lugar de ,
> " se vio a muchos famosos en la fiesta." ( correct )
> 
> A ver, guapetón/a. La primera frase se puede decir en español, pero NO es IMPERSONAL, ya que "muchos famosos" es el sujeto gramatical de "vieron", aunque se utilizaría más la segunda, que SÍ es IMPERSONAL.
> 
> En cuanto a lo de que "se" es sujeto porque equivaldría a "uno" y así es más fácil: ¿en una fiesta sólo lo vio uno? ¿Y si lo vieron más, cómo justifico el singular de la pasiva? El "se" en la segunda frase denota rasgo de impersonalidad. Llamemos a las cosas por su nombre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaoruca,
> En primer lugar, gracias por el piropo, ojalá que mi esposa me lo dijera de vez en cuando , pero después de tantos años de casados, supongo que se aburre.¡ je je ! í vamos.!
> Bueno, creo que una vez es justo volver a poner en evidencia que el " se " en la segunda frase ( como tú dices ) es parte de la estructura que se evolucionó,hace años, para expresar una pasiva de personas y animados,sin la ambigüedad ( a veces ) de la pasiva refleja normal.
> 
> Saludos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Peterdg

chicachicle said:


> However, if you are given an impersonal sentence using the verb "ser" such as _]Se come bien en España_, there is no subject. This is an impersonal sentence using verb "ser".


 
Euh? Where in there do you see the verb "ser"?


----------



## mhp

roanheads said:


> mph,
> Sorry , but I don't agree. As you well know , it is normal, unless included for emphasis, in Spanish, to omit the verb pronoun, which is understood by the verb ending.
> Therefore, in a sentence like " están llamando a la puerta " it would be very normal to take the subject pronoun " ellos "( perhaps referirng to friends ) as understood , as in standard Spanish, as well as a possible impersonal sense
> Which, at the moment at least,a pronoun can not be understood, as we have been hearing ad nausem with " se "
> , so I repeat that it is not in the same category as " se " in the context of this thread.



Hi roanheads,

_llaman a la puerta = there's *someone *at the door_

Depending on the context, this could also mean "_ellos llaman a la puerta_". But "ellos _llaman a la puerta_" could never mean "_llaman a la puerta_" (_there's *someone *at the door_).

You may wish to read post #52 again. 

Despite all that, I like to see one native speaker, even among those who do not agree with some of the points in the DPD, who'd say "ellos _llaman a la puerta_" when he/she doesn't know how many people are at the door.


----------



## Fer BA

mhp said:


> "The mysterious they" in "están llamando a la puerta" is no different than "a mysterious someone" in "se ve a Juan".
> 
> Note that no "mysterious they" exists as a grammatical subject in the Spanish sentence since it cannot be made explicit: "ellos están llamando a la puerta" is quite different from the impersonal construction "están llamando a la puerta"
> 
> In an impersonal construction with a *tacit *subject, the verb is either in third person plural (están llamando a la puerta) or it is third person singular (se ve a Juan). In the latter case, SE is simply an indicator to mark this structure as impersonal. No indicator is used in the first case; context is used to determine impersonality.


 
mhp, roanheads:

Sólo puedo aportar mi intuición y lo que recuerdo haber aprendido en el colegio, que creo que esto último puede ser esclarecedor...

Impersonales y tácitas son excluyentes entre sí: o es una o es otra. Yo recuerdo que para las oraciones con sujeto tácito dibujabamos una pequeña caja (un corchete _acostado_) a la izquierda de la oración y poníamos _ST_ debajo de él significando sujeto tácito. Para las impersonales, poníamos a la izquierda de la oración un _(SS) _significando _sin sujeto_.

Se perfectamente que este foro es de gramática, así que pueden pedirme que me calle si me desvío del interés general.  

Creo que _semánticamente_ las construcciones _*ellos* están llamando a la puerta_ y _están llamando a la puerta_ son practicamente idénticas (_hay alguien, o algunos_, desde una determinación clara -ellos- hasta la indeterminación completa, _llamando a la puerta_). _Sabemos_ que *hay* un sujeto, podemos no saber quien es o quienes son..

En cambio en _se ve a Juan _no hay un misterioso ellos, no hay nadie que se entienda que está viendo a Juan. Queda más claro con _Se come bien en España_. ¿Quíen come bien en España? Pues nadie en particular, cualquiera, algunos, todo el mundo....pero nada de eso constituye un misterioso ellos o él, en la construcción, semánticamente, no *hay* sujeto como no lo hay en _Llueve, _o en _Hay una manzana sobre la mesa._

Esa es *mi* percepción.


----------



## mhp

Fer BA said:


> Creo que _semánticamente_ las construcciones _*ellos* están llamando a la puerta_ y _están llamando a la puerta_  son practicamente idénticas (_hay alguien, o algunos_, desde una determinación clara -ellos- hasta la indeterminación completa, _llamando a la puerta_). _Sabemos_ que *hay* un sujeto, podemos no saber quien es o quienes son..



So you'd say "_ellos llaman a la puerta_" instead of "_llaman a la puerta_" when you don't know how many people are at the door?

Forget grammar. I just want to know if you utter those words if someone knocks at the door and you want to say "there's someone at the door".


----------



## Fer BA

No, I don't utter those words, I don't think that I've ever said _*ellos* llaman a la puerta_. Situations: 

a) I'm just watching TV and my wife is at our bedroom. The ring bells. My wife says _¿Atendés vos? Están llamando a la puerta._
b) We're waiting for a couple of friends that will arrive at 8 pm. It's almost time. The ring bells. My wife says _¿*Los* atendés vos? Están llamando a la puerta._

When someone knocks the door, I use basically the same construction, regardless of knowing who and how many are at the door, or not knowing that.


----------



## mhp

Fer BA said:


> No, I don't utter those words, I don't think that I've ever said _*ellos* llaman a la puerta_. Situations:
> 
> a) I'm just watching TV and my wife is at our bedroom. The ring bells. My wife says _¿Atendés vos? Están llamando a la puerta._
> b) We're waiting for a couple of friends that will arrive at 8 pm. It's almost time. The ring bells. My wife says _¿*Los* atendés vos? Están llamando a la puerta._
> 
> When someone knocks the door, I use basically the same construction, regardless of knowing who and how many are at the door, or not knowing that.


Thank you Fer BA. I'm sure you could have invented a very convoluted scenario where that could have be said with 'ellos'. But you didn't. 

Now I may be pushing you to the limit. But grammar aside, do you find any substantial semantic difference (aside from which one is used more frequently) between:

Uno come bien en España.
Se come bien en Espana.


----------



## Fer BA

mhp said:


> Thank you Fer BA. I'm sure you could have invented a very convoluted scenario where that could have be said with 'ellos'. But you didn't.
> 
> Now I may be pushing you to the limit. But grammar aside, do you find a substantial semantic difference (aside from which one is used more frequently) between:
> 
> Uno come bien en España.
> Se come bien en Espana.


 
Actually I do (and again, I'd like to hear more from other native speakers to see if this is just my perception or a general thing).

_Uno..._ has a basic meaning that you, me, anybody eats well in Spain. It's _impersonal _in the sense that there's an undetermined subject (there's a persona there it's not "_*a*personal"_).
_Se..._ has a basic meaning of a declaration about the food (_La comida es buena en España) _*PLUS *a common sense feeling, the indication that we share a _consensus_. If I say _La comida es buena en XYZ_, it might be just my own, very particular perception, if I say S_e come bien en XYZ_ it has this plus of something that's _common knowledge_.


----------



## mhp

Fer BA said:


> Actually I do (and again, I'd like to hear more from other native speakers to see if this is just my perception or a general thing).
> 
> _Uno..._ has a basic meaning that you, me, anybody eats well in Spain. It's _impersonal _in the sense that there's an undetermined subject (there's a persona there it's not "_*a*personal"_).
> _Se..._ has a basic meaning of a declaration about the food (_La comida es buena en España) _*PLUS *a common sense feeling, the indication that we share a _consensus_. If I say _La comida es buena en XYZ_, it might be just my own, very particular perception, if I say S_e come bien en XYZ_ it has this plus of something that's _common knowledge_.


I wait for those replies too. But at least we know that you and I think more alike than either of us may realize. 

I had traslated the sentece as "Food is good in Spain", which admittedly is not the only translation.


----------



## ampurdan

In my opinion, in everyday speech they mean quite the same, although I think that FerBA has a point. They are not _exactly_ the same.

If you were to ask whether you could eat well in Fiji, I'm far more likely to ask:

-¿Se come bien en Fiji?

Than:

-¿Uno come bien en Fiji?

In fact, the second one is hardly idiomatic for that purpose.

You could say:

-¿Uno puede comer bien en Fiji?

I think that's because the speaker is somehow included in "uno", while he's not included in "se come".

Other sentences are very different:

-Ya no se respeta a los mayores en este país. - Old people are not respected in this country.

-Uno no respeta a los mayores en este país. - One does not respect old people in this country.


----------



## Fer BA

Amp:

Es a esa inclusión del hablante a la que me refiero, inclusión tanto del hablante como del oyente.

No conozco la comida típica de Fiji, así que invento...

- ¿Se come bien en Fiji?
- Dicen que sí, pero no se si uno puede comer bien allí, no hay ni jamón serrano ni aceite de oliva, asi que ni a tí ni a mí nos gustaría mucho que digamos...donde se come bien es en Thailandia, los mariscos son deliciosos y se preparan de una manera espectacular.

Yo no soy muy propenso a usar las construcciones con _uno... _(excepto frases hechas como _uno nunca sabe_). La frase  _Uno no respeta a los mayores en este país_ me suena un poco extraña (a mi oído porteño).


----------



## ampurdan

Claro, uno no lo suele decir así, por eso lo he puesto; supongo que en inglés debe pasar lo mismo con la versión con "one"...


----------



## VictorBsAs

Dependiendo del contexto "Llaman a la puerta" puede ser impersonal o con sujeto tácito (como en los ejemplos del '#70).
- Te llamaron por teléfono
- ¿Quién era?
- Era tu novia
¿Por qué se usa plural en 'llamaron'? simplemente porque de esa forma se denota el modo impersonal. Por eso no pregunta '¿Quiénes eran?'


----------



## kaoruca

mhp said:


> So you'd say "_ellos llaman a la puerta_" instead of "_llaman a la puerta_" when you don't know how many people are at the door?
> 
> Forget grammar. I just want to know if you utter those words if someone knocks at the door and you want to say "there's someone at the door".


 
In Spanish we usually omite the subject, because looking at the verb we know which grammatical person is acting as its subject (sorry for my English, always learning). But I have never used (and I won't) "Ellos están llamando a la puerta" in order to mean that "somebody is knocking at the door". Why? Because if I use "ellos" I know who is (in this case *are*) knocking at the door. But even if I knew it, I wouldn't say "ellos". If I am not going to say who are knocking (Marta and Juan are kno....) I will say just the verb, as it refers to the third person in plural and doesn't tell anything about the subject.

Far from this, I think that "Están llamando a la puerta" is a impersonal sentence. Who? I don't know. But look, if I say "Está llamando a la puerta" is not impersonal, I just omited the subject, but I know who is. 
Example: You are waiting Paul for dinner, and you hear that someone is knocking at the door. You guess is Paul (or maybe you surely know it) and you say: "¿Puedes abrir?. (Paul) Está llamando a la puerta".


----------



## roanheads

organnie,
As you initiated this query, it would be appreciated if you will indicate whether these comments have been of assistance to you, as it is indeed a most interesting subject.
Saludsos.


----------

