# se ha visto



## banana0930

En un libro encuentro la siguiente oracion:    ?Donde se ha visto un sapo en moto?

La entiendo como: Where have you seen a frog on a motorcycle?

Me pregunto, por que se dice 'se' ha visto?  No entiendo el uso del pronombre aqui?  Explicamelo porfavor.

Muchas gracias
-anna


----------



## Ivy29

banana0930 said:


> En un libro encuentro la siguiente oracion: ?Donde se ha visto un sapo en moto?
> 
> La entiendo como: Where have you seen a frog on a motorcycle?
> 
> Me pregunto, por que se dice 'se' ha visto? No entiendo el uso del pronombre aqui? Explicamelo porfavor.
> 
> Muchas gracias
> -anna


 
*'SE' is non-reflexive passive structure*.
Frog= Logical subject.

Ivy29


----------



## mhp

banana0930 said:


> En un libro encuentro la siguiente oracion:    ?Donde se ha visto un sapo en moto?
> 
> La entiendo como: Where have you seen a frog on a motorcycle?
> 
> Me pregunto, por que se dice 'se' ha visto?  No entiendo el uso del pronombre aqui?  Explicamelo porfavor.
> 
> Muchas gracias
> -anna



Where has a frog been seen on a motorcycle?

Same structure as:

Se habla español
Spanish is spoken
(We speak Spanish)


----------



## Magmod

banana0930 said:


> Donde se ha visto un sapo en moto?
> 
> La entiendo como: Where have *you/we/they/it/one* seen a frog on a motorcycle
> 
> Me pregunto, por que se dice 'se' ha visto? No entiendo el uso del pronombre aqui? Explicamelo porfavor.
> 
> Muchas gracias
> -anna


 
En la forma impersonal, la más fácil manera para entender esta estructura para nosotros los extranjeros es siempre utilizar la palabra *one *en lugar de *se *y traducir literalmente palabra por palabra así:

Donde *se* ha visto un sapo en moto
Where *one* has seen a frog on motorbike
Se me dice/dijo que …
= One tells/told me that …
= I’m told/ I was told that … 
A los empleados de la oficina *se* les informó en seguida del nombramiento
= Literalmente: to the office staff *one* informed them at once of the appointment
= The office staff were informed at once of the appointment  
Cuidado de la que Ivy ha dicho:

The Spanish subject of a passive verb has become the indirect object in English 
[*]Se me dijo que las nuevas guías son muy populares > one told me ...
[*] I was told that the new guides are very popular


----------



## Ivy29

[Cuidado de la *lo *que Ivy ha dicho:

The Spanish subject of a passive verb has become the indirect object in English 
[*]Se me dijo que las nuevas guías son muy populares > one told me ...
[*]I was told that the new guides are very popular 
[/quote]


Sorry Magmod, I didnt say that. This is what I said :

<<*SE' is non-reflexive passive structure*.
Frog= Logical subject.>>>>>>



Ivy29


----------



## Magmod

Ivy29 said:


> Sorry Magmod, I didnt say that. This is what I said :
> 
> <<*SE' is non-reflexive passive structure*.
> *Frog= Logical subject*.>>>>>>


 Claro Ivy, pero has dicho que a frog es: logical subject

Y por eso en la plural la frase llega a ser:

¿Dónde se han visto unos sapos en moto? 
Pero en inglés el sujeto es one y no a frog. 

Además como he dicho un sapo es el CI en inglés


----------



## mhp

In English the subject is also the frog. Forget about putting it in a question form for the moment.

  A frog is seen

  This is a passive voice. The grammatical subject of this sentence is the frog.

  Two frogs are seen.

  Now put it in the question form

  Where has a frog been seen?
  ¿Dónde se ha visto una rana?

  Where have some frogs been seen?
  ¿Dónde se han visto unos ranas?

  The thing you say about “where has one seen a frog?” is not a passive voice. In Spanish it would be ¿Dónde uno ha visto una rana?


----------



## Dudu678

I couldn't agree more with mhp.

The only difference is that in Spanish we also use the _se _passive form, while in English only the "traditional" passive is possible.


----------



## Manupi

The question here is that you cannot always do a literal translation.
_¿Dónde se ha visto una rana en moto?_ literally translated would be:
_*Where has a frog been seen on a motorbike? _which, I think, doesn't sound too correct in English. But in Spanish, for this kind of structure, we use the "pasiva con se" instead of an active voice sentence, like:
_¿Dónde ha visto uno una rana en una moto?_
But the meaning is the same.


----------



## Ivy29

Magmod said:


> Claro Ivy, pero has dicho que a frog es: logical subject
> 
> Y por eso en la plural la frase llega a ser:
> 
> ¿Dónde se han visto unos sapos en moto?
> Pero en inglés el sujeto es one y no a frog.
> 
> Además como he dicho un sapo es el CI en inglés


 

I do not understand, Magmod, your point. Being the logical subject it should agree with verb singular or plural. 
ONE is an impersonal pronoun in English, used in the impersonal 'SE' but not in the 'se' passive because the subject certainly is present but not in the impersonal 'SE'. 
Frog should be in the passive the notional direct object switched into subject. How it can come as IO??.

Ivy29


----------



## Magmod

Manupi said:


> _¿Dónde se ha visto una rana en moto?_ literally translated would be:
> _*Where has a frog been seen on a motorbike? _.


I'm writing from the point of view of a non-Spanish speaker.

 As you know *Se* is used far too much in Spanish. This is the question: post #1. It is important to get the correct meaning of *Se.*

 In order to get the literal meaning I'm suggesting the use of *one* and translating word for word:

Where has *one* seen a frog on a motorbike?
This sentence can now be improved as I explained above 

It is impossible to say in Spanish:
 I was told as you do in English


----------



## Ivy29

Magmod said:


> I'm writing from the point of view of a non-Spanish speaker.
> 
> As you know *Se* is used far too much in Spanish. This is the question: post #1. It is important to get the correct meaning of *Se.*
> 
> In order to get the literal meaning I'm suggesting the use of *one* and translating word for word:
> 
> Where has *one* seen a frog on a motorbike?
> This sentence can now be improved as I explained above
> 
> It is impossible to say in Spanish:
> I was told as you do in English


 

Did you say that frog was IO  in your previous post?
Thanks fo the explanation.

Ivy29


----------



## banana0930

gracias a todos por la ayuda!


----------



## Magmod

mhp said:


> In English the subject is also the frog.
> Now put it in the question form
> 
> Where has a frog been seen?
> ¿Dónde se ha visto una rana?
> 
> The thing you say about “where has one seen a frog?” is not a passive voice. In Spanish it would be ¿Dónde uno ha visto una rana?


 
 I can't see what action the frog has performed in the above *impersonal *English construction? See post #1.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> I do not understand, Magmod, your point. Being the logical subject it should agree with verb singular or plural.
> ONE is an impersonal pronoun in English, used in the impersonal 'SE' but not in the 'se' passive because the subject certainly is present but not in the impersonal 'SE'.
> Frog should be in the passive the notional direct object switched into subject. How it can come as IO??.
> 
> Ivy29



I agree with Ivy and others who've said that "frog" is the logical subject (no doing any action, of course) of a SE Passive structure. These are not usually translated with the 'se' becoming a 'one' into English. They are translated with passive wording in English to be the most faithful. An impersonal subject in English is most natural when using the SE Impersonal without direct objects.
Se come mucho en España. (SE Impersonal [no direct object]) = One/People eat(s) well in Spain. (active voice in English)
Se castigó a María y Elena. (SE Impersonal [+ direct object]) =Maria and Elena were punished. (Passive wording in English)
Se han visto varias animales. (SE Passive) = Several animals have been seen. (passive wording in English)

Having said that -- I see no problem with Mod's desire to make things simpler for the student finding this SE so often. My concern is that a student of Spanish with English as their native tongue hardly 'ever' uses the word 'one' in a sentence. Therefore as they spend time using their 'transition' language from English to Spanish to think about forming sentences. -- I fear they would never learn to use 'se' when it's used all the time in Spanish. That's my only concern about the 'one'.


----------



## mhp

Magmod said:


> I can't see what action the frog has performed in the above *impersonal *English construction? See post #1.



 As they have pointed out, it is a question of how you want to translate it. In both Spanish and English, in a passive voice the frog/toad would be the subject (not the person that sees it)

  This bridge was constructed by Romans.
  Este puente fue construido por los romanos.

  Here the “bridge” is the grammatical subject and “Romans” is the agent. Even though Romans performed the action, the grammatical subject is nonetheless the bridge.

  1) se ha visto un sapo

  This is also a passive voice where the grammatical subject is “un sapo”. How you want to translate this to English, of course depends on many factors, notably how natural it sounds in English. But if you want to do a literal translation, you have to use a passive voice in English too

  2) A toad has been seen

  Here the toad is the subject of the sentence. If you translate (1) as

  3) One has seen a toad

  Then you are using an active voice in which “one/someone” is the subject of the sentence. 

  The important thing is to understand that in (1) “un sapo” is the subject of the sentence. If you translate it as a passive voice, then “a toad” is the subject of the English sentence. If you translate it as (3) then “one” is the subject of the English sentence.


----------



## Magmod

I understand what you are saying mhp and Newdestiny 

 But I wonder how many English speaking people have heard of a *logical or grammatical subject *

 On the other hand, although you condemn my use of *One, it* always works without complications, even for:

*Se* vende = *one* sells > for sale 
It also works for *se nos dijo etc. *

 But you have not answered how to get over the English passive where the *indirect *object of the active verb has been made the subject of a passive verb, as I mentioned above - A construction that has no equivalent in Spanish:

I was given, we were told etc.


----------



## mhp

Magmod said:


> But I wonder how many English speaking people have heard of a *logical or grammatical subject *


  In standard English grammar, the “logical or grammatical” subject of a passive sentence is simply called subject. In a passive voice the *subject* is acted upon and the *agent* performs the action. In an active voice the subject performs the action.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_actpass.html


> I was given, we were told etc.


 I was given a book
  Me dieron un libro

  We were told
  Nos dijeron que ...

  This is a form of impersonal “they” that we were taught to avoid in English. But in Spanish it is perfectly acceptable. Although “ellos” is implied in this type of impersonal, you should never explicitly say it.

  Ellos me dieron un libro (I was given a book) 
  Ellos nos dijeron que (We were told...)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> I understand what you are saying mhp and Newdestiny   But I wonder how many English speaking people have heard of a *logical or grammatical subject *  On the other hand, although you condemn my use of *One, it* always works without complications, even for:*
> •Se* vende = *one* sells > for sale It also works for *se nos dijo etc. *  But you have not answered how to get over the English passive where the *indirect *object of the active verb has been made the subject of a passive verb, as I mentioned above - A construction that has no equivalent in Spanish:
> *•*I was given, we were told etc.



Magmod,
If you are saying that thinking of SE = "one" is a mechanism to help understand's SE's role as a marker for many of its roles then I'm generally okay with that. But I have to disagree with you that it works for 'all cases' of SE -- or even 'all' cases of it for Impersonal. When I wrote my grammar I became very hyperfocused on 'se' for the reasons you've cited -- that it is a very overworked pronoun/marker in the Spanish language that drives students crazy for all its uses. But your attempt to simplify it is an oversimplification on many levels (with due respect). In fact SE's use is so vast that in my grammar, where I had attempted to keep all topics to two pages max -- and succeeded -- except for SE, which took 4 pages. Ugggh. Well I called the section Pronominal Verbs and the Many, Many Uses of SE. On the last two pages I review the SE Impersonal and Se Passive but on the first 2 pages I explored it reflexive uses and non fault uses and detransitivization uses -- and in 'none' of those cases can SE translate to 'one' in English. Let me show you -- and I know you probably already know these.
*
Reciprocal SE:*
Se miraron en el espejo. = They looked at each other in the mirror
--"one" would be impossible here in English.

* Literal Reflexive SE:*
Se escribió una nota. = He wrote himself a note. 
--"one" impossible

* Inhererent Reflexive SE:*
Se lava las manos. = He's washing his hands.
--"one" impossible

* Obligatory SE:*
Se queja mucho. = He complains alot. 
-"one" impossible here and this 'se' is always with the verb.

* NonFault SE:*
Se me olvidaron las llaves. = I forgot my keys.
-"one" impossible in English for this one.

* Intransitive SE* (Middle Voice)*:*
Se ahogó el nadador. - The swimmer drowned.

* Change of State SE:*
Se perdió mi madre. - My mother got lost.
Se enojó después de que oyó eso. - She got mad after she heard that.
*
Total Consumption SE:*
Se bebió el vino. He drank (up all) the wine.

And this list isn't complete. In none of those uses would English's 'one' suffice as a translation. So I guess if you told the students that it worked for the 'impersonal and passive' voices, only, -- I'm okay (only to a point)-- but as you can see -- how's a student of Spanish to know for sure what SE's role is until they study a little harder. SE can be broken down and learned fairly easy -- but they have to learn it by 'cases' from my experience. I don't even teach 'reflexive' as a separate topic as I don't believe it helps students learn the pronominal cases. Of course many of the cases above use the pronominal uses of the verbs where the pronoun matches that verb's subject -- but SE is still a pronoun possible in all of them and it's not 'one' in English.


----------



## Magmod

mhp said:


> I was given a book
> Me dieron un libro
> 
> We were told
> Nos dijeron que ...


Thanks for your useful reply 

 However, the above examples confirm what I was saying that one has to be aware that the subject in English has become the indirect object in Spanish.

 Further, in the above examples the subject and indirect object in the English sentences are the same person(s). A construction which is impossible in Spanish and therefore one needs to use: *se  *


----------



## Magmod

NewdestinyX said:


> Magmod,
> If you are saying that thinking of SE = "one" is a mechanism to help understand's SE's role as a marker for many of its roles then I'm generally okay with that. But I have to disagree with you that it works for 'all cases' of SE -- or even 'all' cases of it for Impersonal.


Thanks for your very informative and interesting reply 

 Obviously *se *will not work for all cases - the question post#1 is specific.

 On the other hand you didn't give any examples where *one* doesn't work for the impersonal and passive *se* cases to get the gist of the meaning


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> However, the above examples confirm what I was saying that one has to be aware that the subject in English has become the indirect object in Spanish.



In "I was told" -- "I" is the logical subject of the passive. It keeps its indirect object quality from the active voice even in the passive. The only difference interlingually is that English has greater flexibility with the role of its subject pronouns; where Spanish doesn't.



> Further, in the above examples the subject and indirect object in the English sentences are the same person(s).


How so? Please parse the sentence.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> On the other hand you didn't give any examples where *one* doesn't work for the impersonal and passive *se* cases



'One' is never natural in the SE Passive. You offered the idea that it 'works'. Well yes -- but the sentence is not natural English and would never be used. I try to steer clear of such things in my teaching practices. "One" is only a natural English rendition for translating Se Impersonal with Intransitive verbs. "Se come bien en España" - and the like.

And though the first post was specific -- you stated it would work in 'all cases'. That's why I wrote that other post for you. And you're welcome. I love this stuff anyway. It seems we are both motivated to find the best ways to teach this stuff to students. Hopefully we'll learn from each other.


----------



## Magmod

NewdestinyX said:


> In "I was told" -- "I" is the logical subject of the passive. It keeps its indirect object quality from the active voice even in the passive.
> How so? Please parse the sentence.


But you've answered the parsing question yourself  


I was given the news
Q: To whom the news was given?
A: T*o me > Therefore * to me is IO.
Similarly I was told the news


----------



## mhp

Magmod said:


> But you've answered the parsing question yourself
> I was given the news
> Q: To whom the news was given?
> A: T*o me > Therefore * to me is IO.
> Similarly I was told the news



 Magmod,

_I was given the news._
   What is the verb in this sentence?
   Once you locate the verb, what is the subject of that verb?
   Is that verb transitive or intransitive?
   If the verb is intransitive, can it have an object (direct or indirect)?
Answers: to be/I/intransative/no. The sentence has the same grammatical structure as "I am pretty" 
PS: The last bit about being pretty may not be true...but there are rumors


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> But you've answered the parsing question yourself
> I was given the news
> Q: To whom the news was given?
> A: T*o me > Therefore * to me is IO.
> Similarly I was told the news



No, Magmod.. Look again as my request. I asked you to identify how the subject and IO were the same person as you asserted. I know what the indirect object is. I need you to parse each word of "I was given the news".  Please. 

The important question to ask to understand this structure is this: Please tell me who the 'giver of the news is'.


----------



## Magmod

NewdestinyX said:


> I need you to parse each word of "I was given the news". Please.
> 
> The important question to ask to understand this structure is this: Please tell me who the 'giver of the news is'.


 In the following website, mhp has given you the answers, post#18, 

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handou...g_actpass.html
This explains that the giver of the news is unknown.

 In English an indirect object can become the subject of the verb in a passive sentence:

*She* was sent a letter
This is impossible in Spanish > See Butt & Benjamin 28.2 4th Ed.

 I tried to parse the sentence as you requested. 
You could say:

I, to me, the news was given. 
This shows the subject and indirect object are the same .

 Mhp: I don’t understand why one can’t have an indirect object in English


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> In the following website, mhp has given you the answers, post#18,
> http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handou...g_actpass.html
> This explains that the giver of the news is unknown.  In English an indirect object can become the subject of the verb in a passive sentence: Incorrect assertion. Need you to prove this.
> 
> *She* was sent a letter
> This is impossible in Spanish > See Butt & Benjamin 28.2 4th Ed. I have this book and it doesn't support your idea that "I" would be a subject in the Passive.  I tried to parse the sentence as you requested.  You could say:
> I, to me, the news was given.
> This shows the subject and indirect object are the same .  Mhp: I don’t understand why one can’t have an indirect object in English



Mag, I guess I can't get you to parse (naming each grammatical particle) the sentence for me . If you had you would've come upon a problem. What role does "the news" play in the passive voice? Now you can't be tricky and try to refer to the part of speech it would be in the active voice.. That would be cheating to make a point.. .

In a passive voice the indirect object can be placed before the verb without a preposition, using a subject pronoun, or after the verb with the preposition using an ind obj. pronoun. But that doesn't "magically" change its role into the subject of the passive. The logical (grammatical) subject of our passive voice sentence is 'the news' (as was 'the frog' in our original sentence). It's _the thing that is 'moving'_ (an essential quality of a passive subject). In passive voice the 'logical subject' has the action of the verb being conferred upon it. That's the nature of passive - since in the active voice it's the direct object that gets the action of the verb.

The confusing part is that English has this wonderful little convenience (that's impossible in Spanish) of being able to use our subject pronouns as substitutions for Indirect Objects in Passive voice. This is such a headache for foreign students of English. *But* --> This doesn't change the nature of its grammatical role. "I", in "I was given...", is still functioning as a bystander to the action of the verb, hence it can 'only' be an indirect object (substituting for 'to me').
*
A "subject (logical or actual)"  has to be directly involved in the action of the verb.* 
​Note I didn't say that it has to have the verb acting UPON it -- which of course is the role of a direct object in the active voice -- but "indirect" involvement, in active AND passive voice is 'still' an indirect object no matter how you parse it. 

Parsed correctly:*
I* = IndObj
*was given* = passive voice verb in past tense
*the news* = logical/grammatical subject of the verb

I was given the news = The news was given to me. = Me fueron dadas las noticias = Se me dieron las noticias. = Me dieron las noticias. 

They are all semantically identical.

An indirect object doesn't change role from active to passive voice. That's where your analysis has been incorrect in my view. Again -- what got us here is not remembering that English has this wonderful convenience of allowing its subject pronouns to be used before the verb to replace the prepositional object (IndObj. of the sentence). But that does not at all change its role. Would you be able to cite us a grammar source if you disagree with my analysis? The website article of mhp's does not support your case that I can see.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Magmod said:


> It is impossible to say in Spanish:
> I was told as you do in English



Just as it is impossible to say "Se me dijo" in English. Literally, neither can be said in the other language. But they are a perfect translation of each other.

Se me dijo = *I* was told
I was told = Se *me* dijo.

 A Note to all of us students: It's important to figure out the "role" that the subject pronoun or named animate objects of these passive statements is playing. Because when going over to the Spanish you need to construct the right type of sentence with SE; SE Impersonal (verb locked in singular) or SE Passive (verb changes with number of logical subject). Here's how to test the role:

• If something is 'happening directly TO" that first English subject pronoun or named animate object -- then in Spanish you use *SE Impersonal *(verb locked in singular)
Ex. 
"I/we was/were elected to serve the President." (The 'election' is happening TO me/us)
_Se me/nos elig*ió* para servir el presidente._
(now even if that first object is plural -- verb in singular)
"Tom and Marci will be introduced tomorrow." (Tom and Marci are the ones getting introduced)
_Se present*ará* a Tom y Marci mañana.

_• If that first English subject pronoun or named animate object(s) is a 'bystander' to the action -- onlooker(s) only -- then you use *SE Passive *(verb changes number with logical subject of passive) and add the bystander as an IO pronoun following normal indirect object rules.
Ex.
I was given more than 3 letters. (It's the letters that are moving around, not me -- I am a bystander)
_Se me di*eron* más de 3 cart*as*.
_Tom and Marci were being offered a new job. (It's the new job that is the focus of the verb's action -- Tom and Marci are recipients only)
_A Tom y Marci se les ofrec*ía* un nuevo trabaj*o*._


----------



## Magmod

NewdestinyX said:


> Just as it is impossible to say "Se me dijo" in English. Literally, neither can be said in the other language. _._


 
Thanks for your reply Newdestiny 

 I didn’t parse the sentence because mhp has already parsed it > post#25 and is not in agreement with your parsing.

 As you have said: English has flexibility, therefore:

Se me dijo = One told me etc. > see Post# 4
 Butt & Benjamin's book is in agreement with what I have said. In fact my answer is copied word for word from their book, as follows:

_“In English an indirect object can become the subject of the verb in a passive sentence:_

_*She* was sent a letter”_
 Instead of your complex argument:

*Replace se by one*
It works in all the examples you have given and it makes life simple.

 Please note my answers can still be useful to you even if you disagree: 

You can always use me as a bad example


----------



## NewdestinyX

> As you have said: English has flexibility, therefore:
> Se me dijo = One told me etc. > see Post# 4


 Well I don't see that as very natural.. Maybe 'someone' wold sound more natural to English.


> Butt & Benjamin's book is in agreement with what I have said. In fact my answer is copied word for word from their book, as follows:
> 
> _“In English an indirect object can become the subject of the verb in a passive sentence:_
> _*She* was sent a letter”_


Yeah.. i love the B&B generally.. But they got it wrong on this point. Grammatically speaking they're changing the rules and they are alone among their peers on this point. A subject must always be directly involved in the action of the verb. That's part of its definition.


> Instead of your complex argument:
> *Replace se by one*


Well my 'complex' explanation was an attempt to help students go from their English passive minds over into Spanish -- not explaining a translation for SE. Unless you meant my argument as to why "she" in "She was sent a letter" remains an indirect object in both voices. Not sure which argument you thought was the complex one.


> It works in all the examples you have given and it makes life simple.


That's just it, Mag, it doesn't work all the time in all the examples. I gave you all those SE examples in my other post where 'one' *couldn't* work -- and even in some Passive voice cases it doesn't. In "Se ahogó el nadador" and "Se hundió el barco", 'one' could never translate the SE there. Rules of thumb for me have to be pretty bullet proof for me to stand by them. Just to be clear. My issue with your rule of thumb is that it doesn't work even a majority of the time to translate (all the cases of) SE, and when it does it doesn't result in natural English. Those are my reasons.


> Please note my answers can still be useful to you even if you disagree:
> You can always use me as a bad example


Oh yes.. everyone's input here is useful. I think part of what makes these forums powerful is when educators and natives take a shot at other's rules of thumb. Maybe next time you will shoot at mine... I would never use you as a bad example. You've helped me think this through well again. Thanks for enduring my passion for grammatical correctness, Mag. I think we've discussed this fully and we can leave others to decide for themselves what works best to remember these structures. 

Warm regards,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

Magmod said:


> I understand what you are saying mhp and Newdestiny
> 
> But I wonder how many English speaking people have heard of a *logical or grammatical subject *
> 
> On the other hand, although you condemn my use of *One, it* always works without complications, even for:
> 
> *Se* vende = *one* sells > for sale
> It also works for *se nos dijo etc. *
> 
> But you have not answered how to get over the English passive where the *indirect *object of the active verb has been made the subject of a passive verb, as I mentioned above - A construction that has no equivalent in Spanish:
> 
> I was given, we were told etc.


 

Se me dijo = I was told
Se nos dijo = we were told.

Ivy29


----------



## can_tante

Very very interesting discussion, especially for me who is learning las oraciones impersonales y de pasiva refleja con SE! It took me some time to read all the posts, but it was worth it. 

Personally, I think MagMod’s method with ONE for "translating" SE is a good trick at least for beginners like myself. It works for all cases of SE-Impersonal (I just tested it and didn't find any counter examples), but unfortunatly not always for SE-pasiva. 

Another point : from the "subject-verb agreement" point of view, "She" is the subject in "She was sent a letter". Otherwise, when it comes to "they", we would say "They was sent a letter" (or "She were sent 2 letters").


----------



## NewdestinyX

can_tante said:


> Personally, I think MagMod’s method with ONE for "translating" SE is a good trick at least for beginners like myself. It works for all cases of SE-Impersonal (I just tested it and didn't find any counter examples),



Not all cases of SE Impersonal. Here is one of several like it where it wouldn't work.
Se eligió a Juan y María. "One elected Juan and María". ?????  It may work grammatically but it's a really terrible English sentence. It works for SE Impersonal without direct objects.
No se permite entrar. "One" is not permitted to enter.
Se vive bien en España. "One/People" live(s) well in Spain.



> Another point : from the "subject-verb agreement" point of view, "She" is the subject in "She was sent a letter". Otherwise, when it comes to "they", we would say "They was sent a letter" (or "She were sent 2 letters").


This is a good compelling argument -- the most compelling so far in the thread.. Good job!!! ;-) But this is simply an exception brought on by English's flexibility to use Subject pronouns to replace the indirect object in the passive. The verb after a subject pronoun must follow number because of the natural pull of the language. But this phenomenon is the same as Spanish SE Passive where the 'direct object's' number changes the verb's number. The direct object of the active becomes the grammatical subject of the passive therefore the pull to have the verb agree with it in number is impossible to ignore. But it doesn't change its essential quality as a part of speech or its role. Again I would ask you to parse the sentence. What grammatical role does 'the letter' play if "She" is the subject of our passive?


----------



## mhp

See http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=3142432#post3142432


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> See http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=3142432#post3142432



I, of course, agree with your parsing, mhp. But other have not. 

But all angles on this topic have been presented. I think we're going around in circles now. I appreciate Magmod's attempt at a good rule of thumb. They are 'so helpful' for students. I wish this rule of thumb were a little more reliable but that's just my take on it.

Grant


----------



## mhp

I'm not sure if I agree with my parsing. I like to know


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with my parsing. I like to know



I agree with it.. but how would you explain the verb 'to be' changing with the number of the Indirect Object? That was a good observation of our new poster.

I 'was' given the letter.
They 'were' given the letter.

??

Here is an important defining sentence from the web article you pointed us to that Magmod also stressed:


> <<
> *Passive Voice*
> 
> In sentences written in passive voice, *t**he subject receives the action expressed    in the verb*; *the subject is acted upon*. The agent performing the action may    appear in a "by the . . ." phrase or may be omitted.>>



Clearly from that definition the 'I' in "I was sent 3 letters" cannot be a subject. And hence our quandary.


----------



## mhp

mhp said:


> Magmod,
> 
> _I was given the news._
> What is the verb in this sentence?
> Once you locate the verb, what is the subject of that verb?
> Is that verb transitive or intransitive?
> If the verb is intransitive, can it have an object (direct or indirect)?
> Answers: to be/I/intransative/no. The sentence has the same grammatical structure as "I am pretty"
> PS: The last bit about being pretty may not be true...but there are rumors



 It seems that my way of analyzing a passive voice is not correct.

  I was given the news
  I = subject
  was given = verb
  the news = direct object

  See:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=560007


 It may be a good idea to direct additional comment regarding this issue to the above thread


----------

