# behind - ¿qué se esconde detrás?



## Turquesa2008

Hola a tod@s, 

quiero darle a un título un toque de misterio. Quiero decir: sintomas depresivos en pacientes diabéticos- qué se esconde detrás?
En inglés he escrito: depressive symptoms in diabetic patients- what is behind? 
Pero word me marca con verde porque behind es una preposición que al parecer no puede ir en la última posición de la frase.
A alguien se le ocurre alguna solución?

Saludos y gracias de antemano,


----------



## Frank Furt

Prueba con "beyond". ;-)


----------



## Turquesa2008

hola Frankfurt am Main, 
nada, con beyond es el mismo error


----------



## BlaCkWhItE

Maybe you can try writing: what is behind it?


----------



## Turquesa2008

Thanks! it sounds good and concise.


----------



## Frank Furt

Turquesa: 

A mi modo de ver tanto "behind" como "beyond" serían válidas en el contexto que tú propones.

Cuando el corrector de word te marca algo en verde, no quiere decir que necesariamente esté mal, sino que hay algo que podría estar incorrecto y que necesita tu atención, sólo por si acaso.

Si el corrector lo reconociese como un error, entonces te lo marcaría en rojo ;-)

Usa la que prefieras, porque expresa claramente el significado y tu intención.


----------



## FromPA

I'm having the same problem as Word.  I don't think the phrase is complete.  What is hidden behind ______?  There needs to be an object.


----------



## Frank Furt

"behind" as a preposition needs something after it: "behind the door"
"behind" as an adverb does need anything else: "look at the car behind"

In this case:

What is behind? (behind is an adverb) = "¿Qué hay detrás?"
What is behind it? (behind is a preposition) = "¿Qué hay detrás de ello?"


----------



## horsewishr

Frank Furt said:


> "behind" as a preposition needs something after it: "behind the door"
> "behind" as an adverb does need anything else: "look at the car behind"
> 
> In this case:
> 
> What is behind? (behind is an adverb) = "¿Qué hay detrás?"
> What is behind it? (behind is a preposition) = "¿Qué hay detrás de ello?"



I disagree.  "What is behind?" is not a complete phrase.  I would say "What is behind it."  But "it" doesn't work as a translation for Turquesa2008, since "sintomas" is plural and "it" is singular.  

I would say "Symptoms of depression: What is behind them?"

In the case of "look at the car behind," I would say "Look at the car behind you" or "Look at the car behind the tree."  But it has to be behind _something_.


----------



## Frank Furt

No need to be behind something when "behind" is an adverb. An adverb does not need anything else. From Wordreference dictionary:

behind2 adverbio 

 (to the rear, following):  he ran along ~ iba corriendo  detrás or (AmL tb)  atrás;
I was attacked from ~ me  atacaron por la espalda;
keep an eye on the car ~ no  pierdas de vista al coche de atrás
 

 (in race, competition): England were two goals ~ Inglaterra  iba perdiendo por dos goles
 

  (in arrears): I'm ~ with my  work/payments estoy atrasada con el trabajo/en  los pagos


----------



## horsewishr

Frank Furt said:


> No need to be behind something when "behind" is an adverb. An adverb it does not need anything else. From Wordreference dictionary:
> 
> behind2 adverbio
> 
> (to the rear, following):  he ran along ~ iba corriendo  detrás or (AmL tb)  atrás;
> I was attacked from ~ me  atacaron por la espalda;
> keep an eye on the car ~ no  pierdas de vista al coche de atrás
> 
> 
> (in race, competition): England were two goals ~ Inglaterra  iba perdiendo por dos goles
> 
> 
> (in arrears): I'm ~ with my  work/payments estoy atrasada con el trabajo/en  los pagos



The fact of the matter is that I don't think "behind" is functioning as an adverb the original phrase. 

Look at this dictionary definition of behind as a preposition:


> be·hind   [bih-hahynd]
> –preposition
> 6.
> hidden or unrevealed by: Malice lay behind her smile.



Now look at the Turquesa's phrase again.

Symptoms of depression: what is behind them.
(Symptoms of depression: what is (hidden by) them.)


----------



## FromPA

The original reads "Qué se esconde detras,¨  so ¨detras¨ would appear to be a preposition.


----------



## horsewishr

FromPA said:


> The original reads "Qué se esconde detras,¨  so ¨detras¨ would appear to be a preposition.



de acuerdo


----------



## Frank Furt

That is the mistake. "Detrás" is never a preposition in Spanish. We can combine it with the preposition "de" and then we have a prepositional phrase "detrás de".

Look at this:

What is there?
What is here?

"There" and "Here" are adverbs. Could you change those adverbs with any other expressing "place" or "position"? Probably "behind" could fit ;-)


----------



## FromPA

Could you explain your intended meaning?  It's not clear to me what the phrase means if "detras" is being used as an adverb.


----------



## horsewishr

Frank Furt said:


> That is the mistake. "Detrás" is never a preposition in Spanish. We can combine it with the preposition "de" and then we have a prepositional phrase "detrás de".
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> What is there?
> What is here?
> 
> "There" and "Here" are adverbs. Could you change those adverbs with any other expressing "place" or "position"? Probably "behind" could fit ;-)



Ok.  You're probably right about detrás, since you're a Spanish-speaker.  But we're right about "behind" since we're English-speakers.    And no--you can't just say "What is behind?"  It doesn't make sense in English.  You have to say "What is behind this?" or "What is behind that?"  And in the case of teh original question, "What is behind them?"


----------



## Aidanriley

You could say "who is behind?" to ask who is not caught up on their work (whether it be at school or in a workplace), but I'm not sure what type of word "behind" is in that case (adverb, preposition etc.).


----------



## FromPA

Aidanriley said:


> You could say "who is behind?" to ask who is not caught up on their work (whether it be at school or in a workplace), but I'm not sure what type of word "behind" is in that case (adverb, preposition etc.).


 
But the Spanish sentence says "se esconde detras,"  which I can only interpret to mean "se esconde detras de algo."   If the intended meaning is actually "detras" (an adverb), then I have no idea what the phrase means.    Can you please explain its meaning it to us?


----------



## Aidanriley

FromPA said:


> But the Spanish sentence says "se esconde detras," which I can only interpret to mean "se esconde detras de algo." If the intended meaning is actually "detras" (an adverb), then I have no idea what the phrase means. Can you please explain its meaning it to us?


 
Sorry, FromPA, I was more referring to the use of behind in general (and that it doesn't always have to have something following it). I guess that was completely off-topic, I apologize. The sentence in Spanish means _what's behind (causing) the symptoms_, i.e. *¿qué se esconde detrás de* los sintomas depresivos en pacientes diabéticos? But the author said it backwards-ish for a title, like we would say: _symptoms of deperssion in diabetic patients: what's behind them? _It is an adverb (detrás can only be an adverb), but it's possible to write it without its grupo preposicional.


----------



## roanheads

¿ Qué se esconde detras ? = What is hidden behind ?     ---with " behind " as an adverb sounds just fine to me.
As in the examples,
To come from behind.
To follow close behind.
To attack someone from behind.
To be a bit behind.
" behind " is an adverb in all these examples.

Saludos.


----------



## FromPA

Aidanriley said:


> Sorry, FromPA, I was more referring to the use of behind in general (and that it doesn't always have to have something following it). I guess that was completely off-topic, I apologize. The sentence in Spanish means _what's behind (causing) the symptoms_, i.e. *¿qué se esconde detrás de* los sintomas depresivos en pacientes diabéticos? But the author said it backwards-ish for a title, like we would say: _symptoms of deperssion in diabetic patients: what's behind them? _It is an adverb (detrás can only be an adverb), but it's possible to write it without its grupo preposicional.


 
That's what I thought.  In English you have to specify the object "them."


----------



## Aidanriley

FromPA said:


> That's what I thought. In English you have to specify the object "them."


 
It looks like it could be an AE/BrE difference (roanheads's post):


> ¿ Qué se esconde detras ? = What is hidden behind ? ---with " behind " as an adverb sounds just fine to me.
> As in the examples,
> To come from behind.
> To follow close behind.
> To attack someone from behind.
> To be a bit behind.
> " behind " is an adverb in all these examples.
> 
> Saludos.


----------



## Frank Furt

FromPA said:


> That's what I thought.  In English you have to specify the object "them."



I would say: "In English you may specicfy the object"

Both sentences are right: "What is behind?" and "What is behind them?". In the first one, "behind" is an adverb; in the second one, it is a preposition. As simple as that!

You can look it up in any dictionary: "behind (prep.)" and "behind (adv.)"


----------



## roanheads

Frank,
El que da en el clavo eres tú.


----------



## Aidanriley

Frank Furt said:


> I would say: "In English you may specicfy the object"
> 
> Both sentences are right: "What is behind?" and "What is behind them?". In the first one, "behind" is an adverb; in the second one, it is a preposition. As simple as that!
> 
> You can look it up in any dictionary: "behind (prep.)" and "behind (adv.)"


 
Bueno, puede que tengas razón en cuanto al inglés británico, que no todos nosotros hablamos (si puedes creer eso) pero no sería correcto decir "what is behind?" por aquí (y diga lo que diga cualquier diccionario), y ya verías eso si dijeses "what's behind?" a alguien de habla AE quien, en su vez, te miraría como si estuvieses loco. No, no es "as simple as that," no puedes extraer un texto de un diccionario y aplicarlo como si fuese correcto para todo el mundo, los diccionarios a menudo incluyen una acepción que solo se aplica a ciertos dialectos sin tener en cuenta la posibilidad de que el uso en cuestión no abarque otras regiones.


----------



## Frank Furt

Disculpa, Aidan:

Siguiendo tu mismo razonamiento, ¿no es posible que el uso de "behind" como adverbio no sea habitual en TU dialecto, pero sí lo sea en los demás?

Cuando dices _"no sería correcto decir "what is behind?" por aquí (y diga lo que diga cualquier diccionario)"_, estás afirmando que "por aquí" no es habitual su uso (la corrección sería otra cosa).

Por otra parte, en ningún momento he afirmado que sea correcto "para todo el mundo"; simplemente con que sea correcto para la persona que inició el hilo, es más que suficiente.

Te pondré un ejemplo: ¿crees que tendría razón un usuario argentino si afirmase, como tú lo haces, que es incorrecto utilizar el pronombre "vosotros" y que debe utilizarse el pronombre "vós"? Porque es exactamente lo que tú estás haciendo...

Y para terminar, copio unos ejemplos de la web del Colegio San Mateo (el primero que encontré en Google), California (a 500 millas de donde tú vives), donde explican gramática. En este caso, explican la diferencia entre un verbo + adverbio, y un phrasal verb:

verbo + adverbio: He walked behind.  (behind  modifies where he walked)
phrasal verb: He fell behind. (behind combines with fell to form an expression: progressed slowly)

http://collegeofsanmateo.edu

Como ves, en California también hay quien usa "behind" como adverbio.

Un saludo.


----------



## Spainy

Do you mean " what is the cause/what could be the cause" ?


----------



## horsewishr

Frank Furt, your argument is circular.  In order to determine whether "behind" is being used as an adverb or a preposition, you have to look at whether an object is required.  You are stating that "behind" is an adverb because you don't believe the object is required.  But in the opinion of American English-speakers, the statement does not make sense without an object.  It requires and object.  

please look at this explanation of the difference between an adverb and a preposition (reference: http://www.grammaruntied.com/prepositions/adv_prep.html):



> Adverbs vs. Prepositions
> Words that are sometimes prepositions can act as adverbs. *A preposition requires an object. An adverb does not.*
> 
> A single word acting as an adverb answers where, when, how or to what degree about the verb.
> 
> If you want to see the eclipse, you will need to go outside.
> OUTSIDE tells you where YOU WILL NEED TO GO.
> NOTE: Without an object OUTSIDE is an adverb.
> When the same word is a preposition, the entire prepositional phrase acts as an adverb modifying the verb.
> 
> Dorothy colors outside the lines.
> *OUTSIDE THE LINES is an adverbial phrase and OUTSIDE is a preposition.*
> NOTE: LINES is the object of the preposition.  In the same way the "BEHIND" is a preposition in "Behind them"



Furthermore, the word behind, in Turquesa2008's original question is not being used literally (to describe a position).  The meaning is as Spainy has reiterated: *the cause of*.  The cause OF (preposition) THEM (object of prepositon).


----------



## roanheads

Turquesa,
Ya ves que se ha armado un lío gramatical y de costumbres sobre tu duda.
Entonces, ¿no crees que más vale cambiar el texto a algo como "Es posible que dichas síntomas demuestren una complicación escondida ? ( ¿huele a misterio. no?)
También para que tu profe. quede complacido.
Saludos.


----------



## Oceanotti

(Un hilo fascinante.)

Me parece que el idioma inglés, sea BrE o AE, está lleno de construcciones como "What is behind?", donde se usa, sin necesidad de objeto y con valor adverbial, una palabra que también puede tenerlo prepositivo. Pensemos en la famosa campaña de la cerveza donde no paraban de decir algo parecido: (siento infringir la regla n. 11) _"Whassup?"._* *



Spainy said:


> Do you mean " what is the cause/what could be the cause" ?



Lo que me parece que pasa es que para esta traducción no nos sirve cualquier preposición, ni cualquier adverbio. "Behind", como adverbio, no tiene el significado de causa que sí puede tener cuando se usa como preposición. Creo que por eso "What is behind?" suena mal a los nativos.

Propongo, para lo del toque de misterio: _"What are the hidden culprits?"._


----------



## katlpablo

"sintomas depresivos en pacientes diabéticos- *¿qué se esconde detrás?*"

"depressive symptoms in diabetic patients- *what is behind*"



Otra idea…
"depressive symptoms in diabetic patients- *a look behind the signs*"


----------



## Frank Furt

Could any of the American English-speakers tell me some examples of "behind" used as an adverb, please?


----------



## Aidanriley

_John went to England, but Mary stayed behind._

By the way, I opened a thread in English Only about this, and it's the same situation in BrE: "What is behind?" is incorrect. Although I don't know why roanheads disagrees, he or she seems to be the only one to do so.


----------



## Frank Furt

Roanheads the only one who disagrees?? Have a look at the websites of different Universities and you'll find many more people who "disagree".

By the way, only one person answered in the thread you opened in English Only... It does not seem very "scientific"...

Could you translate your example into Spanish, please? I'm not sure about its meaning.


----------



## roanheads

Hi Aidan,
Referring to my post #20, all these examples of " behind " as an adverb are quoted from
Collins ( English - Spanish dictionary ) in the entries of " behind "as an adverb being the equivalent of the adverb " detras ", so I appear to be in agreement, at least, with the editorial staff of Collins.   

Saludos.


----------



## Aidanriley

Frank Furt said:


> Roanheads the only one who disagrees?? Have a look at the websites of different Universities and you'll find many more people who "disagree".
> 
> By the way, only one person answered in the thread you opened in English Only... It does not seem very "scientific"...
> 
> Could you translate your example into Spanish, please? I'm not sure about its meaning.


 
It just means that she didn't go.



roanheads said:


> Hi Aidan,
> Referring to my post #20, all these examples of " behind " as an adverb are quoted from
> Collins ( English - Spanish dictionary ) in the entries of " behind "as an adverb being the equivalent of the adverb " detras ", so I appear to be in agreement, at least, with the editorial staff of Collins.
> 
> Saludos.


 
But not one of those examples applies to the topic of this thread, where *behind* in "_what is behind them (the symptoms)?_" refers to the underlying cause of the symptoms, in which case it is a preposition and not an adverb, which can be seen by reversing the sentence: _What is *behind* depressive symptoms in diabetic patients_? and therefore it is necessary to repeat the object by using the pronoun them or something that will work similarly.

Would this make sense to you? _There have been three murders in Los Angeles. I wonder who is behind._
(I hope not...)


----------



## roanheads

Aidan,
The fact that you have one answer to your thread in English Only, is hardly an overwhelming affirmation of your opinion.


----------



## Aidanriley

If you search _behind_ in the WR dictionary, definition number two denoted by *(responsible for) *is listed as a preposition.

Edit: also if you keep scrolling down, it gives example sentences for the prepositional usage: 





> *behind* [bɪ'haɪnd]
> I_preposición_
> *1* detrás de: *I think Michael's behind all this,* creo que Michael está detrás de todo esto


 
and an adverbal usage similar to the one I put above:



> _adverbio_
> *1* _(sitio)_ detrás, atrás: *they went to the pub but I stayed behind,* ellos se fueron al pub pero yo me quedé


 
From dictionary.com: 





> be·hind
> 
> [...]
> *–preposition *
> [...]
> 
> 
> 5.
> originating, supporting, or promoting: _Who's behind this program? _


 
From thefreedictionary:





> *be·hind*
> _prep._
> _[...]_
> *5. **a. *Hidden or concealed by: _hatred hidden behind a bland smile._
> *b. *In the background of; underlying: _Behind your every action is self-interest._


 
My American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary has the same exact definition as thefreedictionary as well.

From Google Dictionary: 





> The people, reason, or events *behind* a situation are the causes of it or are responsible for it. Preposition
> 
> It is still not clear who was behind the killing.
> He is embarrassed about the motives behind his decision.


 
All of these are directly applicable to the topic of this thread with the meaning of _to be responsible for/to be the underlying cause_. Can you explain to us, roanheads, how _behind _in your examples, such as "to attack someone from behind" can be understood as "the cause of"?


----------



## roanheads

Okay,
Lets put your example in the same context as the original thread.

There have been three murders in L.A. I wonder what lies behind.--- or I wonder what is hidden behind.
That sounds just fine to me.


----------



## Frank Furt

Just two comments:

- Of course "What is behind it?" or "What is behind them?" are correct sentences.

- When did Turquesa (the person who started the thread) talk about "the cause of" anything? Couldn't it be "the consequences of"? Anyway, our discussion is now about the correctness or not (if this word exists!!!!) of "What is behind?" from a grammatical point of view, and it is a correct sentence in English undoubtedly.


----------



## horsewishr

Frank Furt said:


> Just two comments:
> 
> - Of course "What is behind it?" or "What is behind them?" are correct sentences.
> 
> - When did Turquesa (the person who started the thread) talk about "the cause of" anything? Couldn't it be "the consequences of"? Anyway, our discussion is now about the correctness or not (if this word exists!!!!) of "What is behind?" from a grammatical point of view, and it is a correct sentence in English undoubtedly.



Well maybe that's the problem.  To me, the sentence cannot be interpreted as "the consequence of."  To be _behind something_ is to be its *cause*.  Not its effect.  

If you asked me the question "What is behind?"  I would truly be confused.  The only interpretation I can think of is "What is behind schedule?"  (as in "What part of the process is delaying its completion.)"  In this case, I believe the Spanish translation would be "atrasado" and not "detrás."


----------



## Aidanriley

Frank Furt said:


> Just two comments:
> 
> - Of course "What is behind it?" or "What is behind them?" are correct sentences.
> 
> - When did Turquesa (the person who started the thread) talk about "the cause of" anything? Couldn't it be "the consequences of"?


If that's what she meant, she'll have to change the sentence completely, because *behind* wouldn't work in any case.



> Anyway, our discussion is now about the correctness or not (if this word exists!!!!) of "What is behind?" from a grammatical point of view, and it is a correct sentence in English undoubtedly.


The only way "What is behind?" is a correct sentence is if you're asking someone what the word "behind" means. Not to mention that just because one part of a phrase makes sense on its own (which yours doesn't) doesn't mean it functions correctly in the rest of its context, which is vital to the overall understanding. (i.e. your premise here has no merit)


----------



## roanheads

Aidan,
I have to tell you the following: only a few minutes ago I overheard a conversation regarding the news item ( of today )concerning the murder of a nurse in a hospital car park.
"How horrible, poor girl, but then we don't know what is behind."

So if that sentence does not sound good in AE,it sounds fine to us.

Saludos.

Also in Spanish, " no sabemos lo que haya detrás "


----------



## horsewishr

roanheads said:


> Aidan,
> I have to tell you the following: only a few minutes ago I overheard a conversation regarding the news item ( of today )concerning the murder of a nurse in a hospital car park.
> "How horrible, poor girl, but then we don't know what is behind."
> 
> So if that sentence does not sound good in AE,it sounds fine to us.



Roanheads, would it sound ok to say: 
"How horrible, poor girl, but then we don't know what is behind *IT*." ??
(Just curious if that sounds strange in your neck of the woods.)


----------



## Aidanriley

roanheads said:


> Aidan,
> I have to tell you the following: only a few minutes ago I overheard a conversation regarding the news item ( of today )concerning the murder of a nurse in a hospital car park.
> "How horrible, poor girl, but then we don't know what is behind."
> 
> So if that sentence does not sound good in AE,it sounds fine to us.
> 
> Saludos.


 
And what does that mean? Not only does it sound bad, it doesn't make sense to me; 'but then' makes it even more perplexing.

Anyway, I've offered my opinion, and this is getting pointless.

*Turquesa*, please answer these questions so we can answer yours:
1. Did you mean "what is the cause" or "what are the consequences" with "qué se esconde detrás"?
2. Is your audience American or British English?


----------



## horsewishr

Aidanriley said:


> *Turquesa*, please answer these questions so we can answer yours:
> 1. Did you mean "what is the cause" or "what are the consequences" with "qué se esconde detrás"?
> 2. Is your audience American or British English?



Maybe you should ask whether the audience is American or Scottish 

In your other thread, e2efour (from England) agreed with the Americans.  


> Sentence 1 makes no sense to me (behind what?).
> The grammatical form of behind would be similar to "what is in front" (adverb or preposition, depending on your point of view). However, I don't think you can use behind in this way. You could say "he is behind", which would be an adjective (meaning he is less advanced than other children).
> In short, I would only accept "behind them" if we're talking about the cause or precursor.



reference:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1871558


----------



## roanheads

horsewishr,
Referring to your #44, both sound fine but I would still be inclined to go without the " it "
Saludos.


----------



## derail

¿Podría ser más bien una diferencia entre el inglés inglés (y americano)  y el inglés escocés? Lo digo porque para mí "What is behind?" no suena  bien (en el sentido en que se ha usado arriba), y incluso diría que no lo he oído nunca. Por estos lados "What is behind *it*?" sería sin duda la manera normal de decirlo.


----------



## horsewishr

derail said:


> ¿Podría ser más bien una diferencia entre el inglés inglés (y americano)  y el inglés escocés? Lo digo porque para mí "What is behind?" no suena  bien (en el sentido en que se ha usado arriba), y incluso diría que no lo he oído nunca. Por estos lados "What is behind *it*?" sería sin duda la manera normal de decirlo.



THANK YOU DERAIL!  I've been waiting for other Brits to respond.


----------



## djadds

"What is behind" is ungrammatical in American English, the object must be pronounced. I think I have heard something like this in other dialects though.


----------



## JB

All I can add as a native (American) English speaker, is that in this specific sentence, just "What is behind" makes no sense.
If you are asking for the underlying causes, then you must say:
What is behind it?
or
What is behind the problem?
or
What lies behind the increasing incidence of diabetes among young people.
or something to that effect.
But just "What is behind" whether ot not is valid gramatically, does not convey your meaning.

If you were searching for something, looking on top of the couch, I might say "Look behind" meaning "Look behind the couch."  I am not sure it is grammaticaly correct, but in conversation it would be unerstood.  

Like many other words, "behind" can play multiple roles in different contexts.

If I say "I am running behind", then "in my work" is implied.
"to come from behind" is again idiomatic.


----------



## derail

djadds said:


> "What is behind" is ungrammatical in American English, the object must be pronounced. I think I have heard something like this in other dialects though.


I'm British and I've never heard it.


----------

