# Salimos mañana si consigue los pasajes



## exitsfunnel

Hello,

I find "if clauses" to be particularly confusing.  Here is an example from the text I'm using for self study:

(1) Salimos mañana si Alejandro ____ los pasajes (gets)

I answered in the future thusly: _conseguirá_ because, presumably, Alejandro hasnt yet obtained the tickets.  The correct answer, according to the back of the book was _consigue_ which is the third person present tense.  Why is this?  Is it possible that both anwers are correct?

On a related note: when I said that my first answer was _conseguira_, that wasn't quite true.  Really, my very first answer was _obtendrá._  Is obtener and less correct than conseguir in this case?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

-exits


----------



## xhalli

Es un ejemplo de First Conditional. Si la primera parte de la cláusula (if) está en presente simple, entonces el complemento debe ir en futuro "will"
*We will live tomorrow if Alejandro gets the tickets.*
*If Alejandro gets the tickets, we will live tomorrow*


----------



## heidita

xhalli said:


> Es un ejemplo de First Conditional.


 
Yes, but in Spanish!!!


----------



## xhalli

Saldremos mañana si Alejandro consigue los boletos.
Si Alejandro consigue los boletos, saldremos mañana


----------



## sigjak

Cuando se trata de una condición real en el presente o realizable en el futuro, se usa normalmente el presente de indicativo en la subordinada con 'si', y futuro, presente de indicativo o imperativo en la frase principal:

Si vienes a casa, te doy el regalo. 
Si él lo dice, es verdad.
Si tengo tiempo, te ayudaré.
Si ves a Christina, dale recuerdos de mi parte.
’Si’ introduciendo una condición *NO* se usa junto con PRESENTE DE SUBJUNTIVO, FUTURO ni CONDICIONAL en la parte del frase introducida por ‘si’.


----------



## heidita

exitsfunnel said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> (1) Salimos mañana si Alejandro consigue/compra/coge los pasajes (gets)
> 
> I answered in the future thusly: _conseguirá_ because, presumably, Alejandro hasnt yet obtained the tickets. The correct answer, according to the back of the book was _consigue_ which is the third person present tense. Why is this? Is it possible that both answers are correct?You used the future because you would do that in English. but note that
> 
> present simple+present simple
> 
> is also used in English. That's the choice you are looking for in Spanish.
> 
> On a related note: when I said that my first answer was _conseguira_, that wasn't quite true. Really, my very first answer was _obtendrá._ Is obtener and less correct than conseguir in this case? Obtener would probably mean, he got them from somebody (for example as a present). Conseguir, to buy, to get
> 
> Thanks in advance for any replies.
> 
> -exits


----------



## exitsfunnel

xhalli said:


> Es un ejemplo de First Conditional. Si la primera parte de la cláusula (if) está en presente simple, entonces el complemento debe ir en futuro "will"
> *We will live tomorrow if Alejandro gets the tickets.*
> *If Alejandro gets the tickets, we will live tomorrow*



Thank you xhalli.  This is very helpful.  Is it never correct though to put *both* verbs in the future tense, even if neither action has yet occurred?  Thanks.

-exits


----------



## Outsider

exitsfunnel said:


> I find "if clauses" to be particularly confusing.  Here is an example from the text I'm using for self study:
> 
> (1) Salimos mañana si Alejandro ____ los pasajes (gets)
> 
> I answered in the future thusly: _conseguirá_ because, presumably, Alejandro hasnt yet obtained the tickets.  The correct answer, according to the back of the book was _consigue_ which is the third person present tense.  Why is this? Is it possible that both anwers are correct?


I'm afraid not. A rather simplistic, but effective explanation is that in Spanish you can never use the future tense after "if". When needed, use the present tense instead.

P.S. Notice that the future tense is already indicated by the adverb _mañana_. So, in a sense, it's redundant to use it there. And the Spanish language certainly thinks so. 

P.P.S. Notice also that you _don't_ use the future tense in English, either:

_We leave tomorrow, provided Alexander gets the tickets._

"Gets" is not future tense. It's present tense.


----------



## xhalli

Remember that conditionals are very specific
*Zero*- things that usually happen
If you put ice in the sun, it melts (present - present)
*First* - to describe what may possibly happen
If you don't train hard enough, you won't win (present - future)
*Second* - To talk abot something that is mpossible and just imagined or to give advice (past - would + verb)
If I won the lottery, I would buy a big hous
If I were you, I would tell him the truth
*Third *- for actions that did not happen (regret time)
If I had known you loved me , I wouldn't have married Jim


----------



## replicante7

xhalli said:


> Remember that conditionals are very specific...


Thanks, xhalli, your explanation is very helpful to me.



Outsider said:


> A rather simplistic, but effective explanation is that in Spanish you can never use the future tense after "if". When needed, use the present tense instead.


Outsider, I am confussed about this, because it could be said:
No sé si *conseguiré* los billetes. (si + futuro).


----------



## sigjak

replicante7 said:


> Outsider, I am confussed about this, because it could be said:
> No sé si *conseguiré* los billetes. (si + futuro).


 
Este 'si' no es el 'si' condicional, sino el 'si' introduciendo frases interrogativas indirectas, y puede ir seguido de tanto el futuro como el condicional:
·Preguntan que si estarás en casa esta tarde. 
·Dime si vendrás esta tarde. 
·Dudo si llegaría a tiempo. 
·Todavía no sé si iré o no. 
·Estábamos hablando de si vendrías o no.


----------



## Outsider

replicante7 said:


> Outsider, I am confussed about this, because it could be said:
> No sé si *conseguiré* los billetes. (si + futuro).


Para los angloparlantes, es fácil ver la diferencia, ya que ese "si" se puede traducir como _whether_ (_I don't know if/whether *I'll get* the tickets_). El otro no se puede traducir así (_We leave tomorrow, provided/if/whether Alexander *gets* the tickets_). 
Y fíjese también en los tiempos verbales ingleses: son los mismos que los españoles.

Los hispanohablantes, bueno, ya saben hablar su lengua.


----------



## replicante7

Thanks, sigjak, for your explanation. But I was only intending pointing out that "if + future tense" is possible in Spanish, because Outsider had posted: "in Spanish you can never use the future tense after "if". Sorry, I have explained badly.


----------



## Outsider

You were quite right. My first post could be misunderstood. I hope my second has clarified the issue.


----------



## replicante7

Outsider said:


> You were quite right. My first post could be misunderstood. I hope my second has clarified the issue.


Yes, Outsider. Your last post is very helpful. I read it after I had published my precedent post. Thanks for letting me know that you have understood it (I know that my explanations are very bad. Now I'm happy because someone has understood one of them).


----------



## exitsfunnel

xhalli said:


> Remember that conditionals are very specific
> *
> Zero*- things that usually happen
> If you put ice in the sun, it melts (present - present)
> Si pones hielo en frente del sol, derrite.
> 
> *First* - to describe what may possibly happen
> If you don't train hard enough, you won't win (present - future)
> Si no te preparas sufficiente duro, no ganarás.*
> 
> Second* - To talk abot something that is mpossible and just imagined or to give advice (past - would + verb)
> If I won the lottery, I would buy a big hous
> Si ganara la lotería, compraría una casa grande.
> 
> If I were you, I would tell him the truth
> Si fuera tu, le diría la verdad.
> 
> *Third *- for actions that did not happen (regret time)
> If I had known you loved me , I wouldn't have married Jim
> Si hubiera sabido que me amaste (?),  no habría casarse con Jim.



Thanks xhalli, 

This response is very helpful.  I've added my own translations of your examples.  Do they look correct?

-exits


----------



## gramatica

Saldremos mañana si Alejandro consigue los boletos.
Si Alejandro consigue los boletos, saldremos mañana

Se puede tambien decir "Salemos manana si Aljeandro consigue los boletos" no?


----------



## heidita

If you put ice in the sun, it melts (present - present)
Si pones hielo al sol, se derrite.

*



			If you don't train hard enough, you won't win (present - future)
Si no te preparas lo suficiente, no ganarás.If I won the lottery, I would buy a big hous
Si ganara la lotería, compraría una casa grande.

If I were you, I would tell him the truth
Si fuera tú, le diría la verdad.


If I had known you loved me , I wouldn't have married Jim
Si hubiera sabido que me amabas/querías no me habría casado con Jim. 

Click to expand...

* 
*In Spain the option: querías would be preferred.*


----------



## xhalli

Heidita has already done the corrections just one more, "salemos" doesn't exist, the correct tense is "salimos"


----------



## gramatica

Thank you

Regards


----------



## Forero

I think present tense _can_ be used in Spanish where future (or another tense) is used in English:

"Yo volveré." = "I shall return." [Gen. McArthur]
"Ahorita vuelvo." = "I'll be back." [The Terminator, same meaning I think]

"Nos vemos, ¿eh?" = "[I'll] see you."

"Si me ve, me mata." =? "If he sees me, he'll kill me." [or "If he saw me, he'd kill me." or maybe "If he'd seen me, he'd have killed me."]


----------



## Outsider

Indeed, but in this particular case there is no difference between Spanish and English. Notice how you'd never say "If *he'll* see me, he'll kill me".


----------



## Forero

Outsider said:


> Notice how you'd never say "If *he'll* see me, he'll kill me".



That _does_ sound foreign.

My French teacher - and she really was French - told me that in French you wouldn't say "After he leaves, we'll leave for Aix-en-Provence" but instead "After he will have left, ...".

I imagine she was taught based on a Latin model.  The Latin verb could do more in one word than the equivalent in English, French, or Spanish.  As far as I know, English has always strung verbs together and really only has two finite tenses.  Everything else is infinitives, participles, and gerunds.

In other words, "He will kill me" has the verb _will_ in present tense, but _kill_ as a tenseless infinitive.  "After he will have left" sounds peculiar because we aren't trying to refer to a time after his willing but to a time after his leaving. In the French version, supposedly meaning "After he will have left", there is no word for _will_, and in the imaginary underlying Latin version, no _will_ and no _have_.  That's why what seems so strange in English may actually work in French, and work even better in Latin.

As far as future tense goes, Spanish is a lot like French in form, but Spanish "remembers" better that a form like _habrá_ has two parts and is roughly equivalent to the phrase "ha de haber".  "Ha" does not have as much hidden meaning as "will", but it _is_ a present tense.  That to me explains why Spanish future tense and English future tense have similar uses and are avoided in similar situations.

But differences sometimes turn up because of the hidden meanings, especially in the nuanced "future tense" auxiliaries in English: _will_, _shall_, _is going to_, _is to_, etc.  The length and complexity of a verb form will also affect where it fits comfortably in a sentence.  I think there is good reason for the particular verbs that do it to contract the infinitive portion of their future and conditional forms in Spanish and to do it the particular way they do.


----------



## stooge1970

As far as I know, in medieval Spanish you would have had to have used "conseguir" in the future subjunctive, but that form is practically dead nowadays, although it is alive and well in Portuguese (right, Outsider?). So, there used to be a special form for such a conditional clause, but the language has simply evolved, and it is no less descriptive or precise for having done so.


----------



## Outsider

stooge1970 said:


> As far as I know, in medieval Spanish you would have had to have used "conseguir" in the future subjunctive, but that form is practically dead nowadays, although it is alive and well in Portuguese (right, Outsider?).


That's right.


----------



## Forero

Present subjunctive is allowed after _if_ in English, but is rare now because present subjunctive is rare.  It turns up in older writing, poetry, songs, and once in a while in formal contexts:

"If that be so, the old woman said, then this you must allow:
That I shall do your work for a day while you go milk the cow."

There is also an _if_ implied by putting the subject after the verb:

"Were I to have an opinion, I would not hesitate to give it."
"Be he alive, or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread." [Words of the man-eating giant in "Jack and the Beanstalk"]

Subjunctive is also allowed after when (or its equivalents in Spanish and Portuguese) even when it means _if_.

I suspect the reason for disallowing present subjunctive after _si_ or _wenn_ has to do with the origin of the words themselves - Latin _sic_ with all its meanings, and _wenn_ as opposed to _wann_ in German.


----------

