# tuve ganas de/tenia ganas de



## Yacamaca

What is the difference between :
"Hoy tuve ganas de ..."
"Hoy tenía ganas de ..."

Thanx!


----------



## Cenzontle

Hello again, Yacamaca.  Maybe you've had enough of my attempts to explain, but I find these questions irresistible.
"Hoy tuve ganas de..." > "Today I got an urge to..." (the onset of the feeling is one of the events in a chronological series).
"Hoy tenía ganas de..." > "Today I was feeling like I wanted to..." (it doesn't matter when the feeling began; I was in the middle of that feeling when the relevant events began to happen).


----------



## Yacamaca

Cenzontle said:


> Hello again, Yacamaca.  Maybe you've had enough of my attempts to explain, but I find these questions irresistible.
> "Hoy tuve ganas de..." > "Today I got an urge to..." (the onset of the feeling is one of the events in a chronological series).
> "Hoy tenía ganas de..." > "Today I was feeling like I wanted to..." (it doesn't matter when the feeling began; I was in the middle of that feeling when the relevant events began to happen).



No its beautiful that you help! And through many  posts this week i have gotten a much better grasp of this concept. So let me if I get this:

So it seems that som verbs like have, feel, think, need, know have become common to use in both forms with the same meaning. Cause you can find many examples of for examples "En ese momento solo queria gritar.". But that´s beside the rules and just something that has become common because these verbs are morre undefined in its nature. "I opened the store at eight this morning" is very defenite. Then it could not have been at nine. "But I wanted ..." is more undefinite in its nature, so people have started to use it in imperfect to signal that they probably wanted to do it for more than that second. And if you use quise that has become the way to really convey that it was in just that second.

So the examples I asked about according to the rules would mean:
"Hoy tuve ganas de..." > "Today I got an urge to..." (you are talking about the moment it set in)
can also mean
"Hoy tuve ganas de..." > "Today I had an urge at for a little while..." (for a short period you had the urge to do something special)

"Hoy tenía ganas de..." During the day today in I was having the urge to ... most likely to be followed by something like "but I couldnt do anything about it." or "y pensaba en eso todo el dia", or "mientras estaba nadando" "or así que compré un ..."


So really the difference if you want to be picky between for example
"Hoy tenia que salir para el trabajo a las ocho.". = During the whole evening before and morning  I knew that I had to leave at eight. 
"Hoy tuve que salir para el trabajo a las ocho.". = For som reason at eight something happened that forced me to leave for work.


And aside from this and despite of rules people use it like this as well just because its a special word:
"En ese momento tenia ganas de/sentia/queria  ... ".. Just becasue they want to signal that they probably had it before and after that...
While "En ese momento empezó a .." is more common since its a more defenite word the human mind doesnt get so confused by.


Any thoughts about this loooong post?


----------



## Peterdg

Yacamaca said:


> Any thoughts about this loooong post?


Yes. What rules are you referring to?

There are so many "rules" around, many of them absurd and even contradictory.

In mi opinion, everything can de reduced to 1 rule with a couple of rules of thumb:

*The interrupted action goes in the imperfect and the interrupting action goes in the indefinido.

*That's all, really.

Couple of rules of thumb:

When referring to age in the past (_when I was young_, _when I was 10 years old_), use the imperfect. (although this is not absolute)

When the action is delimited by a closed time interval (_durante_), use the indefinido unless you refer to a cyclic action that happened  repeatidly during the closed time interval. (this is also not absolute).

Remarks.

If both the interrupting action and the interrupted action are explicitly mentioned, the use of the adequate tenses in mandatory.

If not, it's all up to the interpretation of the one who speaks.


----------



## chacahua

Yacamaca said:


> And if you use quise that has become the way to really convey that it was in just that second.



Well, it doesn't have to be for a second. It can be for twenty million years as long as there is some definite end to the "action" of the verb (even if that ending is only implied by the fact that you used the preterite). It seems from your other comments that you already understand this, but I thought it a point still worth emphasizing. As an example,
Siempre supe que terminaría así. 
Siempre quise conocer la África.​
Perhaps I spent 60 years of my life (I'm not actually 60!!) knowing that "it would end like this," or wanting to visit Africa. Length of time is not normally an issue here, but if something just "happened in an instant," then _that_ or can indeed matter. For example,
-¿Por qué tanto tráfico?
-*Hubo *un accidente.​
The accident happened in an instant and was clearly not still going on, so the preterite is called for.

These are just minor and common points, I know, but they still seem relevant to the thread.


----------



## chacahua

Just saw Peterdg's post, and he says it way betther than I just did. I especially like this:

Peterdg said:


> In mi opinion, everything can de reduced to 1 rule with a couple of rules of thumb:
> 
> *The interrupted action goes in the imperfect and the interrupting action goes in the indefinido.*



Some verbs can make it challenging, at times, to decide if the action has been interrupted, especially in (not surprisingly) verbs that don't really express an action (_ser, estar, tener_, for example). But however challenging this may be at times, it sure helps to know what the primary challenge is.


----------



## Peterdg

chacahua said:


> Just Peterdg's post, and he says it way betther than I just did. I especially like this:
> Some verbs can make it challenging, at times, to decide if the action has been interrupted, especially in (not surprisingly) verbs that don't really express an action (_ser, estar, tener_, for example). But however challenging this may be at times, it sure helps to know what the primary challenge is.


On the first sight, yes, but actually it isn't.

Let's steal an example of another thread (of the same original poster):

_Hoy [he tenido/tuve]/[tenía] que trabajar a las 8.

_With "tenía": it's the normal flow of things: today I have to work at 8, yesterday at 7, tomorrow at 9, it's just part of the routine.

With "he tenido/tuve": the routine is: "I usually start at 9", but today, _tchaka _(1), I had to start at 8 (for whatever reason).

It's clear that in neither case, the context is explicit. It just depends on how the speaker sees it. In the second sentence, he sees it as an interrupting action, interrupting whatever is on his mind at that time.

(1) _tchaka_ = onomatopoeia (2) for interrupting action 

(2) I had to look up the spelling of that word in the dictionary


----------



## chacahua

Peterdg said:


> [S]*At* first sight, yes, but actually it isn't.



I'm just saying that any Spanish student on his or her way up will find some preterite vs. imperfect situations challenging, no matter how well it is all explained to them. And I think that verbs that do not represent any kind of clear-cut action - say, _ser_ compared to _pegar_ - often present an added layer of difficulty.

But I will say this: they'll figure it all out a lot better and a lot faster if they listen to you. You explain it wonderfully.


PS: "tchaka." I like it!


----------



## Yacamaca

Peterdg said:


> In mi opinion, everything can de reduced to 1 rule with a couple of rules of thumb:
> 
> *The interrupted action goes in the imperfect and the interrupting action goes in the indefinido.
> 
> *That's all, really.



I found this line in a text, why do they use sabía and then sintió here?
"En ese momento *no sabía que responder, cuando* le hizo esa pregunta, sintió esa extraña sensación de nuevo."

And what do you think about this definition from another thread:


1)
The _imperfect_ is used for
a) actions and states in progress at some focused point in the 
past,
b) habitual past actions,
c) repetitious past actions,
d) anticipated/planned past actions.
2)
The _preterite _isused to focus on
a) the completion of past actions or states,
b) the beginning of past actions or states(49).


----------



## Yacamaca

chacahua said:


> Well, it doesn't have to be for a second. It can be for twenty million years as long as there is some definite end to the "action" of the verb (even if that ending is only implied by the fact that you used the preterite). It seems from your other comments that you already understand this, but I thought it a point still worth emphasizing. As an example,
> Siempre supe que terminaría así.
> Siempre quise conocer la África.​
> .



So what determines if a time-related expression steers preterite och imperfect? Because like i said "en ese momento" is often followed by queria or sentia even though to me its clear that the moment is now over. Is there different opnions about whether certain expressions sounds better with preterite or imperfect. It seems that with years some people see it as an ongoing thing and others as something completed -correct? And with "ayer" most people use preterite (Ayer trabajé todo el dia."). But with "in the 70´s", en esa epoca", some people seem to be seing as something that needs ongoing-form (imperfect) while some use preterite -correct? And siempre seems to use preterite most and be considered a limited time -correct? Even though to me its a everlasting time span!


----------



## Yacamaca

> When the action is delimited by a closed time interval (_durante_)



What do you mean by this?


----------



## Cenzontle

Yaca, where you say "...y *pensaba *en eso todo el dia", something makes me want to change it to "y *pensé *en eso todo el dia"—because the time measurement of "todo el día" puts a beginning and end on the relevant time that I thought.

"*Por* un momento" likewise specifies a length of time, so I would use the preterit with it; BUT "*en *ese momento" doesn't do anything for me with regard to the preterit/imperfect choice, because you can have equally a completed event at that moment (somebody sneezes, a door slams, I get an urge to scream) or you can use that moment to sample an ongoing action or state ("En ese momento yo *estaba *demasiado ocupado para responder al teléfono": What matters about my being busy is not its beginning or end, only that it was ongoing at the time of the phone call.)

"*Tenía que* ir al trabajo" -- I had the obligation, but I'm not saying whether I acted on it.  I was in a *state *of obligation.
"*Tuve que* ir al trabajo" -- I had to go, *and I went*.  An *event *happened.


----------



## Yacamaca

> *The interrupted action goes in the imperfect and the interrupting action goes in the indefinido.*



For people who are familiar with the concept of imperfecto and preterito this is a practical thing to keep in mind. But for beginners I feel its to vague.
Cause you say "Ayer trabaje mucho." (if you just want to say that and dont add mientras etc)
But you also say "Ayer me sentia muy triste.". 
So then people would go -huh? "We´re talking about the same thing -the whole day of yesterday, sentía I get that it was an on-going feeling, but why isnt trabaje that as well?

Get my point?


----------



## Yacamaca

Cenzontle said:


> "*Por* un momento" likewise specifies a length of time, so I would use the preterit with it; BUT "*en *ese momento" doesn't do anything for me with regard to the preterit/imperfect choice, because you can have equally a completed event at that moment ..



Thank you for great explaination. Could you shed some light on how to think about ayer as well?? Why do you say "Ayer trabaje mucho." (if you just want to say that and dont add mientras etc) But you also say "Ayer me sentia muy triste.".


----------



## Yacamaca

> "*Por* un momento" likewise specifies a length of time, so I would use the preterit with it


"por un momento yo me sentía" 6 hits on google
"por un momento yo me sentí" 44 300 hits 

 Me go insane!


----------



## Peterdg

Yacamaca said:


> "por un momento yo me sentía" 6 hits on google
> "por un momento yo me sentí" 44 300 hits
> 
> Me go insane!


Try without the "yo", which is strange anyway.

Por un momento me sentía: 1.700.000 hits.
Por un momento me sentí: 716.000 hits.

Moreover, this doesn't prove anything. You can find the strangest things on the internet.


Yacamaca said:


> Get my point?


You make it sound like trabajé and sentía are the only correct options in that sentence. They are not. It depends on the context, on how the speaker sees the thing.


----------



## chacahua

Cenzontle said:


> Yaca, where you say "...y *pensaba *en eso todo el dia", something makes me want to change it to "y *pensé *en eso todo el dia"—because the time measurement of "todo el día" puts a beginning and end on the relevant time that I thought.



My guess is that when a person thinks in English "I was thinking about that all day," they might automatically jump to "Hmm, 'was thinking' = imperfect; ergo - pensaba." But the right reasoning in this case is "'I was thinking about that all day' = 'Estuve pensando en eso...' = 'Pensé...'"

I think the preterite progressive is an underappreciated compund tense, as a case such as this one helps to demonstrate.


----------



## Yacamaca

> Originally Posted by *Cenzontle*
> 
> Yaca, where you say "...y *pensaba *en eso todo el dia", something makes me want to change it to "y *pensé *en eso todo el dia"—because the time measurement of "todo el día" puts a beginning and end on the relevant time that I thought.
> My guess is that when a person thinks in English "I was thinking about that all day," they might automatically jump to "Hmm, 'was thinking' = imperfect; ergo - pensaba." But the right reasoning in this case is "'I was thinking about that all day' = 'Estuve pensando en eso...' = 'Pensé...'"
> 
> I think the preterite progressive is an underappreciated compund tense, as a case such as this one helps to demonstrate.



Found this on another site:

"Notice how the gerund accounts for the sense of duration which is implicit in the imperfect mood. Again, "trabajaba todo el día" can likewise be said "estuve trabajando todo el día". "

Seems to one of those that you think of as both an entirety or something progressing, dont you think?


----------



## chacahua

Yacamaca said:


> Found this on another site:
> 
> "Notice how the gerund accounts for the sense of duration which is implicit in the imperfect mood. Again, "trabajaba todo el día" can likewise be said "estuve trabajando todo el día". "



I understand the commenter's point, Yacamaca, yet disagree more than I agree, for a few reasons. Consider some examples (sorry so long - saw no shorter way). I'm thinking that a knowledgeable native Spanish speaker could probably find fault with some or much of the following, but this is how I see it. Hopefully I'll get corrected in some sort of intelligent way insofar as I'm about to be wrong here!:
-Q: Cuando sonó el teléfono, ¿qué hacías/estabas haciendo?
-A: Cuando sonó el teléfono, lavaba/estaba lavando los trastes.

-Q: Entre las 4 y las 5, ¿qué hiciste/estuviste haciendo?
-A: Entre las 4 y las 5, lavé/estuve lavando los trastes.​
Now let's try and switch the preterite and imperfect tenses to see if they can substitute for each other:
-Q: Cuando sonó el teléfono, ¿qué estuviste haciendo?
-A: Cuando sonó el teléfono, estuve lavando los trastes.

-Q: Entre las 4 y las 5, ¿qué estabas haciendo?
-A: Entre las 4 y las 5, estaba lavando los trastes.

-Q: Cuando sonó el teléfono, ¿qué hacías?
-A: Cuando sonó el teléfono, estuve lavando los trastes.

-Q: Entre las 4 y las 5, ¿qué estuviste haciendo?
-A: Entre las 4 y las 5, lavaba los trastes.​
I just don't see the preterite tenses here being at all interchangeable with the imperfect tenses here.

While it is true that any progressive tense must contain some sort of _unperfected_ element to it, it is also true that a preterite tense must contain some sort of _perfected_ element to it. The preterite progressive is a hybrid of these two, or so it surely seems. It is a progressive/continuous/unperfected element _within the beginning and ending limits_ (_perfection_) set by the preterite element of the construction.

To restate a point from my previous post, I think that "Estuve pensando en eso todo el día" is much more similar to "Pensé en eso todo el día" than it is to "Pensaba en eso todo el día."

I learn from being wrong (which means I learn _really often! _), so my mind is wide open on this.


----------



## Peterdg

Excellent examples chacahua!

I don't know if you did it on purpose, but the examples you gave are a perfect illustration of my one simple rule (and your last example, of the second rule of thumb). In all but the last example, the interrupted (imperfect) and interrupting action (indefinido) are explicitly mentioned, so there really is no choice there.


Yacamaca said:


> And what do you think about this definition from another thread:
> 
> 
> 1)
> The _imperfect_ is used for
> a) actions and states in progress at some focused point in the
> past,
> b) habitual past actions,
> c) repetitious past actions,
> d) anticipated/planned past actions.
> 2)
> The _preterite _isused to focus on
> a) the completion of past actions or states,
> b) the beginning of past actions or states.


Well, that's one of the many stories that are around; unusable because too imprecise and way too complex to explain something that is actually pretty simple! (See below for more comments)

Let's take the second and third rule:

The imperfect is used for _b) habitual past actions _and _c) repetitious past actions

_I happened to read the following sentences in the NGLE: _Después de este breve encuentro, se vieron todos los días. _(Ocampo,_ Cornelia_) or
_Revivió con frecuencia la escena del columpio._ (Landero, _Juegos_)

If these are not habitual or repetitious past actions, then I'm living on another planet. 

So far as to those two rules. And so you can go on and on for the other rules.

More comments:

As chacahua said, it is indeed true that many  learners of Spanish find it difficult to decide between those tenses. However, that's mostly due to the incredible mess that is made when explaining it (referring to your rules above). Moreover, these rules make students believe that in a given sentence, one option is correct and the other one is incorrect. That's simply not true. In fact, there are very few situations (except for the one rule I gave above) where one tense would be the good one and the other one would be wrong. Many grammars and language text books nurture this idea (either because they don't understand it themselves or they want to sell books).

I remember a friend of mine, who is a native Spanish speaker and linguist and teaches Spanish here in Belgium when she first saw some of those exercises and her reaction was: "But what an incredible nonsense is this?" 

This is not the first time I comment on this: see e.g. here.


----------



## Yacamaca

Thanx for all your answers - this is great! And I´m gonna keep going until you´ve had it 



> my one simple rule


I´m feeling out how your rule feels 

So the question then would be - Then what is the difference between spanish imperfect and english gerund? Or IS THIS HIDDEN CLUE that there really isnt any, and its just that in some context one language likes to use one over the other or spanish is even a bit more fond of imperfect? I´m starting to think that! Cause in english you directly feel what sounds best, but on millions on occasions you can also just switch to the other and the mind gets confused and cant really describe the difference? Could this be it? _And thats why native speakers of spanish have such a hard time telling you what is correct_?

For example, I mean really, what is the difference in these sentences with different tenses in english. None as far as I can say, it just has a different flavour and focuspoint." And how the heck would you explain the difference to someone learning english  Just like maybe it is for a spanish speaker to explain imperfecto/preterito.

"I was living/lived in the valley at that time."
"I was feeling so low last week/I felt so low last week."
"Yesterday I was working/worked all day."
"We were seeing/saw each other everyday."
"At that moment I was feeling/felt doubtful about the whole thing."
"At eight o´clock I was making potatoes/made potatoes."(this one is the only one where made maybe implies a bit more you made the potaoes at eight and not a nine. But still..)
"I was living/lived in Brazil for a year in 2006."
“I was going to the gym/went to the gym a lot last week/last year/in the 70´s”
AND EVEN: “Today I was starting/started to feel better.” (this sentence alone undermines all “my” previous rules, since by the logic that something starting is preterite you shouldn´t be able to find a single example of the word empezaba, which you do.)

Thinking about it quickly the languages corresponds in preterite preference too in these sentences:
“I felt(senti) so sad when he said that (talking about my reaction that set in right after he said it)”. “I was feeling/sentia” here sounds unnecessary, dont you think?

And also where imperfect can be used even with the word _today_:  
“I compré un carro hoy”/ “I bought a car today”.
BUT: Where were you today, I couldn´t get a hold of you! “Yo compraba un carro.” “I was buying a car.”

Even the background phenomenon is also common in english it seems:
“I was drying(imperfect) my hair when he came(preterite) in. /I dried my hair when he came (the later on sounds acceptable (but not in spanish) but sounds more like ´i dried my hair after he came in.”

However here´s one example were the languages do notcorrespond:
When I was nine years old. When I was being nine years old. (era can be used in spanish but not in english.)



So is this true? That english and spanish is very similar in this usage (but maybe differing in where what phrases are more commonly used in one of the two forms? And that maybe spanish has a greater love for ing-form (For example “Parecia una casa como qualquiera” would not very like be translated to “The house was looking like any other house.” Allthough you would understand this also.)

And the only time you really cant use –ing/imperfect is when something started to happen.
"When he said that I felt so down."  "When he said that I was feeling so down." (sounds weird, like you allready felt it when he said it.)
And preterite is more just emphasizing the time limiting aspect of the action (being it in a split second or the earths existence)??
_
If this is true then the easiest way to emplain spanish imperfecto/preterite to an english speaker is just to say “use them more or less like you would use past –ing form in english, but be aware of some specific phrases where you have to use one or the other.” _

What do you respond to this theory? A good way is to quote the whole thing and insert answers where you have opinions..


----------



## Peterdg

Well, I'll be very short. I have never thought about it in terms of a comparison between the imperfecto in Spanish and the progressive past in English. So, I don't know. It's possible it could work to some extent but it should be studied with more detail to be able to say something conclusive about it.

But on one point you're absolutely right: it's a difference in focuspoint.


----------



## Yacamaca

First of all I want to thank you for your posts. You have really pointed out to me the fact the textbook explanations are flawed, and that a totally different approach might be just as easy to understand.

I´ve been thinking today about the similarities between english past gerund and spanish imperfecto. Since spanish has an entire form just devoted to this of course there are going to be more instances where they are likely to jump to that one, for example "Él se veia como un loco." would not likely be translated to "He was looking like a lunatic" but the basic concept of ongoing form that could transalted into imperfect in spanish seems to be the same. Cause you can say "He was smelling terrible when he walked in.", "He was always smelling terrible.", , "I was seeing three movies everyday during that time." and "It was sounding more and more every day.". All having to do with senses as well. It´s just looking that sounds weird here.

But since spanish has an own form for it of course they also have habits for where imperfecto sound right for them. For example they like "era", "Yo era feliz en estos dias." but "I was being happy in those days." wouldnt be very commonly used in english.

A clear habit spanish has, like you pointed out, is when one thing interupts the other, then the preterite and imperfect has to be in its correct place. And often with age. And they also like to use imperfecto a lot with feelings.  Also with preterite you can put emphasize that it happened at that particular moment in time and not anymore, a bit more clearly than with english imperfect.

I am going to meet up with some native speakers and then ask them more about it. Cause one thing is clear, explainations (the common ones, completed actions states etc ) that are that complicated and has that many exceptions, that you keep finding the whole time, that just makes you irritated and frustrated has to be weird or incorrect. And I will try to make my own for myself.


----------



## Yacamaca

http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/10/paper1801.pdf

Found a research paper concerning spanish progressive form and imperfect! Finally I am getting somewhere! 

Instead of all classic preterite/imperfect rules I think I am going to start thinking of spanish imperfect as english "I was +..ing". With the exception that when you want to point out that what you are saying is over and removed from you use preterite instead. And when something starts its practical to use preterite. And when something ongoing is being interupted then the ongoing has to be imperfect and the interupting thing preterite. And aside from this just learning what sounds right and how stuff is usually used..


----------



## Cenzontle

Well said!  I think you are "getting somewhere".


----------



## SevenDays

Yacamaca said:


> http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/10/paper1801.pdf
> 
> Found a research paper concerning spanish progressive form and imperfect! Finally I am getting somewhere!
> 
> Instead of all classic preterite/imperfect rules I think I am going to start thinking of spanish imperfect as english "I was +..ing". With the exception that when you want to point out that what you are saying is over and removed from you use preterite instead. And when something starts its practical to use preterite. And when something ongoing is being interupted then the ongoing has to be imperfect and the interupting thing preterite. And aside from this just learning what sounds right and how stuff is usually used..



There you go. What Spanish does with the _imperfect,_ English does with _"was + ing"_ (which some call "past progressive" and others "past continuous"). And it makes sense, because both the imperfect and "was + ing" convey *aspecto durativo* in the past (an action with no beginning or ending). Too often, we automatically translate the past progressive with its literal Spanish counterpart (_I was singing _= _Estaba cantando)_, when "cantaba" would do the same job nicely in just one word. The choice between the Spanish imperfect and the preterite is largely contextual and stylistic rather than grammatical, because both the imperfect and the preterite are two sides of the same "past" coin.
Cheers


----------



## Yacamaca

Hi again Peterdg!  Could you please clarify the sentence below and maybe give an example of each? Thanx!!

"When the action is delimited by a closed time interval (_durante_), use the indefinido unless you refer to a cyclic action that happened  repeatidly during the closed time interval. (this is also not absolute)."


----------



## Peterdg

You can not say: "*Se llevaban mal durante algunos años"; it necessarily needs to be "Se llevaron mal durante algunos años".  

"durante algunos años" is a closed time interval; their bad behaviour can not extend either before nor after the "algunos años".

But, if you refer to cyclic action, then the imperfect becomes possible again: "Luis estudiaba durante tres horas todos los días", because the "durante tres horas" occurs again and again, to wit, "every day".

(Examples taken from the NGLEem)


----------



## Yacamaca

Ah, ok! Makes sense. Closed time period without repetition = preterito. 
A spanish teacher I had (experienced native from Peru) told me that the closed time period is "stronger" than repetition, so in the sentence "Yo ... al medico todos los dias el mes pasado." the official recommendation would be fui. That closed time "cancels out" repetition. However when I asked a native mexican she told me "Hm, both sounds ok, but iba sounds best."

So I guess its both what you want to focus on, but also what one specific person sees as a "closed time period" and not (compare siempre and nunca)

(And I bet you we can find examples on people using durante with imperfecto with closed time interval as well  )

Thanx for you reply!


----------



## Peterdg

Yes, you're completely right. As a said in a previous post, this is not an *absolute* rule. You can add (think of) additional environmental elements that can justify the imperfect too.


----------

