# Me gusta



## AKaye28

Hola! Tengo una pregunta. Si quiero decir "I like it", seria "me gusta", "me lo gusta" o los dos pueden usado?

Gracias por ayudarme!


----------



## duvija

AKaye28 said:


> Hola! Tengo una pregunta. Si quiero decir "I like it", seria "me gusta", "me lo gusta" o los dos pueden usado?
> 
> Gracias por ayudarme!



Solamente 'me gusta'.


----------



## Pinairun

AKaye28 said:


> Hola! Tengo una pregunta. Si quiero decir "I like it", seria "me gusta", "me lo gusta" o los dos pueden usado?
> 
> Gracias por ayudarme!



Como ya ha dicho _duvija_, solo es correcto "me gusta".
El verbo _gustar_, en español, es *in*transitivo. No tiene objeto directo, por lo que nunca se puede usar "lo".


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> Solamente 'me gusta'.


Tell me if I am wrong. Wouldn't "me lo gusta" mean that the sentence contains *two* objects for the verb? And that in this situation only one object pronoun is needed? I was taught in high school Spanish that "me gusta" means literally, "It pleases me" and as far as I understand it "Me gusta" implies an unstated subject.


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> Tell me if I am wrong. Wouldn't "me lo gusta" mean that the sentence contains *two* objects for the verb? And that in this situation only one object pronoun is needed? I was taught in high school Spanish that "me gusta" means literally, "It pleases me" and as far as I understand it "Me gusta" implies an unstated subject.



Here we go into some theoretical approach. You may have a semantic subject different from the syntactic subject. 
The one doing the 'pleasing' is 'me', meaning myself. That would be the semantic subject.
In 'me gustan las manzanas', we see the verb agreeing with 'manzanas', so syntactically 'manzanas' is the subject, but semantically, I'm still the one doing the 'gusta'...


----------



## Agró

grahamcracker said:


> Tell me if I am wrong. Wouldn't "me lo gusta" mean that the sentence contains *two* objects for the verb? And that in this situation only one object pronoun is needed? I was taught in high school Spanish that "me gusta" means literally, "It pleases me" and as far as I understand it "Me gusta" implies an unstated subject.


Exactly so.

EDIT: Which means I don't agree with Duvija's approach.

I do nothing when "me gustan las manzanas".


----------



## grahamcracker

Agró said:


> Exactly so.


Yay for me. Thanks.


----------



## duvija

Agró said:


> Exactly so.
> 
> EDIT: Which means I don't agree with Duvija's approach.
> 
> I do nothing when "me gustan las manzanas".



You do the 'liking'!


----------



## SevenDays

Syntactic subject & semantic subject.
Structure & meaning
Spot on!


----------



## donbill

duvija said:


> You do the 'liking'!



I wonder about that, duvija. In 'me gustan las manzanas', I'm not really doing anything, am I? Am I not being 'done to'? I don't see myself as an agent at all.

I may change my mind about this--and I'm sure you'll try to make me change it--but "I like" and "Me gusta" seem fundamentally different to me--certainly from the standpoint of syntax and probably from that of semantics too. To an extent, I see your point: if something pleases me, then obviously I like it. Nevertheless, my liking seems one step removed from 'me gusta'. Let me keep being the object!

Could this be one of those things we love to discuss that don't really mean so much in the grand scheme?

saludos


----------



## JorgeHoracio

duvija said:


> You do the 'liking'!


OK, dear duvija, but you're erasing the difference of stand.  In "I like apples" I do the liking.  In "Las manzanas me gustan", which in structure is roughly equivalent to "Apples please me", the apples do the pleasing ...
If I want to take a stand similar to the English "I like apples", I'd have to say "(Yo) gusto de las manzanas"


----------



## AKaye28

Gracias a todos!


----------



## duvija

Just in case, it's not 'my' theory (but it is the one I work on/with). It's called 'Autolexical Syntax', developed by Jerry Sadock, at the U. of Chicago. For me, it's very clear. We seem to want to collapse subject and objects across the board, but if we consider each grammatical module as an independent system, we see mismatches. That is assuming 'grammar' is only semantics, syntax, and morphology. Phonology doesn't work too nicely here. And forget pragmatics. 
'Intonation', that's another story. It depends on semantics and phonology, plus syntactic phrases, and I don't know exactly how to manage it (considering it was the theme of my dissertation. I should know more, but...)


----------



## grahamcracker

donbill said:


> I wonder about that, duvija. In 'me gustan las manzanas', I'm not really doing anything, am I? Am I not being 'done to'? I don't see myself as an agent at all.
> 
> I may change my mind about this--and I'm sure you'll try to make me change it--but "I like" and "Me gusta" seem fundamentally different to me--certainly from the standpoint of syntax and probably from that of semantics too. To an extent, I see your point: if something pleases me, then obviously I like it. Nevertheless, my liking seems one step removed from 'me gusta'. Let me keep being the object!
> 
> Could this be one of those things we love to discuss that don't really mean so much in the grand scheme?
> 
> saludos


So far as I know, all western languages have active and passive voice verbs. "Me gusta" is one of them. I don't know if Spanish has more of them than English does but some of those in Spanish require native English speakers to think a little differently about them.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/passive.htm


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> So far as I know, all western languages have active and passive voice verbs. "Me gusta" is one of them. I don't know if Spanish has more of them than English does but some of those in Spanish require native English speakers to think a little differently about them.
> http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/passive.htm



Are you implying that 'me gusta' is a passive? (in that case, you are really separating grammatical modules...)


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> Are you implying that 'me gusta' is a passive? (in that case, you are really separating grammatical modules...)


The form of the verb is passive. It doesn't imply the person is passive. A passive verb form is simply one where the person is acted upon by another substantive or subject. Normally, in English, it is another person or active force. If there are any parallel constructions that are used in English as much as me gusta is in Spanish, I cannot think of any immediately.


----------



## Peterdg

Jeje. This is a nice one. 

I agree with Duvija about the "psychological subject" in "me gusta ...".

How else would you explain: "Me gusta hacerlo" y "*me gusta que lo haga (yo)".

The infinitive in noun clauses (as opposed to the subjunctive) is only possible (and mandatory) if the subject or the psychogical subject of the principal and subordinate clauses coincide.

QED.


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> The form of the verb is passive. It doesn't imply the person is passive. A passive verb form is simply one where the person is acted upon by another substantive or subject. Normally, in English, it is another person or active force. If there are any parallel constructions that are used in English as much as me gusta is in Spanish, I cannot think of any immediately.



That was my question. Really? do you believe that 'me gusta' is a passive (form of verb?)


----------



## duvija

Peterdg said:


> Jeje. This is a nice one.
> 
> I agree with Duvija about the "psychological subject" in "me gusta ...".
> 
> How else would you explain: "Me gusta hacerlo" y "*me gusta que lo haga (yo)".
> 
> The infinitive in noun clauses (as opposed to the subjunctive) is only possible (and mandatory) if the subject or the psychogical subject of the principal and subordinate clauses coincide.
> 
> QED.



Yes! we already had this conversation before. Where did you get the idea? (I mean, which grammar? there are a few that get close to what you're saying). Or, dare I say, you came up with this all by yourself?


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> That was my question. Really? do you believe that 'me gusta' is a passive (form of verb?)


Yes, I do. But as it has already been stated, it is a passive construction. It may indeed be more complicated than that and I submit to your superior knowledge. I will not speak to that because you probably have more education in that regard than I do. If you are teasing me or simply telling me I am wrong, go ahead.

My point is that the one doing the action becomes the object of the verb and not the subject. In English, as you no doubt know, the one doing the liking is the subject and the object is the thing that is liked.


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> Yes, I do. But as it has already been stated, it is a passive construction. It may indeed be more complicated than that and I submit to your superior knowledge. I will not speak to that because you probably have more education in that regard than I do. If you are teasing me or simply telling me I am wrong, go ahead.
> 
> My point is that the one doing the action becomes the object of the verb and not the subject. In English, as you no doubt know, the one doing the liking is the subject and the object is the thing that is liked.



Uh, I wasn't teasing at all, and much less telling you you are wrong. I was actually asking if you believed 'me gusta' is a 'passive construction'. For me, it isn't, but I don't think I can really explain it.


----------



## Peterdg

duvija said:


> Yes! we already had this conversation before. Where did you get the idea? (I mean, which grammar? there are a few that get close to what you're saying). Or, dare I say, you came up with this all by yourself?


 I wish I could come up with things like this myself. It comes from "El subjuntivo, valores y usos" of Julio Borrego _e.a_.. I believe they mention it in a footnote. There they say that some grammarians call this "the psychological subject".


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> Uh, I wasn't teasing at all, and much less telling you you are wrong. I was actually asking if you believed 'me gusta' is a 'passive construction'. For me, it isn't, but I don't think I can really explain it.


Well, I certainly understand that there is a difference between it and a "purely" passive construction.

I'll offer an example from religion because some controversy has occurred there. (I hope I am not breaking some kind of forums rule of topic changing.)

One could say, "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist" or "John the Baptist baptized John." The first is what we might call a purely passive object-verb construction and the object is truly passive. It is different from "me gusta" because in "me gusta" the object is doing the action---but from linguistic standpoint I consider it passive. Would diagramming it help us any?


----------



## duvija

I would like to see a diagram! It's not easy.

I went for 'canonical passive', as in the old formula:
(the arrow means 'goes to'. I swear, I didn't invent this)

1subject, 2verb,  3object -> 3,      be(past), 2(pp), by, 1
John        killed    Mary    -> Mary  was         killed  by  John.
(I hope these line up correctly)


----------



## udogi

Let's see the concordancy in "me gustan las manzanas"

las manzanas (nombre plural, no es sujeto paciente ni complemento directo, es sujeto? debe)
gustan (forma plural del presente de indicativo, tercera persona)
me (pronombre con función de complemento indirecto).

Whoever does the action, obviously it's neither I nor me nor anyone that enjoys eating apples. Those apples seem to be gorgeous (they are appealing to me) then I eat them.


----------



## duvija

udogi said:


> Let's see the concordancy in "me gustan las manzanas"
> 
> las manzanas (nombre plural, no es sujeto paciente ni complemento directo, es sujeto? debe)
> gustan (forma plural del presente de indicativo, tercera persona)
> me (pronombre con función de complemento indirecto).
> 
> Whoever does the action, obviously it's neither I nor me nor anyone that enjoys eating apples. Those apples seem to be gorgeous (they are appealing to me) then I eat them.



Cierto, 'las manzanas' parece ser el sujeto sintáctico, porque hay concordancia con el verbo (plural).
'Me' funciona como complemento, sintácticamente.
En lo que no estamos de acuerdo es en que el hablante no tiene nada que ver con la acción de 'gustar'. El hablante es el que 'gusta', ¿no? Y como tal, puede ser sujeto semántico/psicológico.


----------



## Pinairun

duvija said:


> Cierto, 'las manzanas' parece ser el sujeto sintáctico, porque hay concordancia con el verbo (plural).
> 'Me' funciona como complemento, sintácticamente.
> En lo que no estamos de acuerdo es en que el hablante no tiene nada que ver con la acción de 'gustar'. El hablante es el que 'gusta', ¿no? Y como tal, puede ser sujeto semántico/psicológico.




El verbo _gustar, _intransitivo_,  _se puede construir de _dos _formas:
1.
El sujeto es lo que _causa _el placer: Las manzanas me causan placer = Las manzanas me gustan.
El objeto indirecto es el que _siente _el placer: Yo siento el placer = Las manzanas me gustan. 

2.
El sujeto es el que _siente _el placer (forma apenas usada) : Yo gusto de comer manzanas.
Lo que _causa _el placer es un complemento introducido por la preposición _de_.


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> I would like to see a diagram! It's not easy.


Me too. I believe it can be done but I don't know the codes for lines.



> I went for 'canonical passive', as in the old formula:
> (the arrow means 'goes to'. I swear, I didn't invent this)
> 
> 1subject, 2verb,  3object -> 3,      be(past), 2(pp), by, 1
> John        killed    Mary    -> Mary  was         killed  by  John.
> (I hope these line up correctly)


Are you saying in the sentence Mary was killed by John, that Mary would occupy the first position of the subject?


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> Me too. I believe it can be done but I don't know the codes for lines.
> 
> Are you saying in the sentence Mary was killed by John, that Mary would occupy the first position of the subject?



Yes, Mary switches from object to subject (this is basically the definition of a passive sentence). Then you need a complex verb in the past, then the original subject becomes an object in/of the 'by' sentence.


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> Yes, Mary switches from object to subject (this is basically the definition of a passive sentence). Then you need a complex verb in the past, then the original subject becomes an object in/of the 'by' sentence.


While I like diagramming very much, I was not taught diagramming in high school. It was falling out of favor. I became interested in it when studying the Bible. Some English Bible translations contain run-on sentences and diagramming makes interpretation easier.

Thanks.


----------



## SevenDays

El sujeto sintáctico es una categoría *gramatical* (de *sintaxis*): es aquel elemento que concuerda en número y persona con el verbo,y como tal, se diferencia de otros elementos gramaticales (_objeto directo_, _objeto indirecto_, etc.). El sujeto semántico está al margen de todo análisis sintáctico; es aquel que conlleva, realiza, el significado verbal. Es un juicio de la mente, y por tanto también se le conoce como sujeto _psicológico_. A veces, el sujeto sintáctico y el sujeto semántico coinciden: _yo gusto de comer manzanas_. Y a veces, no coinciden:_ las manzanas me gustan_, donde el sujeto semántico lo representa el objeto indirecto (o más bien dicho el sujeto semántico se esconde detrás del objeto indirecto)_. _Pero con confundamos las cosas; *sintácticamente*, el objeto indirecto siempre es objeto indirecto, y nada más.
Aquí se habla de sujeto semántico (al final de la página).
Saludos


----------



## duvija

This is the easiest explanation for a full grammatical theory, that works well with passives (and basically, nothing else...)
You need the diagrams in order to really understand it, but I can't find any easy example.


OK, found it: here you can see a diagram of a passive, in 1.6. It's not easy to understand, and totally not intuitive, of course...


----------

