# Infinitives as nouns.



## Bilbo Baggins

Hello, 
I know that infinitives can be used as nouns and modified by adjectives. My question is: can I_ fully_ treat infinitives as nouns? Can I modify them with articles? Can I say: "El gritar" to mean "the shouting"? Can I form possessive constructs with them? Can I say: "El correr de Juan" to mean "Juan's running"? Replies in English, please. Thanks.


----------



## virgilio

Bilbo,
        Yep. You certainly can.

Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Hello,
> I know that infinitives can be used as nouns and modified by adjectives. My question is: can I_ fully_ treat infinitives as nouns? Can I modify them with articles? Can I say: "El gritar" to mean "the shouting"? Can I form possessive constructs with them? Can I say: "El correr de Juan" to mean "Juan's running"? Replies in English, please. Thanks.


Your assumptions are correct.

*El vivir* rodeado de lujos no te hará más feliz.
Si quieres adelgazar debes empezar a cambiar tus hábitos: *El salir de noche* a tomar cervecitas no te va a ayudar.

Regards,

Pedro.


----------



## mhp

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Hello,
> I know that infinitives can be used as nouns and modified by adjectives. My question is: can I_ fully_ treat infinitives as nouns? Can I modify them with articles? Can I say: "El gritar" to mean "the shouting"? Can I form possessive constructs with them? Can I say: "El correr de Juan" to mean "Juan's running"? Replies in English, please. Thanks.


No you cannot fully treat them as nouns. For example, los correres doesn't make sense (at least, not to me!)

Running is good 
Correr es bueno. El footing/el jogging es bueno.

In general, you cannot do a word for word translation. Shouting can be gritar, grito, griterío and probably a lot more depending on the sentence.

What do you mean by "Juan's running"? Can you use it in a sentence?


----------



## sendai

Bilbo Baggins said:


> My question is: can I_ fully_ treat infinitives as nouns?


I think you can do anything with them but pluralize them.

However, as mhp said, many times there's a better way to say it.  For example, "el correr de Juan" is a pretty unlikely thing to say, even though it's grammatically correct.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

OK Here's an example. Let's suppose that I am a track coach who coaches a young man named Juan. One day, one of my friends asks me: "How is Juan doing on the track?" I very well might say: "JUAN'S RUNNING is coming along nicely." This construct doesn't seem awkward to me. In fact, I use it all the time.


----------



## lazarus1907

Infinitives have features in common with both verbs and nouns. As nouns they can have articles, demostratives, and noun complements, but only a few of them can be fully treated as nouns in every respect:

Los correres de Juan. 
Los andares de Juan. 



Bilbo Baggins said:


> OK Here's an example. Let's suppose that I am a track coach who coaches a young man named Juan. One day, one of my friends asks me: "How is Juan doing on the track." I very well might say: "JUAN'S RUNNING is coming along nicely."


That wouldn't sound natural in Spanish ("El correr de juan...   ); you'll probably have to use "carrera" instead.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Lazarus, "running" is not plural in my question. I understand that you can't form "correres" "runnings". My question was about the use of infinitives as singular nouns.


----------



## lazarus1907

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Lazarus, "running" is not plural in my question. I understand that you can't form "correres" "runnings". My question was about the use of infinitives as singular nouns.


I press the Submit button too fast, but the answer is no: you cannot use infinitives in Spanish with the same degree of flexibility as you use the gerunds in English.


----------



## mhp

lazarus1907 said:


> Los andares de Juan.



 Pretty smart example. But too smart. 


  Andar is a noun as well as a verb.

  andar(2).
  1. m. Acción o modo de andar. Caballería de buen andar.
  2. m. Modo o manera de proceder.
  3. m. Velocidad o ritmo del andar o de una embarcación. A buen, a más, a todo andar.
  4. m. pl. Modo de andar las personas, especialmente cuando es airoso o gallardo.
  [DRAE]


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

mhp said:


> No you cannot fully treat them as nouns. For example, los correres doesn't make sense (at least, not to me!)
> 
> Running is good
> Correr es bueno. El footing/el jogging es bueno.
> 
> In general, you cannot do a word for word translation. Shouting can be gritar, grito, griterío and probably a lot more depending on the sentence.
> 
> What do you mean by "Juan's running"? Can you use it in a sentence?





lazarus1907 said:


> I press the Submit button too fast, but the answer is no: you cannot use infinitives in Spanish with the same degree of flexibility as you use the gerunds in English.


You both are right. My answer has to be considered as a rule of thumb. Of course, as ever, there are too much nuances in grammatical affairs to settle them in just one thread.


----------



## lazarus1907

mhp said:


> Pretty smart example. But too smart.
> 
> Andar is a noun as well as a verb.


That's what I said: Only a few can be fully regarded as nouns. Maybe I didn't explain mysefl well.
In any case, languages are flexible, and sometimes you can use the plural even when the DRAE does not acknowledge it:

_... esos mirares que jamás descubren horizontes nuevos, paisajes nuevos, nuevas_ - *La colmena (Cela)*


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

mhp said:


> Pretty smart example. But too smart.


As reads the proverb:
Del cerdo, hasta los andares. (=When eating pork there is no leftovers).


----------



## virgilio

Re plurals of infinitives, I have heard in Mexican mariachi songs things like:
"mis cantares" (my (acts of) singing)

and in a song called, I think, "La Negra"
      "Negrita de mis pesares
       ojos de papel volando
       a todos diles que sí
       pero no les digas cuando"

(if I have remembered the lyric aright)

So plurals of infinitives would seem to be OK. Agreed, natives?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> So plurals of infinitives would seem to be OK. Agreed, natives?


Not really! As I said earlier, there are a few ones you can use as nouns, but you cannot do it with every verb like in English:

Los respirares, los moveres, los reíres, etc... 

The words "cantar" and "pesar" are registered as nouns in the dictionary, each one with its own definition ("pesar" has more than one).

By the way, can you send me your theory about the prepositional direct objects as adverbs? Thanks.


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                When you say "there are a few ones you can use as nouns, but you cannot do it with every verb like in English", are you not confusing infinitives with gerunds.
English verbs have two names, (infinitive and English gerund) whereas Spanish verbs have only one: el infinitivo..
Unlike Spanish infinitives, English infinitives are *never* used as plurals but English gerunds are frequently used as plurals.
Two final points: (1) English gerunds have a quite different syntax function from Spanish _gerundios_.
(2) infinitives in Spanish and English (and in every other European language of my acquaintance) *are* nouns (in Spanish, French and Italian masculine nouns, in German and Ancient Greek they are neuter nouns) and so the question of whether they "can be used" as nouns surely does not arise.
Don't you agree?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> lazarus1907,
> When you say "there are a few ones you can use as nouns, but you cannot do it with every verb like in English", are you not confusing infinitives with gerunds.
> English verbs have two names, (infinitive and English gerund) whereas Spanish verbs have only one: el infinitivo.


I never meant to say that it is the same in both languages; I think I know the difference between gerunds and infinitives. I was pointing out that you cannot take any infinitive and use it exactly like you'd use a noun in all contexts. English, on the other hand, can use the gerunds with far much more freedom than we can use our infinitives for similar purposes.


virgilio said:


> Unlike Spanish infinitives, English infinitives are *never* used as plurals but English gerunds are frequently used as plurals.
> Two final points: (1) English gerunds have a quite different syntax function from Spanish _gerundios_.


I know.





virgilio said:


> (2) infinitives in Spanish and English (and in every other European language of my acquaintance) *are* nouns (in Spanish, French and Italian masculine nouns, in German and Ancient Greek they are neuter nouns) and so the question of whether they "can be used" as nouns surely does not arise.
> Don't you agree?


Not really. Some grammarians defend the point that infinitives are nouns, others say they are verbs, and others (most of them) point out that they have things in common with both nouns and verbs. They have restrictions that nouns don't have, and on the other hand, they still can have personal pronouns, direct and indirect objects, and all the complements a conjugated verb can have. Nouns cannot take all these complements. Un extracto de la Gramática descriptiva de la RAE:

_La doble naturaleza nominal y verbal del infinitivo

Tal como se acaba de señalar, uno de los problemas más debatidos por las gramáticas al tratar los infinitivos hace referencia a su estatuto categorial. Es casi un lugar común afirmar que estos poseen una doble naturaleza -nominal y verbal-, si bien no existe acuerdo a la hora de precisar qué se entiende exactamente por 'sustantivo verbal'. 'nombre del verbo' y nomenclaturas semejantes._

_ Como consecuencia de la doble naturaleza que se suele atribuir al infinitivo, es práctica habitual de las gramáticas tratar por separado las propiedades nominales y verbales de dicha forma no personal. Ello es fuente de vaguedades y solapamientos que no contribuyen a establecer con precisión -en palabras de Demonte (1977:8)- si «todos los infinitivos son siempre sustantivos y siempre verbos o son, algunas veces, una cosa más que la otra»._ 

The same chapter has a sub-chapter of 57 pages dedicated dedicated to the subject of the infinitives. I have never seen a noun with subject, direct objects, etc. (or a verb with typical noun complements neither).

Regards,


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

It appears as though I have sparked a heated debate.


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                Re:"They have restrictions that nouns don't have, and on the other hand, they still can have personal pronouns, direct and indirect objects, and all the complements a conjugated verb can have. Nouns cannot take all these complements."

But the explanation is so simple: infinitives,(and in English also gerunds) and participles all *contain* *within them* verbal elements but on the outside, which is where from the point of view of syntax it counts, they are respectively noun, noun and adjective.
Imagine a child telling you that he has a 'magic matchbox' and showing you that this tiny box can pick up pins and paper-clips from your desk. It would not, I think, be rocket-science to suspect fairly soon that the matchbox might conceal within it a little magnet and that it was the magnet and not the matchbox that was attracting the objects from your desk. It might contain an energetic element within but on the outside - which is where it would matter, if you had to fit it into something - it would still be a tiny cardboard box with the shape, dimensions and consistency of a tiny cardboard box.
  Infinitives and English gerunds and participles are each like such a matchbox - capable, thanks to what they contain, of attracting objects - but 'on the outside' respectively, noun, noun and adjective with the shape, dimensions. consistency and function of (respectively) noun, noun and adjective.

Syntax is about *how words can be fitted into sentences*; it is *not* about what mixed emotions various people may feel when thinking about those words.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> lSyntax is about *how words can be fitted into sentences*; it is *not* about what mixed emotions various people may feel when thinking about those words.


Syntactically, Spanish infinitives can be regarded as nouns or verbs depending on how they interact with the rest of the sentence and the kind of complements they take. In the following sentence the infinitive has "yo" as subject, and takes a D. O., an I. O., and an adverb. After analyzing a sentence like this I wouldn't conclude that infinitives are just nouns.

Quise decirte desesperadamente lo que sentía por ti.


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                Thanks for your reply. OK. Now we come to the crux of the matter. Let's take your sentence:
" Quise decirte desesperadamente lo que sentía por ti."

I think we can both take it as read that this sentence contains two clauses; OK. How many *verbs* are there in the whole sentence?

Just a number, if you please.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> I think we can both take it as read that this sentence contains two clauses; OK. How many *verbs* are there in the whole sentence?
> 
> Just a number, if you please.


Syntactically, in my opinion, *three*. *(I forgot "sentía")*

The main sentence is "quise + <subordinate clause O. D.>"
The subordinate one is "decirte desesperadamente lo que sentía por ti"

Of course one may argue that the infinitive cannot be regarded as a full verb, and many other arguments, but the subordinate clause has a subject (ommited: yo), a direct object, an indirect object and a verb complement (complemento circunstancial). How can all these elements appear without a verb? ¿Can we replace the infinitive an use a noun (morphologically speaking) that can accept all those complements for itself?


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                 Thanks for your reply. Yes, undeniably two verbs.(quise, sentía). Therefore the infinitive (decir) is not verb (QED), unless, of course, you hold the view that either "quise" or "sentía" is not a verb (see below)?
You write:"Of course one may argue that the infinitive cannot be regarded as a full verb, and many other arguments, but the subordinate clause has a subject (ommited: yo), a direct object, an indirect object and a verb complement (complemento circunstancial). How can all these elements appear without a verb?
But you omit to mention that the subordinate clause contains also a very obvious *verb*: sentía (imperfect indicative of "sentir")
Incidentally where's the "indirect object", whose presence in the subordinate clause you assert? I don't see one - assuming that your "indirect object" equals what I call a "dative". There's certainly no dative there.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## mhp

virgilio said:


> lazarus1907,
> Thanks for your reply. Yes, undeniably two verbs.(quise, sentía). Therefore the infinitive (decir) is not verb (QED), unless, of course, you hold the view that either "quise" or "sentía" is not a verb (see below)?
> You write:"Of course one may argue that the infinitive cannot be regarded as a full verb, and many other arguments, but the subordinate clause has a subject (ommited: yo), a direct object, an indirect object and a verb complement (complemento circunstancial). How can all these elements appear without a verb?
> But you omit to mention that the subordinate clause contains also a very obvious *verb*: sentía (imperfect indicative of "sentir")
> Incidentally where's the "indirect object", whose presence in the subordinate clause you assert? I don't see one - assuming that your "indirect object" equals what I call a "dative". There's certainly no dative there.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


  Interesting 

  If the infinitive decir in the above sentence is not a verb, does it follow that it is a noun?


----------



## virgilio

mhp,
       Syntax is about how words can fit correctly into sentences and so, given that "quise" is a verb, the only thing that "decir" can be in that sentence is the object of the verb "quise" - to be strictly accurate an adverb not a noun  - since it is not a nominative - but I think I know what you mean by "noun" and so yes a 'noun'.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

virgilio said:


> You write:"Of course one may argue that the infinitive cannot be regarded as a full verb, and many other arguments, but the subordinate clause has a subject (ommited: yo), a direct object, an indirect object and a verb complement (complemento circunstancial). How can all these elements appear without a verb?"
> 
> Incidentally where's the "indirect object", whose presence in the subordinate clause you assert? I don't see one - assuming that your "indirect object" equals what I call a "dative". There's certainly no dative there.


Rather obvious:

The main sentence is:
"quise + <subordinate clause O. D.>"
*_________________________________________________________
The subordinate one is:
 "decirte desesperadamente <subordinate clause O. D.>"*

Subject (omitted): Yo.
Direct object: lo que sentía por ti.
*Indirect object: te.*
Verb complement: desesperadamente.
_______________________________________________________________

The sub-subordinate one is:
 "lo que sentía por ti".

Regards,

Pedro.


----------



## Forero

Claro que un infinitivo puede usarse como sustantivo, pero ¿como qué se usa el infinitivo en "tengo que ir"?  No puedo sustituir ningún sustantivo por "ir" en esta frase.


----------



## Capricornus

Hola Bilbo Baggins....es la pasión lo que nos mueve a los debates.

En cristiano: 

En español tú puedes decir: "El correr de Juan", "El caminar de Ana", El hablar de Juana...", etc., pero en la garmática Inglesa esta forma no existe, o por lo menos nunca escuché q alguien dijese "*The* Juan's walking".

Lo correcto sería: "Juan's running...", "Ana's walking..." , "Juana's speaking is anoying".

Suerte!


----------



## Forero

Capricornus said:


> Hola Bilbo Baggins....es la pasión lo que nos mueve a los debates.
> 
> En cristiano:
> 
> En español tú puedes decir: "El correr de Juan", "El caminar de Ana", El hablar de Juana...", etc., pero en la garmática Inglesa esta forma no existe, o por lo menos nunca escuché q alguien dijese "*The* Juan's walking".
> 
> Lo correcto sería: "Juan's running...", "Ana's walking..." , "Juana's speaking is anoying".
> 
> Suerte!



Eso es lo usual para los sustantivos del inglés:

"el libro de John" = "John's book" (but "the book of John" is part of the Bible)

Sí se puede decir:

"Marriage is *the coming* together of a man and woman to live together as partners for the rest of their lives."


----------



## Capricornus

Correcto, bajo el contexto dado, el uso de un "THE" está ok: Marriage is *the coming* together of a man and woman to live together as partners for the rest of their lives.", pero "*The Juan's walking*" no me suena para nada bien.


----------



## Forero

Capricornus said:


> Correcto, bajo el contexto dado, el uso de un "THE" está ok: Marriage is *the coming* together of a man and woman to live together as partners for the rest of their lives.", pero "*The Juan's walking*" no me suena para nada bien.



El artículo se usa más en castellano, aun con los sustantivos:

"*The* man's walking"/"*The* man's house"  "*El* caminar del hombre"/"*La* casa del hombre"
"Juan's walking"/"Juan's house"  "El caminar de Juan"/"La casa de Juan"
"*The* John's walking"/"The John's house"  "El caminar del Juan"/"La casa del Juan"

"The value of living free" = "El valor de vivir libre"
"Love is blind." = "*El* amor es ciego."
"Living free is important." = "*El* vivir libre es importante."


----------



## mhp

Just in passing I'd like to note that the –ing form of a verb in English coinciding with the infinitive of the corresponding verb in Spanish is more of a coincidence than a general rule.

  Too much good *living *had ruined his health 
  (la buena vida había acabado con su salud)

  To earn a *living *
  (ganarse la vida)

  What are the *sleeping *arrangements for tonight? 
  ¿dónde (o cómo) vamos a dormir esta noche?

*Seeing *that nobody turned up, we went home 
  (en vista de que no venía nadie, nos fuimos a casa)


----------



## Manupi

Even though many infinitives can be used as a subject in a sentence, they couldn't be regarded as nouns, therefore you must bear in mind that as verbal forms they have many limitations when performing the role of subject (they cannot support morphemes, for instance), although they can take adjunts i and determiners in some cases. 
IMO the question here is that infinitives are VP in the end, and VP's can perform the same role in a sentence that a NP, not only infinitives. Note that you can also say:
_a) (El) que tú vivas en una gran ciudad será bueno para tu desarrollo profesional (The fact that you live in a big city will be good for your professional development)_
_b) (El) vivir en una gran ciudad será bueno para tu desarrollo profesional (Living in a big city will be good...)_

Ok, maybe these are not the best, most natural sentences I could find, but I couldn't figure out any other at this moment. In any case, I think they illustrate what I mean: as you will notice both a) and b) have the same meaning, the only difference is that in a) the verb is in subjunctive with its person and tense morphemes, and in b) is in infinitive. But in both you can add a determinate article.
My point is, as a verb, an infinitive can always have the same complements and adjuncts of a finite verb. So although it's "working" as a subject is, and will always be, a verb.


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> lazarus1907,
> Thanks for your reply. Yes, undeniably two verbs.(quise, sentía). Therefore the infinitive (decir) is not verb (QED), unless, of course, you hold the view that either "quise" or "sentía" is not a verb (see below)?


Ok, sorry, I forgot "sentir". There are three!





virgilio said:


> But you omit to mention that the subordinate clause contains also a very obvious *verb*: sentía (imperfect indicative of "sentir")


Absolutely not! The verb "sentir" belongs to a subordinate clause within the other subordinate clause:

(1) Quise eso
(2) Te dije despesperadamente aquello
(3) Siento por ti algo
(1) Quise {(2) decirte desesperadamente {(3) lo que sentía por ti.}}"

I was just not even looking at the sub-subordinate clause. Let's give them numbers to make things easier. Number (1) has "querer" as verb; number (3) has "sentir" has verb; and, according to you, number (2) doesn't have a verb at all, because it cannot have as a verb one that is subordinate to it. Doesn't make sense.





virgilio said:


> Incidentally where's the "indirect object", whose presence in the subordinate clause you assert? I don't see one - assuming that your "indirect object" equals what I call a "dative". There's certainly no dative there.


Yes, there is! There is an indirect object, and it is enclitic: "te = a ti". You can easily take another enclitic pronoun for the direct object and put them together:

Quise decírtelo desesperadamente

That word that you call noun is taking verb complements and has a subject. Again, if it is a noun, can you find another noun (not another infinitive!) that can take all those complements without the aid of a verb?

Pedro had already analized it perfectly, by the way.


mhp said:


> If the infinitive decir in the above sentence is not a verb, does it follow that it is a noun?


No creo. ¿Algunas vez has oído hablar de sustantivos con sujeto y complementos directos e indirectos, enclíticos o proclíticos? "Yo te lo _ojo_ muy bien" ,"_ojótelo_ el otro día"


----------



## virgilio

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo,
                               De lo que Ud ha escrito se ve que en Los Madriles se enseña la gramática muy diversamente de como se enseña la tradicional.

Si Ud afirma que una "clause" pueda existir sin verbo:
e.g
"* The subordinate one is:
 "decirte desesperadamente <subordinate clause O. D.>"

*o alternativamente que "decir" sea verbo, la distancia entre la enseñanza madrileña y la tradicional me parece demasiado grande para que la discusión sea capaz de servirnos en algo.

Ud continua:
" Subject (omitted): Yo.
Direct object: lo que sentía por ti.
*Indirect object: te.*
Verb complement: desesperadamente.
_______________________________________________________________

The sub-subordinate one is:
 "lo que sentía por ti".

Ahora entramos en el mundo de "sub-subordinadas". 

OK tomemos otro ejemplo:
"Yo quería preguntarte si lo que me querías decir ayer fuera acaso lo que Juan quería decirme la semana pasada sin tener però la ocasión de hacerlo"

Me parece que según il suo modo de analizar no fuera imposible que entráramos con una frase semejante en un mundo de "sub-sub-subordinadas"

Si Ud no tiene inconveniente, yo quisiera saber cuántos verbos según il suo sistema hay en esta frase.  Soltanto un número, se lo ruego.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

manupi,
          You write:"Even though many infinitives can be used as a subject in a sentence, they couldn't be regarded as nouns." but in trying to justify this extraordinary statement you seem to be arguing that unless a substantive can show that it has all the potential adjuncts and capabilities of some others, it cannot be classed as a noun.
But you don't say why not?  Would you say, for example, that a man with only one leg "couldn't be regarded as" a man? Or that a simple-minded person like me who cannot grasp what words like "morphemes", "adjunts" and "determiners" might mean (please don't explain!) "couldn't be regarded as" a linguist?

If a Spanish word is frequently and correctly qualified by the adjective "el" - as the Spanish infinitive frequently is - we are, I think, entitled to entertain the notion that it might just be a masculine substantive. Otherwise we might have to start asking questions about the nature and function of "el".

What surprises me - as an Englishman - most about all this is that native Spanish speakers, speakers of the form of Latin closest of all the major Romance languages to the original, should fail to see the simplicity of syntax (so clearly demonstrated in Latin itself) which they ought to have inherited along with their exquisite language.

Syntax is all so much simpler than it's cracked up to be.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Manupi

virgilio said:


> manupi,
> You write:"Even though many infinitives can be used as a subject in a sentence, they couldn't be regarded as nouns." but in trying to justify this extraordinary statement you seem to be arguing that unless a substantive can show that it has all the potential adjuncts and capabilities of some others, it cannot be classed as a noun.
> But you don't say why not? Would you say, for example, that a man with only one leg "couldn't be regarded as" a man? Or that a simple-minded person like me who cannot grasp what words like "morphemes", "adjunts" and "determiners" might mean (please don't explain!) "couldn't be regarded as" a linguist?
> 
> If a Spanish word is frequently and correctly qualified by the adjective "el" - as the Spanish infinitive frequently is - we are, I think, entitled to entertain the notion that it might just be a masculine substantive. Otherwise we might have to start asking questions about the nature and function of "el".
> 
> What surprises me - as an Englishman - most about all this is that native Spanish speakers, speakers of the form of Latin closest of all the major Romance languages to the original, should fail to see the simplicity of syntax (so clearly demonstrated in Latin itself) which they ought to have inherited along with their exquisite language.
> 
> Syntax is all so much simpler than it's cracked up to be.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


I think your comparisons have nothing to do with this issue. 
But an infinitive behaves as a verb, even if performing a role usually performed by a noun. It can have its own subject and objects, and the other categories of a finite verb. And, most important of all, is the head of the VP.
And, of course, a noun doesn't need to have all the possible adjuncts and complements it could, but that's exactly what happens with verbs.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

virgilio said:


> Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo,
> De lo que Ud ha escrito se ve que en Los Madriles se enseña la gramática muy diversamente de como se enseña la tradicional.


Soy autodidacta. No contamine _los Madriles_ con mis viles pecados...


virgilio said:


> Si Ud afirma que una "clause" pueda existir sin verbo:


Que un infinitivo no es funcionalmente un verbo es su tesis, no la mía: Le corresponde a usted la carga de la prueba.


virgilio said:


> e.g
> "* The subordinate one is:
> "decirte desesperadamente <subordinate clause O. D.>"
> 
> *o alternativamente que "decir" sea verbo, la distancia entre la enseñanza madrileña y la tradicional me parece demasiado grande para que la discusión sea capaz de servirnos en algo.


Ya ve, soy un hombre del siglo XXI, prefiero la estructural a la de los griegos don Virgilio.


virgilio said:


> Ahora entramos en el mundo de "sub-subordinadas".
> 
> OK tomemos otro ejemplo:
> "Yo quería preguntarte si lo que me querías decir ayer fuera acaso lo que Juan quería decirme la semana pasada sin tener però *(?)* la ocasión de hacerlo".


Pero don Virgilio, _il suo_ gramática tradicional y mi sistemática no hallan concierto con la bien sencilla "quise decirte desesperadamente lo que sentía por ti", y ya anda usted rondándome con _il suo_ esperpento.


virgilio said:


> Me parece que según il suo modo de analizar no fuera imposible que entráramos con una frase semejante en un mundo de "sub-sub-subordinadas"


Todo es posible don Virgilio, no se arrobe en melancólico disgusto. Todo se andará. El mundo de la estructura recursiva es complejo.


virgilio said:


> Si Ud no tiene inconveniente, yo quisiera saber cuántos verbos según il suo sistema hay en esta frase.  Soltanto un número, se lo ruego.


Verá, don Virgilio, la distancia entre la enseñanza madrileña y la tradicional me parece demasiado grande para que la discusión sea capaz de servirnos en algo. De todos modos aquí le suelto un número que me quema: 3,141592. Es un número mágico: Un número griego. _Il suo_ número.


virgilio said:


> Best wishes
> Virgilio


Siempre _suo_.
Pedro.


----------



## virgilio

don Pedro,
        Gracias por la respuesta. Yo también soy autodidacta.

Un saludo cordial.
Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> What surprises me - as an Englishman - most about all this is that native Spanish speakers, speakers of the form of Latin closest of all the major Romance languages to the original, should fail to see the simplicity of syntax (so clearly demonstrated in Latin itself) which they ought to have inherited along with their exquisite language.


I don't see syntax complex at all; on the contrary. My mother taught me syntax long ago (she teaches Spanish grammar), and I've been perfecting my knowledge by reading and studying from as many sources as I've been able to get my hands on. You have a peculiar view of grammar, completely different from ALL the books of grammar that I've ever studied, and I don't think we're getting anywhere, because we seem to be using differnt words to describe different things, and it is hard to understand each other if I call bird what you call chair. I've studied different grammars, and there are discrepancies and points where not all of them agree, but I can assure you that the syntactical analysis of the previous sentence contains one subordinate within another, no matter what they call each word. And according to this, where is the verb of clause No. 2? No disrespect, but if I have to chose between your point of view, and that of people like Bello, Seco, Gili Gaya, Lázaro Carreter, Blecua, Gómez Torrego, Alacos, or Roca Pons, to name a few from which I've learnt (maybe add my mother too), I have no option but disagree with you. I find it strange that you claim that "we speakers of this form of Latin" don't understand syntax, after seeing your analysis. Maybe we're both right from our respective points of view, but I am using the analysis tools that grammarians have been using for over 100 years in Spanish speaking countries; I'm not sure which one you're using.

No offence.


----------



## Forero

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Hello,
> I know that infinitives can be used as nouns and modified by adjectives. My question is: can I_ fully_ treat infinitives as nouns? Can I modify them with articles? Can I say: "El gritar" to mean "the shouting"? Can I form possessive constructs with them? Can I say: "El correr de Juan" to mean "Juan's running"? Replies in English, please. Thanks.



A summary (and a few caveats):

1. Sometimes what looks like an infinitive is an actual noun (e.g. cantar(es), andar(es)).  Remember that infinitives can't be made plural like nouns.

2. Sometimes a noun is a better translation than the infinitive (e.g. "good living" = "la buena vida").

3. Spanish uses the article (always "el" with an infinitive) more than English (e.g. "living free" = "el vivir libre").  But often an infinitive is better without the article: "Ver es creer."

4. A possessive with a gerund in English is often the "subject" of the gerund and will translate in Spanish not to a possessive but to an actual subject, placed after the infinitive:
"At Juan's leaving, Juana started to cry." = "Al salir Juan, Juana empezó a llorar." (not "al salir de Juan")
"At my leaving, she started to cry." = "Al salir yo, empezó a llorar ella." (not "a mi salir")

5. A possessive is possible with the Spanish infinitive, but the meaning is different: "El correr de Juan se ve raro." = "Juan's running looks odd." (the way Juan runs)

6. Consider using "que" to introduce a clause (indicative or subjunctive) as an alternative to an infinitive phrase/clause:  "Entraron en la casa sin oírlos nadie." = "Entraron en la casa sin que les oyera nadie."  Which is better depends on the particular sentence and on nuance.

7. A Spanish gerund is never a noun.

8. Most importantly, read examples from native Spanish speakers for the best usage.  Develop your Spanish style from Spanish, not from English.

I hope this helps.


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                Thank you for your reply. Absolutely no offence taken and I hope that none is given. I welcome criticism; that's the best way to test one's theories and testing them by discussion with people who, like yourself, are obviously well-versed in the subject - and plainly well taught grammar, too, (congratulations to your mother)-   is a rare opportunity for people like me.
I agree 100% with you, when you say that, unless people can agree about their premisses and technical terms, further discussion is rather pointless. I am more and more sure - as I read posts on this forum - that almost certainly people are saying pretty well the same thing but from different angles.
I have gleaned - I hope correctly - from reading what people say on these forums that - to take one example - what I call "adverb" most others seem to call "complement" and what I call "verb object adverb (VOA)" most others seem to call (Complemento directo CD). I may have misunderstood but, anyway, you see what I mean.
I personally happen to believe, however, that where two logical systems are equally sound, the one which uses the fewer premisses (or "axioms, if you prefer), is the better - for simple reasons of economy of mental effort.
  It is for that reason that I have tried - alas! with little success - to recommend a system of syntax which seems to me to be simpler and to rest on fewer axioms than others nowadays apparently accepted as the norm.
You write, for example "but I am using the analysis tools that grammarians have been using for over 100 years in Spanish speaking countries; I'm not sure which one you're using."
The one I'm using is one that grammarians around the Mediterranean basin have been using - as I have understood their writings, at least - for around 2000 years.
I may, of course, have slightly misunderstood what they were saying but at least they gave me sufficiently strong clues for me to evolve a system which seems to work very well, unless my students are just being kind!

With very best wishes,
Virgilio


----------



## mhp

virgilio said:


> mhp,
> Syntax is about how words can fit correctly into sentences and so, given that "quise" is a verb, the only thing that "decir" can be in that sentence is the object of the verb "quise" - to be strictly accurate an adverb not a noun  - since it is not a nominative - but I think I know what you mean by "noun" and so yes a 'noun'.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



 A sequence of verbs can be of two types: Two or more clauses, or a single clause.

*Type 1. Me mandó correr (mandó que corriera)*
  There are two actions (i.e. verbs) here: mandar and correr.

  Me divierto haciendo eso
  Two actions: divertirse y hacer

  Quiero hablar
  Two actions: querer y hablar

*Type 2. Solía correr*
  There is really only one action (i.e. verb) here: correr.
  Soler is a “helper” (i.e. auxiliary) verb. 

  In Spanish grammar, verb constructs of the second type are called verbal periphrasis. In these constructs, the auxiliary verb is conjugated and the main verb is in impersonal form--i.e. infinitive, gerund and participle. A few more examples of verbal periphrasis are:

  Estoy corriendo
  Llevo viviendo
  Acabo de llegar
  Va diciendo
  Tengo que irme
  Has de esforzarte
  Deberías haberme avisado
  Hay que hacerlo
*Ando pensando en eso*
*Volvió a dármelo*
  (There is only one action here: I really don’t walk while thinking. He really didn’t return to give it to me, etc)

  In a statement like 

  Quiero decírtelo

  The subordinate clause is in infinitive form. It could have been in the subjunctive mood. 

  Quiero que me lo digas

  Neither _"decírtelo"_ nor "_que me lo digas"_ function as adverbs. They function as noun (or substantive) subordinate clauses.


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> It is for that reason that I have tried - alas! with little success - to recommend a system of syntax which seems to me to be simpler and to rest on fewer axioms than others nowadays apparently accepted as the norm.


Well... the system is not perfect, I know, but each complement in a sentence is characterized by some features. For example, there can only be one direct and one indirect object, and both can be replaced by their respective accusative and dative pronouns. If you say "Vi a tu madre", you can rephrase it as "La vi", using the accusative pronoun. That, for me, is a direct object. On the other hand, "complementos circunstanciales" (I ignore how to say this properly in English) can be added, removed, duplicated and so on... without altering the main message of the sentence, and none of them can be replaced by pronouns. To me, this is enough to differentiate between these kinds of complements. They behave differently, and their function is different. Why can’t you get a pronoun for one of these “adverbial” complements in the same way you get one for direct and indirect objects? I think the whole thing makes sense, personally.


virgilio said:


> You write, for example "but I am using the analysis tools that grammarians have been using for over 100 years in Spanish speaking countries; I'm not sure which one you're using."


I gave you the names. They are the most prominent grammarians you’ll find in Spanish. Most of the books, grammars and textbooks for schools have been written by them, or based on their principles. Whay are your principles?


----------



## virgilio

mhp,
      It's all a question of how you define "verb" - one of the most basic questions any would-be grammarian has to answer for himself for almost his whole system of syntax will depend on the answer

Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> It's all a question of how you define "verb" - one of the most basic questions any would-be grammarian has to answer for himself for almost his whole system of syntax will depend on the answer


A verb has: a root (e. g. com-), plus some suffixes (e. g. -er, -iendo, etc.) that determine tense, person, mood, etc. A verb is always the main word of the predicate, and can take some complements such as direct, indirect, etc. That's my definition.


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                Thanks for your reply. I wasn't actually suggesting that you should *give* a definition but you have been kind enough to do so.
You say:"A verb has: a root (e. g. com-), plus some suffixes (e. g. -er, -iendo, etc.) that determine tense, person, mood, etc. A verb is always the main word of the predicate, and can take some complements such as direct, indirect, etc."
That sounds much more like a description than a definition for although someone who already knows what a verb is will recognise it in what you are saying, your description makes no mention of a verb's function in a sentence (a function statement being normally regarded as an essential element in a definition of anything)
Compare, for example, this definition of "preposition" from a highly respected English dictionary:
"Gram: One of the traditional parts of speech, an indeclinable word governing (and usu preceding) a noun, pronoun, etc.., and expressing a relation between it and another word."

It starts off well but then runs out of steam, so to speak, when the poor lexicographer has recourse to that fatal word "etc" and the rest is pure waffle of a kind which could be applied to any word in any sentence.
 In other words, it starts off as a definition and finishes as a (rather unhelpful) description.

I agree that your description is more informative than this dictionary's but still lacks the essential function statement.

It is not easy, I agree, to *define* any part of speech.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Hola virgilio:

Efectivamente, la lengua puede ser analizada desde perspectivas diferentes, siendo la descriptiva una de las más habituales:
*
gramática **descriptiva.*
* 1.     * f. Estudio sincrónico de una lengua, sin considerar los problemas diacrónicos.
*diacrónico**, ca**.*
* 1.     * adj. Se dice de los fenómenos que ocurren a lo largo del tiempo, en oposición a los sincrónicos.
* 2.     * adj. Se dice de los estudios referentes a estos fenómenos.

*sincrónico**, ca**.*
 (Del gr. σύγχρονος; de σύν, con, y χρόνος, tiempo).
*2.     * adj._ Ling._ Se dice de las leyes y relaciones internas propias de una lengua o dialecto en un momento o período dados.
* 3.     * adj._ Ling._ Se dice del estudio de la estructura o funcionamiento de una lengua o dialecto _sin atender a su evolución_.​        Por lo que usted mismo cuenta, el cuerpo de doctrina gramatical en el que se ha instruido es el tradicional:

*gramática **tradicional.*
* 1.     * f. Cuerpo de doctrina gramatical constituido por las ideas que sobre el lenguaje y su estudio aportaron los filósofos griegos, y que se desarrolló, en los siglos posteriores, prácticamente hasta la aparición de la *gramática* estructural, en la primera mitad del siglo XX.

 Que se contrapone a estos dos sistemas modernos:*

gramática **estructural.*
* 1.     * f. Estudio de una lengua regido por el principio de que todos sus elementos mantienen entre sí relaciones sistemáticas.
*gramática funcional.*
* 1.     * f. La que se basa en el estudio de las funciones de los elementos que constituyen una lengua.

Me parece, a tenor de los mensajes que publica usted en el foro, que usted aborda las cuestiones gramaticales desde un punto de vista más general, a partir de las definiciones e ideas de la gramática tradicional:

*gramática general.*
* 1.     * f. Aquella que trata de establecer los principios comunes a todas las lenguas.

Dicho llanamente, que montamos aquí un guirigay de padre y muy señor mío.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------

