# Subjunctivitis!



## Bilbo Baggins

Hey everyone:
I've been thinking about the subjunctive mood and its uses. I know that it is often employed in conditional constructions and in adverbial phrases (under certain conditions of course). I know that it is used in adjectival phrases to modify nouns (called antecedents in this context) that have a questionable or denied existence. I also know that it is often used in noun clauses (that usually start with "que") to act as an object for a verb (or verb phrase). 
What about this sentence: "Quiero comprar la casa que vimos (viéramos)." "I want to buy the house that we saw." Should "ver" be in the preterite indicative or the past subjunctive? This is why I'm not sure: The presence of "la casa", which is a noun, gives "que vimos (viéramos)" an adjectival role. Now, we said :"la casa" not "un casa" so the house _definitely_ exists. Which means that "que vimos (viéramos)" should be in the preterite indicative. _However, _the main phrase starts with "quiero" which is a sure fire sign of the subjunctive. I know that subordinate clauses are influenced by the main clause that _immediatly_ precedes them. The problem is that there isn´t a "que" between "quiero" and "la casa". They´re a part of the _same phrase_. So which is it? English, please. Thanks, gang!


----------



## Rayines

It's difficult for me to give you the explanations in English (and in Spanish too).
It would just be: "Quiero que compremos la casa que vimos". "Viéramos" would be an old fashioned, or very poetic language: "La casa que viéramos aquel día..."Commonly and correctly, you use Indicative there. 
(Sorry my English).​


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Really? My mother (who is a Spaniard) says the same thing. You see my point don´t you? 
I´m not saying I want US to buy. I´m saying: "Quiero que compre....." Which of course is simply written: "Quiero comprar".


----------



## Rayines

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Really? My mother (who is a Spaniard) says the same thing. You see my point don´t you?
> I´m not saying I want US to buy. I´m saying: "Quiero que compre....." Which of course is simply written: "Quiero comprar".


If I understood your question, I was simply trying to explain to you in which case you should use the Subjunctive; it would be only when the subject is a different one: Yo quiero que (nosotros) compremos.......
But if the subject is the same (you), it's of course "Yo quiero comprar....." .


----------



## Saratoga

Bilbo,

I use some of the grammatical terminology a little differently, so bear with me.  I would call the clauses that follow a verb like querer  object (complement) clauses.  (That's because they serve a function comparable to that of a noun phrase object.)  And the clause that modifies "the house" in an example like "the house that we saw" is what I would call a relative clause.

So my understanding of the rule for subjunctive is that when a verb like querer has an object complement with a different subject, then the main verb of that complement appears in the subjunctive.  Verbs like querer don't trigger subjunctive on more deeply embedded verbs, though some other independent grammatical factor might cause them to be in the subjunctive.

So in 

Quiero comprar la casa que vimos

We don't expect subjunctive for the following reason(s) --
a.) no subjunctive on comprar because it has the same subject (yo) as the verb querer
b.) no subjunctive on ver because it is not the main verb of the object complement of querer

As you note, relative clauses sometimes have their verb in the subjunctive if their existence is doubtful or denied.   But in this example, the existence of the house is neither, so this is also not a context for the subjunctive.


----------



## mhp

Bilbo Baggins said:


> Hey everyone:
> I've been thinking about the subjunctive mood and its uses. I know that it is often employed in conditional constructions and in adverbial phrases (under certain conditions of course). I know that it is used in adjectival phrases to modify nouns (called antecedents in this context) that have a questionable or denied existence. I also know that it is often used in noun clauses (that usually start with "que") to act as an object for a verb (or verb phrase).
> What about this sentence: "Quiero comprar la casa que vimos (viéramos)." "I want to buy the house that we saw." Should "ver" be in the preterite indicative or the past subjunctive? This is why I'm not sure: The presence of "la casa", which is a noun, gives "que vimos (viéramos)" an adjectival role. Now, we said :"la casa" not "un casa" so the house _definitely_ exists. Which means that "que vimos (viéramos)" should be in the preterite indicative. _However, _the main phrase starts with "quiero" which is a sure fire sign of the subjunctive. I know that subordinate clauses are influenced by the main clause that _immediatly_ precedes them. The problem is that there isn´t a "que" between "quiero" and "la casa". They´re a part of the _same phrase_. So which is it? English, please. Thanks, gang!


 You understand a lot, Mr. Baggins. 

  You also have to understand that although “comprar la casa” has an infinitive form, it is, in fact, functioning as a subordinate clause: “que compre la casa.” So there is a hidden QUE and a hidden subjunctive in there and “querer” has already used up its “subjunctivity” in secrete.


----------



## Outsider

I think there is a simpler explanation for this. The correct sentence is "Quiero comprar la casa que vimos." We are talking about a concrete, unique house that we actually have seen, so we must use the indicative.



Bilbo Baggins said:


> This is why I'm not sure: The presence of "la casa", which is a noun, gives "que vimos (viéramos)" an adjectival role. Now, we said :"la casa" not "un casa" so the house _definitely_ exists. Which means that "que vimos (viéramos)" should be in the preterite indicative. _However, _the main phrase starts with "quiero" which is a sure fire sign of the subjunctive. I know that subordinate clauses are influenced by the main clause that _immediatly_ precedes them. The problem is that there isn´t a "que" between "quiero" and "la casa". They´re a part of the _same phrase_. So which is it? English, please. Thanks, gang!


If the subjectivity of the verb "querer" were to carry over to another verb, it would be to "comprar". But "comprar" is an infinitive, so it doesn't change. "Querer" could never influence "vimos", which relates to an independent fact. Whether we saw the house or not is not determined by whether I want to buy it or not.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Thanks guys!


----------



## Forero

Hi, everyone.

I am still a little fuzzy on the subjunctive.  I understand that the definite article "la" means it's the particular house that we saw (vimos).  But what if the "la" weren't there and we needed a subjunctive?

For example, with "cualquier" it's whatever house that we may/might see (veamos/viéramos).

Quiero comprar la casa que vimos. [original sentence with indicative]
Quiero comprar cualquier casa que veamos. [present tense with subjunctive - present subjunctive is the only choice, right?]
Quería comprar cualquier casa que viéramos. [imperfect tense with subjunctive - now the only choice is imperfect subjunctive, right?]
Quise comprar cualquier casa que viéramos. [preterite tense with subjunctive]

I am really unsure about the last one - does it say whether I bought whatever house?

What happens with "Quisiera"?  My guess:

Quisiera la que vimos.
Quisiera cualquiera que veamos. [Is this right?]
Quisiera cualquiera que viéramos. [Or is it "Hubiera querido"?]


----------



## sendai

Forero said:


> I understand that the definite article "la" means it's the particular house that we saw (vimos).


Right, if it's a particular house (you know the address, etc.), then you should use the indicative.  But the presence of "la" doesn't guarantee that. Take a look at this sentence:

 Quiero comprar la primera casa que veamos (I want to buy the first house we see. I have no idea what house that will be, but maybe I hate shopping for houses and I am going to buy the first one no matter what.)

We can use the subjunctive even with "la".  And if we translate it into the past, we get:

 Quería comprar la primera casa que viéramos.

Now, we can also say:

Quiero comprar la primera casa que vamos a ver (I want to buy the first house we are going to see.  I know which one it is; I have a list of addresses, and it's the first one on the list.  Maybe I want to buy it because it's only one on the list with 2 bathrooms. In any case, it's a concrete, specific house, even if I haven't actually seen it yet.)

The use of the definite article doesn't actually require the indicative, though it's often a hint that you should use it.

Durante toda la mañana quise comprar la primera casa que viéramos. (The whole morning I wanted to buy the first house that we would see that day. Maybe you are going house hunting in the afternoon, and you spent the whole morning thinking that you wanted to buy the first house you saw that day. In general, using "quise" isn't impossible, but it would require a specific context.   Without an appropriate context, "quise" would probably imply that you made an effort to buy the first house, which is incompatible with the idea that it's not a specific house, which is implied by the subjunctive.)


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

"Quisiera" is past tense subjunctive mood. That wouldn't be correct here because there isn't anything to evoke the subjunctive in "querer". "Querer is in the _main clause_ not the subordinate. The subjunctive needs to be evoked (usually through a main clause of some kind), it doesn't just appear.


----------



## sendai

Theoretically that's true, but "quisiera" is very often used in the sense of "querría" (I would like) for polite requests. What you said is true of most other verbs.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Sendai, I have realized that most of the time the ideas or concepts of the sentence dictate whether the subjunctive or the imperative is used. However, sometimes, when the sentence's structure allows for either mood, the mood chosen dictates the concepts of the sentence. Sometimes there is a reverse relationship.


----------



## virgilio

Bilbo,
       Let me just make two minor corrections.
(1) You wrote:"the main phrase starts with "quiero" which is a sure fire sign of the subjunctive".
Wrong. The presence of the verb "querer" in a major clause is not in itself a reason for a subjunctive in a subordinate clause.
(2) In traditional syntax your sentence:"Quiero comprar la casa que vimos" would be said to contain two *clauses* and not two phrases - the difference being that a clause contains a verb, whereas a phrase doesn't.
Indeed a good definition of "clause" in our linguistic sense would be:
"A clause is a sentence within a sentence."
Consequently,       Clause A                Clause B
                   [Quiero comprar la casa][que vimos]

In my opinion it would be better to make a mental list of reasons for the subjunctive _by type_ rather than associating them in your mind with individual verbs - as you have done here with "querer".
After all, what about that well-used Spanish sentence: "te quiero" - no sign of any reason for a subjunctive there!
For a start you could list:
(a) direct requests (other than jussive requests to those with whom you are familiar) - 3rd person direct requests being often introduced by "que")
I define a "request" as any sentence which recommends a course of action.
e.g.
Tomemos una copita - let's have a drink.
Díga - please speak (like "Hello" on the phone)  
No me vengas con tus quejas! - Don't come to me with your complaints!
Vaya Ud con Dios  - May you go with God!
Si no le gusta el queso, que no come queso y asunto concluído!
If he (or she) doesn't like cheese, let him (or her) not eat cheese, and there's an end of the matter!
Then there's hypothetical conditional sentences (which I abbreviate for my students to "hypoconsens"). A conditional sentence is any sentence containing a subordinate clause introduced by either of the two conjunctions "if" or "unless". The "if" or "unless" clause is known technically as the "protasis", and the "then" clause is known as the "apodosis".
e.g. (protasis)               (apodosis)
    If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

There are two distinct types of conditional sentence1) factual and (2) hypothetical.
A Spanish 'hypoconsen' always contains an imperfect subjunctive in its protasis (when a past hypothesis is referred to, this imperfect subjunctive will, of course, be that of the verb "haber") and a so-called 'conditional' tense in its apodosis. (In very old Spanish (before about the 14th century) the imperfect subjunctive occurred in both protasis and apodosis)
e.g. Modern Spanish
si tuviéramos más dinero, tendríamos una casa más grande.
si Ud no me lo hubiera dicho, yo no lo habría sabido 

Old Spanish:
si tuviéramos más dinero, tuviéramos una casa más grande.
si Ud no me lo hubiera dicho, yo no lo hubiera sabido 

That's two on your list and there's more - as they say - where they came from!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Yes, I know all of that, Virgilio. Thanks for your help, though. It´s always appreciated. 

When I said "sure-fire sign" I meant that when a subordinate is based on a clause that denotes desire, the subjunctive is used..... and what better way to express desire than to actually say: "I want....."?


----------



## mhp

virgilio said:


> (2) In traditional syntax your sentence:"Quiero comprar la casa que vimos" would be said to contain two *clauses* and not two phrases - the difference being that a clause contains a verb, whereas a phrase doesn't.
> Indeed a good definition of "clause" in our linguistic sense would be:
> "A clause is a sentence within a sentence."
> Consequently,       Clause A                Clause B
> [Quiero comprar la casa][que vimos]


Quiero eso.
                   Quiero {comprar eso}
Quiero {comprar [la casa que vimos]}
What is an infinitive subordinate clause?


----------



## virgilio

mhp,
       Sorry, I'm afraid you've lost me there.
Re:"Quiero eso.
                   Quiero {comprar eso}
Quiero {comprar [la casa que vimos]}
What is an infinitive subordinate clause?"

I never used the expression "infinitive subordinate clause" nor would I, for I don't know what it may mean. A subordinate clause may *contain* an infinitive, of course, like any other substantive or a subordinate clause may be attracted as an adverb to the verbal element 'encased' so to speak within the infinitive.
Which one - or what other - do you mean?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> Quiero eso.
> Quiero {comprar eso}
> Quiero {comprar [la casa que vimos]}
> What is an infinitive subordinate clause?


That is how I would analyse the sentence, and it makes clear why there's no reason to expect a subjunctive for "ver". "Querer" governs "comprar", not "ver".


----------



## Outsider

sendai said:


> Durante toda la mañana quise comprar la primera casa que viéramos. (Using "quise" isn't impossible, but it would require a specific context.  Maybe you are going house hunting in the afternoon, and you spent the whole morning thinking that you wanted to buy the first house you saw that day.  Without a context like this, "quise" would probably imply that you made an effort to buy the first house, which is incompatible with the idea that it's not a specific house, which is implied by the subjunctive.)


I don't think it's incompatible at all. You wanted to
buy the first house you ran into during the morning, but now the morning is over; hence _quise_.

*Forero*, your sentences and analyses all seem right to me.


----------



## lazarus1907

Lots of people have given explanations already, and I'm too lazy to read all those super-long messages, so I'll give my own, and I apologize if everything has been said already:_Quiero comprar la casa que vimos viéramos ._​This is the "infamous" use of the imperfect subjunctive in -ra as an indicative tense (_viéramos_ = _habíamos visto_, or even _viéramos_ = _vimos_). Its use has been long critizised by grammarians, and I won't repeat myself much: it's best to avoid it.

Now back to the good one:_Quiero comprar la casa que vimos__. _​In Spanish grammar terms, there is one subordinate clause (_que vimos_), which I'll label *a*; this clause is found within another one (_comprar la casa que vimos _), which I'll label *b*; the whole thing is a sentence.The verb querer determines the mood of the verb of the clause which is immediately subordinated to it: *b*, although here there is an infinitive instead, because the subject of "comprar" is the same as the subject of the main sentence. The sub-subordinate clause, *a*, is a relative one, and the mood of its veb depends on whether "the house" has been identified or not. In this case, clearly it has been identified: you said "LA casa", and you want to buy IT. Hece, here indicative is a must. Remember that the general rule of the subjunctive is that "*it is used when we want to declare what is said in a subordinate clause*". With the last subordinate you're declaring that you have seen that house.

However, a slight change may turn the same verb into subjunctive:_Quiero comprar la primera casa que veamos__. _​This time we haven't identified the house, and we are not declaring that we have seen it, because you want to go and see it. Clearly, it needs subjunctive.


Bilbo Baggins said:


> _However, _the main phrase starts with "quiero" which is a sure fire sign of the subjunctive.


Indeed: subjunctive for its suborinate, *b*, whose verb is "comprar". If the subject of the main sentence and the subordinate *b* had been different, you'd have used the subjunctive:_Quiero que compres la casa que vimos__. _​You're not declaring the first suborinate, *b*, because you haven't bought anything yet (you want to do so), so you use subjuncive, but you are declaring that you have seen the house, so you use indicative.

The syntactical structure is as follows (smaller font means subordinate):_Quiero [comprar la casa [que vimos]]__. _​I hope this helps (and I have said something that others haven't)


----------



## mhp

My hat off to lazarus who doesn’t read long messages—I’m guilty of the same depending on who wrote them. However, I’m sure there is not a single person in these forums who doesn’t read _his_ messages, be they short or long. 



virgilio said:


> mhp,
> Sorry, I'm afraid you've lost me there.
> Re:"Quiero eso.
> Quiero {comprar eso}
> Quiero {comprar [la casa que vimos]}
> What is an infinitive subordinate clause?"
> 
> I never used the expression "infinitive subordinate clause" nor would I, for I don't know what it may mean. A subordinate clause may *contain* an infinitive, of course, like any other substantive or a subordinate clause may be attracted as an adverb to the verbal element 'encased' so to speak within the infinitive.
> Which one - or what other - do you mean?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


I know you never said that. I did!    Consider:

  1. Mis padres me obligaban a levantarme temprano todos los domingos.
  2. Mis padres me obligaban a que me levantara temprano todos los domingos. 

 If we consider the first sentence as a simple clause with no subordinates, then there is no explanation for the magical appearance of a subordinate clause in the second sentence. Here is where the phrase “infinitive subordinate clause” shows its true power: The first sentence is, in fact, composed of a main clause and an infinitive subordinate clause. With certain verbs in the main clause, the so called verbs of influence, the verb of the subordinate clause can either appear in infinitive or in subjunctive mood. The direct object pronoun associated with the verb of the main clause, “me” in this case, contains the necessary information for the transformation. Such verbs as “querer” do not admit this transformation, partly due to the fact that they do not take an indirect object pronoun. With some other verbs, such a transformation is also possible, but with a change in meaning.

  I don’t want to go off on a tangent about symbolic representation of these sentences in some calculus; let me just say that from a purely syntactical point of view, identification of subordinate clauses involves more than counting the number of conjunctions. Or, at least, that’s the way I see it.


----------



## virgilio

mhp,
      Thank you for your detailed reply. I do not, however, see the logic behind your statement:
"   1. Mis padres me obligaban a levantarme temprano todos los domingos.
  2. Mis padres me obligaban a que me levantara temprano todos los domingos. 
If we consider the first sentence as a simple clause with no subordinates, then there is no explanation for the magical appearance of a subordinate clause in the second sentence." (my underlining)

Leaving aside the imprecise nature of your use of the word "subordinates" -  which might well explain the problem - oblique substantival phrases are frequently in many different languages interchanged with oblique substantival clauses. To take a single example which springs to mind, consider, if you will, the verb "to recommend", as used in UK English:
The doctor recommended me to take a brisk walk every morning.
(infinitive phrase)
The doctor recommended (that I should) take a brisk walk every morning.
(subordinate clause)
The doctor recommended taking a brisk walk every morning.
(English gerund)

Management of indirect speech in its three forms can be largely reduced in any language I have met to knowing which of the three above modes of expression any particular language happens to choose for each of the three forms of indirect speech..
Re:"let me just say that from a purely syntactical point of view, identification of subordinate clauses involves more than counting number of conjunctions."
Yes but not much more and certainly you can't afford to miscount the conjunctions, for in every well-formed - and therefore syntactically correct - sentence, where _x_ is the number of verbs, _x-1_ is always the number of conjunctions.
Pairs of correlative clauses may be considered the exception to this rule, unless the interrogative correlative is taken - as it sometimes is - to be a conjunction.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Re:"let me just say that from a purely syntactical point of view, identification of subordinate clauses involves more than counting number of conjunctions."
> Yes but not much more and certainly you can't afford to miscount the conjunctions, for in every well-formed - and therefore syntactically correct - sentence, where _x_ is the number of verbs, _x-1_ is always the number of conjunctions.
> Pairs of correlative clauses may be considered the exception to this rule, unless the interrogative correlative is taken - as it sometimes is - to be a conjunction.
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Hmmm -- this sounds like an oversimplification to me -- and every fiber of my being wants to challenge it.. Does your formula there really work, Virg? All the time? Not ready with the ammunition to dismantle your statement -- but.....


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Looking forward to the challenge. It has worked for about 4 decades so far but I'm constantly looking for ways to refine it and so, when you've gathered your ammo together, you may challenge something I hadn't thought of.
Cuando quieras, compadre!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

Wow.,.. I am in the presence of some amazing academic minds on this forum and am grateful for all this grammar geek is learning.

Lazarus, Mhp, Outsider, Forero, Virg, Sendai... thank you. Bilbo's getting his money's worth in this thread.

Bilbo -- I want to add a few things from the perspective of a 'junkie student' like I think you are. In Spanish the Subjunctive, SE, and the versatility of word order are the real giants of Spanish grammar and they are not for the faint of heart. Our teachers tell us Spanish is easier to learn than French. Well that's only in Spanish 1. The moment you hit Intermediate and Advanced Spanish you quickly see you were lulled into a false sense of security learning "¿Está Susana en casa? Sí, con una amiga." 

But when it comes to subjunctive I will say that 85% of its use in the Spanish language can be learned and mastered proficiently if you memorize a list of cases. These uses of Subjunctive are for 'syntactic reasons' and not based on certain verbs. 'Querer', at best, calls for Subjunctive about half the time -- therefore I have to disagree that 'wanting something' is a 'clear indicator' that subjunctive is about to come. With verbs of 'influence' -- THEN you're talkin'! When 'querer' is a verb of influence and there's a subordinate clause where the subjunctive changes - then it's subjunctive every time. I'm pretty sure you know that -- but I'm reacting to the way you posed the question in your opening post. The other 15% of the cases where subjunctive is called for is in that 'twilight zone' of the 'adjective clause- formed: noun + que + verb, where the que + verb after the noun is an adjective describing the noun. In these cases the 'oversimplification' we all hear as students about the subjunctive being about 'doubt or uncertainty' has its full day in court. Though you need to add 'futurity' to the reasons subjunctive would be used in adjective clauses.

And as Sendai pointed out -- the definite or indefinite article isn't the best indicator of what mood the verb after que should be in in the adjective clause. When coming upon the adjective clauses you can teach yourself to think this way:

"I want to buy __noun__ that ________"
--ask yourself if the description you're giving is '_uncertain/denied/off in the future_. If that is the case -- then there's a good chance the verb goes in the *subjunctive*. As with all rules of thumb there are exceptions. If the description is something _identified/known in present or past _then the mood is *indicative*.

But completely focussed on your first post -- there is 'no' verb before the [noun + que + verb] syntax that would affect the mood of the verb 'after' the [noun + que + verb]. The mood of the verb in the adjective clause is 'on its own' and is determined by the uncertainty/denied existence/futurity of the intent of the speaker.

Just another angle at which to come on this amazingly deep topic.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## mhp

virgilio said:


> mhp,
> Thank you for your detailed reply. I do not, however, see the logic behind your statement:
> "   1. Mis padres me obligaban a levantarme temprano todos los domingos.
> 2. Mis padres me obligaban a que me levantara temprano todos los domingos.
> If we consider the first sentence as a simple clause with no subordinates, then there is no explanation for the magical appearance of a subordinate clause in the second sentence." (my underlining)
> 
> Leaving aside the imprecise nature of your use of the word "subordinates" -  which might well explain the problem - oblique substantival phrases are frequently in many different languages interchanged with oblique substantival clauses. To take a single example which springs to mind, consider, if you will, the verb "to recommend", as used in UK English:
> The doctor recommended me to take a brisk walk every morning.
> (infinitive phrase)
> The doctor recommended (that I should) take a brisk walk every morning.
> (subordinate clause)
> The doctor recommended taking a brisk walk every morning.
> (English gerund)
> 
> Management of indirect speech in its three forms can be largely reduced in any language I have met to knowing which of the three above modes of expression any particular language happens to choose for each of the three forms of indirect speech..
> Re:"let me just say that from a purely syntactical point of view, identification of subordinate clauses involves more than counting number of conjunctions."
> Yes but not much more and certainly you can't afford to miscount the conjunctions, for in every well-formed - and therefore syntactically correct - sentence, where _x_ is the number of verbs, _x-1_ is always the number of conjunctions.
> Pairs of correlative clauses may be considered the exception to this rule, unless the interrogative correlative is taken - as it sometimes is - to be a conjunction.
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 I feel that we are at an impasse. I gave you two “well-formed formulas” with identical semantics. Your system of syntactic analysis based on a head count of conjunctions comes up with 2=1 clauses—the fundamental unit for any further analysis. If you cannot see the fallacy of your system, I must bow out.


----------



## virgilio

mhp,
      Really sorry to hear that. I'm also sorry that I can't just seem to work out exactly where you are saying that 'my' system - though it's only my very minor adaptation of a system which has been going for centuries - goes wrong. I'll keep re-reading what you wrote and maybe I'll get lucky.
Thanks anyway.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> mhp,
> Really sorry to hear that. I'm also sorry that I can't just seem to work out exactly where you are saying that 'my' system - though it's only my very minor adaptation of a system which has been going for centuries - goes wrong. I'll keep re-reading what you wrote and maybe I'll get lucky.
> Thanks anyway.
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Virg,
Maybe you can use MHP's two sentence examples and tell us where the conjunctions are in both. And count the verbs. In his example #1 without the 'que' (itself a conjunction) I see two verbs and 'no' conjunctions. Explain that please.

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Oh, now I think I see what mhp was driving at. Thank you. Am I wrong or  are we still under the impression that infinitives are 'verbs'?  If that old heresy is still rampant, then - as mhp says - we really are at an impasse.
The two sentences concerned were, I believe:
  1. Mis padres me obligaban a levantarme temprano todos los domingos.
  2. Mis padres me obligaban a que me levantara temprano todos los domingos. 

Sentence 1 is a simple (that is, one verb) sentence and so has 1-1 conjunctions.
Sentence 2 is a complex sentence with 2 verbs and so has 2-1 conjunctions, the 1 conjunction being, of course, the ubiquitous "que".

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> Thank you. Am I wrong or  are we still under the impression that infinitives are 'verbs'?  If that old heresy is still rampant, then - as mhp says - we really are at an impasse.


¿Cómo denominas a una palabra que tiene sujeto, puede pasarse a pasiva, y acepta todos los complementos que solo un verbo aceptaría? Como has dicho en varias ocasiones: ¿Puedes darme una respuesta sola? Espero una categoría gramatical o sintáctica que acepte todos esos complementos (es decir, complementos verbales).


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Oh, now I think I see what mhp was driving at. Thank you. Am I wrong or  are we still under the impression that infinitives are 'verbs'?  If that old heresy is still rampant, then - as mhp says - we really are at an impasse.
> The two sentences concerned were, I believe:
> 1. Mis padres me obligaban a levantarme temprano todos los domingos.
> 2. Mis padres me obligaban a que me levantara temprano todos los domingos.
> 
> Sentence 1 is a simple (that is, one verb) sentence and so has 1-1 conjunctions.
> Sentence 2 is a complex sentence with 2 verbs and so has 2-1 conjunctions, the 1 conjunction being, of course, the ubiquitous "que".
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Well infinitives are verbs. That's irrefutable -- as any dictionary or book of basic grammar in any language will quickly prove out. I'm not interested in playing 'semantic games'.. ;-) But make your case -- why an infinitive isn't a verb. And I would prefer you make your argument from modern precedent and not from a dead language like Latin. Naw on second thought I want to hear all angles. I'm a learner. ;-)

Grant


----------



## virgilio

lazarus1907,
                Si con la palabra algo vaga "sujeto" va significado la palabra más precisa "nominativo", denomino a tale palabra "verbo". Pero por qué me lo preguntas?

La tua frase "puede pasarse a pasiva" la encuentro interesante. Me parece algo prescriptiva, como si una palabra a la que faltasse la sola capacidad de ser pasiva - por otras capacidades verbales que tuviera - no fuera verbo.
Me parece algo duro. No estás de acuerdo?

Best wishes
Virgilio

PS: RE "Espero una categoría gramatical o sintáctica que acepte todos esos complementos (es decir, complementos verbales)"
Los verbos son más grandes de eso. Tienen otras cosas además de "complementos verbales".


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Re:"Well infinitives are verbs. That's irrefutable -- as any dictionary or book of basic grammar in any language will quickly prove out. I'm not interested in playing 'semantic games'.. ;-) But make your case -- why an infinitive isn't a verb. And I would prefer you make your argument from modern precedent and not from a dead language like Latin. Naw on second thought I want to hear all angles. I'm a learner. ;-)"

Very decent of you, Grant, to allow what you call 'dead' languages to have a say - in addition to the 'dying' languages, I mean, which we all happen to be speaking. They are, of course, no more 'dying' than Latin is 'dead'.
 If you still think Latin is dead, by the way, try learning Spanish or Portuguese or Italian or Romanian or even French. If you still didn't hear the language of ancient Rome on the lips of that civilisation's modern legatees, it would be a sign that you had never learned Latin in the first place, which I cannot believe of you.
Besides, syntax - which is what I'm talking about - is unchanging. I'm not interested in 'semantic games' either. They bore me rigid.
Anyway to get down to your question. If mhp doesn't mind, I'll use one of his expressions but translated into English:
What would you call a word that is is qualified by adjectives, frequently acts as a nominative and even more frequently as a verb-object and forms its plural (in Spanish) by the addition of the substantival suffix "-es"?

If you are not too bored by the comment, may I repeat that what I personally am talking about is syntax, which is, of course, about how words validly fit into sentences and is therefore about - sorry if I'm overusing this metaphor - what 'shape' they have  *on the outside*.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

Virgilio, without attempting to discuss the linguistic intricacies, most of which I must confess to be unable to follow, I would like to ask you a different question: Why should we prefer your analysis (i.e., the one that says that infinitives are not verbs, and that the first sentence above has only one clause)? 

Mhp's analysis, in my opinion, has one great advantage: it makes it clear that the two sentences, while having a different form, are equivalent. It makes it clear how one can be converted into the other. And the same kind of analysis, in the sentence we were discussing at the start of this thread, makes it clear why the verb "ver" has no business being in subjunctive. Now, what valuable insights might we gain from _your_ analysis?


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Re:"Well infinitives are verbs. That's irrefutable -- as any dictionary or book of basic grammar in any language will quickly prove out. I'm not interested in playing 'semantic games'.. ;-) But make your case -- why an infinitive isn't a verb. And I would prefer you make your argument from modern precedent and not from a dead language like Latin. Naw on second thought I want to hear all angles. I'm a learner. ;-)"
> 
> Very decent of you, Grant, to allow what you call 'dead' languages to have a say - in addition to the 'dying' languages, I mean, which we all happen to be speaking. They are, of course, no more 'dying' than Latin is 'dead'.
> If you still think Latin is dead, by the way, try learning Spanish or Portuguese or Italian or Romanian or even French. If you still didn't hear the language of ancient Rome on the lips of that civilisation's modern legatees, it would be a sign that you had never learned Latin in the first place, which I cannot believe of you.
> Besides, syntax - which is what I'm talking about - is unchanging. I'm not interested in 'semantic games' either. They bore me rigid.
> Anyway to get down to your question. If mhp doesn't mind, I'll use one of his expressions but translated into English:
> What would you call a word that is is qualified by adjectives, frequently acts as a nominative and even more frequently as a verb-object and forms its plural (in Spanish) by the addition of the substantival suffix "-es"?
> 
> If you are not too bored by the comment, may I repeat that what I personally am talking about is syntax, which is, of course, about how words validly fit into sentences and is therefore about - sorry if I'm overusing this metaphor - what 'shape' they have  *on the outside*.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Well -- thanks for the verbiage... but you didn't answer my question. I'd really like to know 'why', specifically, and backed by a source, is an infinitive verb not a verb. And can I infer then that a gerund is not a verb and a past participle is not a verb, etc.? IF you're going to educate us -- educate us, my good colleague.

Grant


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            Thank you for your crucial question "Why should we prefer your analysis?" 
 First of all, I don't say that you should. After all "de gustibus non est disputandum", as the fellow said. 
What I do maintain about what you rather flatteringly call "my" system - in point of fact, all I have done is to 'update' in a very minor way a system, which has been going for centuries and, for all I know, maybe millennia - is that it is simpler, less complex and rests on fewer axioms than any other system I have yet seen.
I do not say that any alternative system of explaining and processing linguistic data is in any way intrinsically inferior or less "true" than my preferred system - for we are all in this line of work dealing with abstract theories, just as mathematicians and trigonometricians are.
The great advantage that it has for me, at least, is that once the very few axioms and their applications have been mastered, the whole subject of international syntax becomes as simple as ABC and requires none of the long lists of complex explanations so commonly seen in recent grammar reference documents.
I suggest that where two logical systems are equally valid, that one is superior which rests on fewer premisses.
But you may actually prefer a more complex system. If so, don't adopt mine. You'll find it too simple.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> I feel that we are at an impasse. I gave you two “well-formed formulas” with identical semantics. Your system of syntactic analysis based on a head count of conjunctions comes up with 2=1 clauses—the fundamental unit for any further analysis. If you cannot see the fallacy of your system, I must bow out.



MHP,
To be clear are you saying that in the sentence without the 'que' -- of yours -- that you consider there to be '2' clauses there? That's a stretch for me. Please explain. I don't see 'subordination' in it nor 'independent' which would need another stated subject -- syntactically speaking.

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      You  asked me, as I recall, to explain why an infinitive isn't a verb.
I answered it by asking:"What would you call a word that is is qualified by adjectives, frequently acts as a nominative and even more frequently as a verb-object and forms its plural (in Spanish) by the addition of the substantival suffix "-es"?
If you want the short answer: it's not a verb because it's so obviously a substantive. I deny that any word can be a substantive and a verb simultaneously.
As for gerunds and participles, well of course they can't be verbs! 
Gerunds (English or Latin style, that is) are substantives and are the alternative *label* which we stick on that bundle of forms that constitute what we mean by a verb.

The other alternative *label* is the infinitive. Infinitive and gerund are the two sides of the same coin. You must have seen how they are often interchangeable and, even where not, where one won't do the other will. And *labels* are names and names are substantives.
When we talk about "the verb "to write"" it is like the headmaster of a school talking about "the boy Jones Minor". The label is *not* the thing it labels. That - in a nutshell -is why infinitives and gerunds are *not* verbs.

Participles (all participles, not just the past participle) are adjectives. It's the only way that they can fit into sentences. If you don't believe me, try evolving a manageable *total* *system* yourself, in which they can fit in as anything else.
Sorry about the quantity of 'verbiage', but you did ask to be 'educated'.

All the best,
Virg.


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
       Just a quick postscript.  You keep asking for sources but does a man in a forest ask to be shown trees.  You and I are, I think, articulate enough to throw a sentence or two together in good English to demonstrate syntax principles. For our purposes I don't think we actually need to quote Shakespeare or Dickens.

Virg.


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> Thank you for your crucial question "Why should we prefer your analysis?"
> First of all, I don't say that you should. After all "de gustibus non est disputandum", as the fellow said.
> What I do maintain about what you rather flatteringly call "my" system - in point of fact, all I have done is to 'update' in a very minor way a system, which has been going for centuries and, for all I know, maybe millennia - is that it is simpler, less complex and rests on fewer axioms than any other system I have yet seen.


Does grammar not have the right to evolve? The ancients broke a lot of ground, but perhaps modern linguists deserve some credit, too...

As to which system is simpler, I will have to attempt to understand yours, to see if I agree. So far, the system used by Mhp and the other posters seems more intuitive to me.

Perhaps I'm biased. I'm very used to thinking of infinitives as verbs, since in Portuguese we even conjugate them according to subject. 



virgilio said:


> You  asked me, as I recall, to explain why an infinitive isn't a verb.
> I answered it by asking:"What would you call a word that is is qualified by adjectives, frequently acts as a nominative and even more frequently as a verb-object and forms its plural (in Spanish) by the addition of the substantival suffix "-es"?
> If you want the short answer: it's not a verb because it's so obviously a substantive. *I deny that any word can be a substantive and a verb simultaneously.*


Why? I think this is the crux of the matter.

Adjectives can be substantivized or used as adverbs, substantives can be used as adjectives, why shouldn't verbs be allowed to turn into nouns?


----------



## Outsider

*NewdestinyX*, your explanation of the subjunctive in Spanish (and Portuguese)* is excellent. 

*I've been realising lately that French is a different story altogether.


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
           I agree. This is indeed a crucial point which could be conclusive.
"Adjectives" you say, "can be substantivized or used as adverbs, substantives can be used as adjectives, why shouldn't verbs be allowed to turn into nouns?"  (my underlining)

But if one thing turns into another, is it still what it was before?
If ice turns into water, is it still ice? And, if water turns into steam, is it still water.
If you say that steam *is* water, you have in a way destroyed the word "steam".
I agree that infinitives, (English) gerunds and participles (what I call for my students "pseudo-verbs") all contain verbal elements within them. That, of course, is palpably obvious. What I deny is that any of the three can fit into any sentence as a verb. Any attempts to make them do so have resulted in chaotic - and certainly unintelligible - definitions of basic  linguistic units, such as sentence, clause, conjunction.
I would  be very interested indeed to see any attempt to evolve a total workable and consistent system in which what we call infinitives, gerunds and participles could operate as verbs.
You ask:"Does grammar not have the right to evolve? The ancients broke a lot of ground, but perhaps modern linguists deserve some credit, too..."
  Of course, they do but the interesting thing is that the syntax hasn't changed - quo yo sepa - in two and a half millennia.
What changes is the choices that different languages make for the same linguistic purposes.
Let's take, for example, *indirect request*
English, French, German and Italian generally prefer the _"(accusative and) infinitive"_ method, whereas Spanish generally prefers the _"subjunctive clause"_ method, while Turkish goes - if my memory serves me right - for the "_gerund_" method, but I'll have to check that one.
He told me to sit down
Il m'a demandé de m'asseoir
Er bat mich (darum), Platz zu nehmen
Mi ha chiesto di accomodarmi
Me pidiò que me sentara

And so, once the three options are recognised, the internationality and apparently also the millennia-old durability of syntax means that when you are learning a new language and you want to use indirect request, all you need to do is find out which of the three methods the language concerned happens generally to prefer. And the same three methods hold good also for the other two forms of _oratio obliqua_ indirect question and indirect statement.
Syntax is the permanent principle in a changing world and, if you speak or write, you can't escape using the systems of expression which seem to have been pre-set in everyone's mind and are subsequently conditioned only by which language or languages you actually know.
In that sense ancient grammarians and their modern counterparts are all in the same boat. The difference is that the ancients, for whom paper was more precious than it is for us, didn't make such a song and dance about it.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> Let's take, for example, *indirect request*
> English, French, German and Italian generally prefer the _"(accusative and) infinitive"_ method, whereas Spanish generally prefers the _"subjunctive clause"_ method, while Turkish goes - if my memory serves me right - for the "_gerund_" method, but I'll have to check that one.
> He told me to sit down
> Il m'a demandé de m'asseoir
> Er bat mich (darum), Platz zu nehmen
> Mi ha chiesto di accomodarmi
> Me pidiò que me sentara


Right, so why shouldn't all those sentences have the same number of clauses? According to you, they don't.



virgilio said:


> outsider,
> I agree. This is indeed a crucial point which could be conclusive.
> "Adjectives" you say, "can be substantivized or used as adverbs, substantives can be used as adjectives, why shouldn't verbs be allowed to turn into nouns?"  (my underlining)
> 
> But if one thing turns into another, is it still what it was before?


Are you saying that adjectives and adverbs do not exist because one can be turned into the other?

Quite frankly, the impression I get is that you attempt to analyse every language through the prism of classical Latin grammar. Perhaps that doesn't always work. Languages are incredibly diverse, much more than classical grammarians ever imagined...


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
            You ask:"Right, so why shouldn't all those sentences have the same number of clauses? According to you, they don't."
But why should they? According to what rule - mathematical or otherwise - should they?
The same subordinate _idea_ can be transmitted by a phrase or by a clause, as mhp's two original sentences demonstrated. Here are a couple more off the top of my head:
I believe that he is a philosopher  (2 verbs, 2 clauses, 1 conjunction (that)
I believe him to be a philosopher  (1 verb, simple sentence, 0 conjunctions.)

You continue:"Are you saying that adjectives and adverbs do not exist because one can be turned into the other?"
No, I am saying simply that the seven traditional "parts of speech" are mutually exclusive. An adverb, incidentally cannot be turned into an adjective and the only way in which an adjective can be thought to be 'turned into' an adverb is by having the adjective in question qualify an existing adverb:
e.g.
rapida mente

Hardly the same thing as the adjective 'turning into' the adverb.

Re:"Languages are incredibly diverse, much more than classical grammarians ever imagined..."
Any particular classical grammarian in mind? 

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> You continue:"Are you saying that adjectives and adverbs do not exist because one can be turned into the other?"
> No, I am saying simply that the seven traditional "parts of speech" are mutually exclusive. An adverb, incidentally cannot be turned into an adjective and the only way in which an adjective can be thought to be 'turned into' an adverb is by having the adjective in question qualify an existing adverb:
> e.g.
> rapida mente


Here's a counterexample from English:

John is a fast runner. (fast = adjective)
Mary talks fast. (fast = adverb, equivalent to "quickly")​


----------



## Saratoga

Friends,

I think we are starting to enter an area where we are essentially talking about different syntactic theories without actually giving them their names.  So I would guess from reading all of this that many of the participants in this discussion are actually people with pretty extensive training in linguistics and grammar teaching.

The question of the part of speech of infinitives, gerunds, and participles is, in my opinion, one that cannot be resolved without knowing how other parts of the grammar work.  (For example, we need to know the rules of what words can modify other words, the rules for when conjunctions are needed, the rules for forming clauses, the rules for the types of objects/complements that may follow words of different classes.)  All those other parts are involved in the argumentation here.

So, to lay one's cards on the table here -- my training is in Chomskian generative syntax (and the particular variant called Lexical-Functional Grammar, or LFG).

In LFG, we largely give the same sorts of analysis that Outsider is proposing, in which English infinitives are verbs.   LFG also countenances the idea of "mixed categories",  where some things like participles show a mix of nominal and verbal qualities.   So in an example like

Mary's accepting the award surprised John

_receiving_ is an example of a mixed category.  It is preceded by a possessive, so it is acts like a noun.  However, nouns in English cannot be followed directly by a noun phrase object:

Mary's acceptance of the award surprised John
Mary's acceptance the award surprised John

[English mixed V-N categories often have a "janus-like" character, with nominal properties to the left and verbal properties to the right.]

I said above that the English infinitive is treated as a verb.  However, there is some good evidence that the Spanish infinitive is more like a mixed category element.   

For more details on the LFG approach to grammar, you can see http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/LFG/.   This will have links to textbooks and to papers on issues like mixed categories.

So I tend to agree with Outsider's analyses here.  That is not to say that Virgilio's analysis might not  indeed be a coherent one, but I think we would need to know more about how this theory of syntax works as a whole.

Virgilio, could you give us some more general references to the style of syntax you are discussing?   Is it a theory you have developed on your own, or is it known by some name in general linguistics or Romance linguistics?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Saratoga said:


> So, to lay one's cards on the table here -- my training is in Chomskian generative syntax (and the particular variant called Lexical-Functional Grammar, or LFG).
> 
> In LFG, we largely give the same sorts of analysis that Outsider is proposing, in which English infinitives are verbs.   LFG also countenances the idea of "mixed categories",  where some things like participles show a mix of nominal and verbal qualities.   So in an example like
> 
> Mary's accepting the award surprised John
> 
> _receiving_ is an example of a mixed category.  It is preceded by a possessive, so it is acts like a noun.  However, nouns in English cannot be followed directly by a noun phrase object:
> 
> Mary's acceptance of the award surprised John
> Mary's acceptance the award surprised John
> 
> [English mixed V-N categories often have a "janus-like" character, with nominal properties to the left and verbal properties to the right.]
> 
> I said above that the English infinitive is treated as a verb.  However, there is some good evidence that the Spanish infinitive is more like a mixed category element.
> 
> <BIG SNIP>
> 
> Virgilio, could you give us some more general references to the style of syntax you are discussing?   Is it a theory you have developed on your own, or is it known by some name in general linguistics or Romance linguistics?



Great challenge, Saratoga.. I too would like to know Virgilio's bases or system within which he's working. It's obviously based heavily in Latin and cases and declentions, etc. But then he'll surprise me with a fun twist on that. So I think it's fair to ask. But in your examples I'm unclear. There was no 'infinitive' in your sentences. And there wasn't the word 'receiving' that you italicized. So you left me hanging a little there. Can you clarify?

Grant


----------



## Outsider

I think that "receiving" ended up being spelled "accepting".


----------



## Perico Nuevo

Bilbo Baggins said:


> I´m not saying I want US to buy. I´m saying: "Quiero que compre....." Which of course is simply written: "Quiero comprar".



No quiero contradecir lo que dice mhp, pero si no es perfectamente claro, es importante que entiendas que _sin cambio _del sujeto _nunca_ se diría 'quiero que compre' en vez de 'quiero comprar'. Entonces, 'quiero que compre' siempre significaría 'quiero que usted/él/ella compre algo'.


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
            Re your:"Here's a counterexample from English:
John is a fast runner. (fast = adjective)
Mary talks fast. (fast = adverb, equivalent to "quickly")"

Of course. You are right. You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. I never said that two different parts of speech could not be spelled the same. I merely said that adverbs could not *'turn into'* adjectives nor _vice versa_.

Best wishes
Virgilio​


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> I never said that two different parts of speech could not be spelled the same.


Excellent! I agree that two different parts of speech _can_ be spelled the same. And that's precisely what happens with the Spanish nouns you think are infinitives.


----------



## virgilio

Saratoga,
             Thank you for your reply. I am in complete agreement with you on the following:
"The question of the part of speech of infinitives, gerunds, and participles is, in my opinion, one that cannot be resolved without knowing how other parts of the grammar work. (For example, we need to know the rules of what words can modify other words, the rules for when conjunctions are needed, the rules for forming clauses, the rules for the types of objects/complements that may follow words of different classes.) All those other parts are involved in the argumentation here."

That is the very point I have been trying from time to time to suggest - alas! without much success - on this forum. The answers we have to questions such as whether infinitives, gerunds and participles are verbs or not are *not* simply peripheral but, as you imply, will affect our total syntax system and its consistency.
The system I use consists of my own personal minor adaptations of traditional syntax and I am in the final stages of writing a textbook on it, which I have decided to call "Logocentric Syntax". I have provisionally chosen this title because I feel that some of the circuitous digressions of recent linguistics works that I have seen could be avoided, if the authors were to concentrate their attentions exclusively on words as the 'atoms' of language and resist the temptation to admit phrases as 'atoms'.
Naturally, even a system of syntax as simple as the one I use cannot be adequately summarised in a few words but with only three chapters still to go I have managed to keep it - including exercises - so far to 103 pages and so it will hardly be a shelf-breaker.
I'm afraid I don't know the LFG system but with Chomsky in its corner it must be good.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
           Re:"I agree that two different parts of speech _can_ be spelled the same. And that's precisely what happens with the Spanish nouns you think are infinitives"

But even allowing for the sake of argument that what you suggest were true, it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether infinitives were substantives or verbs. So I don't quite see where you are, so to speak, going with this.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> But even allowing for the sake of argument that what you suggest were true, it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether infinitives were substantives or verbs. So I don't quite see where you are, so to speak, going with this.


You used those words to claim that in Spanish infinitives could have plurals. But, as I argue (following Lazarus), the examples you gave are not infinitives. They are nouns -- that's why they have plurals.

Either that, or we must reject your axiom that "the same word cannot be both a noun and a verb".


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
             Re:"the examples you gave are not infinitives. They are nouns -- that's why they have plurals."

But infinitives *are* substantives, or what you call 'nouns'. In a South American song I hear the singer describing his girl as the inspiration "de mis cantares". And "mi cantar" occurs in that very famous song "Granada".
Are you saying that these very obvious substantives have no connection at all with a certain Spanish infinitive? I simply don't believe it.

" Either that," you go on "or we must reject your axiom that "the same word cannot be both a noun and a verb".

You've lost me there! Your argument appears to be that, unless I agree that words which I have claimed to be infinitives are _'not infinitives but "nouns"'_ - if you please! -, my axiom that the seven traditional parts of speech are mutually exclusive will be disproved.
I'm sorry, outsider. It is rather late, I know, but I just don't see any logical connection between that protasis and this apodosis.

I'll have another look at it in the morning.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Saratoga

Thanks to Virgilio for more details on logocentric syntax.

A few elaborations on mixed categories --

a.)  the argument that Romance infinitives have a mixture of nominal and verbal properties is most extensively argued for Italian in a 1993 book by Alessandro Zucchi.  He shows that normally adjectives modify nouns and adverbs modify verbs -- but Italian infinitives can take both kinds of modification:

1.) il    suo continuo eseguire la canzione impeccabilimente
     the his continuous perform(INFIN)  the song impeccably

'his continous performance of the song impeccably'

Those who are native Spanish speakers or who have better control of the data can tell me whether the equivalent Spanish phrases would be good or not.

Simultaneous appearance of adjectives and adverbs is the most dramatic evidence, but there are a number of other tests that seem to show the same results in Italian.

b.) English infinitives, by contrast, seem to show only verbal properties.
So in this analysis, English infinitives are only verbs --not mixed V+N categories.

c.)  English participles in -ing, however, act much like Italian infinitives in showing mixed categorial behavior. 


(And sorry I muffed the "accepting/receiving" distinction in a previous post!  Changed my mind halfway through and missed one word change.)


----------



## lazarus1907

Saratoga said:


> However, there is some good evidence that the Spanish infinitive is more like a mixed category element.


That's the approach most Spanish grammars use, since it is clear that they clearly exhibit both nominal and verbal properties. This has been known by Spanish grammarians, at least, since the XIX century.


virgilio said:


> In a South American song I hear the singer describing his girl as the inspiration "de mis cantares". And "mi cantar" occurs in that very famous song "Granada".


You have to learn more Spanish before arguing, because "el cantar / los cantares" has been classified as a noun since the first edition of the RAE dictionary (beginning of 18th century), and documented since the 12th century; it's pretty much like "song" in English. However, you cannot do that with the majority of the verbs, so your argument is pointless; a tiny handful of verbs have been used to create some nouns, but you cannot prove that they all are nouns only because a few of them are. 





virgilio said:


> Si con la palabra algo vaga "sujeto" va significado la palabra más precisa "nominativo", denomino a tale palabra "verbo". Pero por qué me lo preguntas?


Sabes perfectamente qué es el sujeto: I, you, he/she, we & they. Los sustantivos no tienen, ni pueden sujeto: "I car" / "Yo coche" ; los verbos sí, y los infinitivos también. Los verbos aceptan complementos directos, indirectos, circunstanciales, regidos, atributos, predicativos y agentes. Ningún sustantivo acepta ninguno de estos complementos. Por otro lado, los infinitivos aceptan actualizadores que las formas verbales conjugadas no aceptan, y pueden formar oraciones sustantivas sin necesidad de conjunción.


----------



## virgilio

Lazarus,
           Diciendo "Sabes perfectamente qué es el sujeto: I, you, he/she, we & they. Los sustantivos no tienen, ni pueden sujeto:" Ud me juzga algo injustamente.
La palabra "sujeto" tiene una conotación mucho más amplia que la palabra "nominativo". Si no estoy equivocado, va usado, por ejemplo, a veces en el senso de "tipo" "fellow" "chap" "bloke". 
Por esa razón en el inglés también yo prefiero "nominative" al más vago "subject".
Pero, si Ud prefiere la inexactitud, OK.

 Re:"You have to learn more Spanish before arguing, because "el cantar / los cantares" has been classified as a noun since the first edition of the RAE dictionary (beginning of 18th century), and documented since the 12th century; it's pretty much like "song" in English."

Thank you for the explanation but I had pretty well worked that last bit out for myself within seconds of hearing it in the song (though I am indebted to you for all the RAE and 12th century information). 
The problem, you see, which all lexicographers - and text-book writers too, if it comes to that -  face is how much basic knowledge (not to mention imagination and intuition) they may assume their readers to have. It's something you've got to get right, if you want to sell your material and publishers are no fools. They know their business  as I'm sure they did also in the 12th century. We are no longer in a position, I imagine, to ask those who rightly 'documented' words like "cantar" or "pesar" as "nouns" in the publications you cite, whether they had perhaps omitted to mention that those "nouns" were, of course, infinitives - possibly because the fact was so blindingly obvious that they may have thought it hardly worth mentioning.
Similarly English lexicographers, in commenting on a phrase like "In the writings of Plato", would scarcely feel it necessary to point out that "writings" in that context was the plural of a gerund. Those who know about gerunds would have worked it out for themselves and those who don't, wouldn't thank you for the information anyway.

Best wishes
Virgilio

PS: Incidentally (except in a particular Portuguese and an ancient Greek construction) when the verbal element within infinitives is accompanied by a substantive which would have been what you call a 'sujeto', if the infinitive had been a verb, that 'sujeto' in the languages of my acquaintance is not "I, you, he/she, we & they" but "me, you, him/her, us, them".


----------



## Outsider

lazarus1907 said:


> Los sustantivos no tienen, ni pueden sujeto: "I car" / "Yo coche" ; los verbos sí, y los infinitivos también. Los verbos aceptan complementos directos, indirectos, circunstanciales, regidos, atributos, predicativos y agentes. Ningún sustantivo acepta ninguno de estos complementos. Por otro lado, los infinitivos aceptan actualizadores que las formas verbales conjugadas no aceptan, y pueden formar oraciones sustantivas sin necesidad de conjunción.


This is the point I was trying to make earlier, though I was perhaps too forceful in my opposition to Virgilio. (He's been pretty forceful in his opposition to everyone else's analysis, which happens to be the standard one!)

*Can we all agree that, in Spanish at least, infinitives can be seen both as nouns and as verbs?* Some theories treat them as the former (Virgilio's), others as the latter, and most modern linguists accept that they can act as either one.



virgilio said:


> PS: Incidentally (except in a particular Portuguese and an ancient Greek construction) when the verbal element within infinitives is accompanied by a substantive which would have been what you call a 'sujeto', if the infinitive had been a verb, that 'sujeto' in the languages of my acquaintance is not "I, you, he/she, we & they" but "me, you, him/her, us, them".


That seems interesting, but I'm afraid I did not understand what you were talking about. Can you give an example?


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            I feel we are talking at crossed purposes. It really is - as I've said before - all a matter of how you define "verb" and how you define "noun". It's in the definitions that we seem to disagree, although I can't say for certain because I've no way of knowing what your definition would be. (I'm not asking, by the way!)
When two people disagree on the definitions of premisses, all further discussion is rather otiose.
Incidentally, I have no "opposition to everyone else's analysis, which happens to be the standard one!" I just hold the view that the 'standard one' of today suffers - from what I have seen of it - from unnecessary complication (always a weakness in any system of logic), which might be susceptible of correction by a little contact with the 'standard one' of yesteryear.

Re:"That seems interesting, but I'm afraid I did not understand what you were talking about. Can you give an example?"

Certainly. "He believes me to be a fool"

In the languages of my acquaintance the 'subject' of an infinitive - what would have been the subject of the verb, if the infinitive had been a verb - is (with the two occasional exceptions referred to) always accusative.

By the way, thinking about your use of "sujeto" in an earlier post, I am now convinced - thanks to you - that the designation "subject" has semantic  advantages which I had earlier overlooked. Thank you.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Forero

Is it not possible to say "Al llegar a la casa yo, todos empezamos a regatear"?

I am rather loose with my terminology, not having studied or developed a complete theory of syntax, but I am tempted to call "yo" the subject of "llegar" in such a sentence (if it is a sentence).


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> Re:"That seems interesting, but I'm afraid I did not understand what you were talking about. Can you give an example?"
> 
> Certainly. "He believes me to be a fool"
> 
> In the languages of my acquaintance the 'subject' of an infinitive - what would have been the subject of the verb, if the infinitive had been a verb - is (with the two occasional exceptions referred to) always accusative.


That's an interesting example. I wonder how it's analysed syntactically.

Is "me" the object of "believe"? The subject of "to be"? Both?...


----------



## Saratoga

"He believes me to be a fool"

is a construction called "raising-to-object"  by most contemporary syntacticians  and called "accusativus cum infinitivo"  in the classical tradition.

Contemporary syntactic theory is very divided on the right analysis.  "Me"  has  some properties that make it like an object of "believe"  and other properties that make it like the subject of "be".   So according to your theory, it is one of the following:

a.) moved from the lower subject position to the upper object position
b.) in the lower subject position but exceptionally marked accusative by the verb 'believe'
c.) in the upper object position, but controlling the subject interpretation of the lower verb.


----------



## lazarus1907

Forero said:


> I am rather loose with my terminology, not having studied or developed a complete theory of syntax, but I am tempted to call "yo" the subject of "llegar" in such a sentence (if it is a sentence).


Open any advanced book of grammar written in Spanish, and you'll see that "yo" is the subject of "llegar".


----------



## NewdestinyX

lazarus1907 said:


> Open any advanced book of grammar written in Spanish, and you'll see that "yo" is the subject of "llegar".



We had a very lengthy debate about this when I first arrived at WR. Only about half of you agreed that 'yo' can even be in that position in the sentence because the presence of the infinitive, in traditional grammar, has to mirror the subject of the second clause -- or you have to conjugate both verbs if the subjects of the clauses are different. The thread ended up in a stalemate and getting closed. ;-) But your comment is by no means agreed upon by all grammarians, Laz.  And I know you have lots of examples of educated people using it for many years. I am just saying is not a 'widely accepted' syntax by 'all' grammarians. Though I agree, that IF you are going to allow 'yo' in the sentence in the first clause -- it has to be the subject of 'llegar' for sure.

Grant


----------



## virgilio

Yes, I have seen sentences of the "al llegar yo" type. I  imagine that the preposition "a" assisting, as it does, the oblique substantive "el llegar" is intuitively felt to be separable from its substantive only be an adjective - like the English "on my arriving" or more colloquially "on me arriving". I suppose that an expression like "al mi(o) llegar" is not found in Spanish and yet a way has to be found somehow to link "me" with the infinitive and so we end up with a nominative and infinitive instead of the accusative and infinitive.
There are precedents in Portuguese, I believe, and ancient Greek.
 I am reminded of an incident when my daughter was a very young child and I was giving her her pre-bedtime wash. Too young to have yet mastered the accusative and infinitive but realising in her childlike intuition that somehow a substantive had to be 'married' to an infinitive, she cried out, as she saw the soap and water approaching: "I don't want to Daddy wash my face". I call that thinking 'on your feet'
The same kind of problem, it seems to me.

Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
            Re: "Al llegar yo...etc." and your comment "That's an interesting example. I wonder how it's analysed syntactically.

Is "me" the object of "believe"? The subject of "to be"? Both?..."

In the example I gave it's the subject of "to be". In some cases involving verbs which naturally attract datives (tell, recommend, for example) it may be that the accusative gets 'attracted' into the dative to avoid reduplication.
e.g.
He told me to write a note.
English gives no clue in such cases whether the "me" is accusative (as would be normal for the subject of an infinitive) or dative indicating the person for whose advantage/disadvantage "he told" took place.
 The 'attraction' - if there is one - is easily 'digested' since datives and accusatives are both adverbs anyway.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> The 'attraction' - if there is one - is easily 'digested' since datives and accusatives are both adverbs anyway.



I actually am very impressed by the knowledge you've amassed, Virg. Will LOVE reading your book when it's done. I'll just bet you LOVE making statements like that one above... having done all the work you've done and the studying... knowing confidently that no one will be able to 'prove' the statement wrong but knowing that it's 'just plain loopy' to the average -- very advanced student of grammar.  --- You find yourself saying... "did he just say what I think he said?" -- "datives and accusatives are really just adverbs?"" "Surely he jests.." ;-)

Because I know you have a really good explanation -- I won't take you on -- but I think at times it would be fair to the serious students here for you to make a disclaimer or two like: 'Hey guys I'm a Latin teacher (or linguistics professor with 'old school tendencies') --- hear the next comment with that 'filter'". ;-)

Really Virg -- I'm learning a lot. Don't misunderstand me.. But what you propose often in these discussion is a lot to take in for students who really just need to know what's a direct versus indirect object pronoun. But make no mistake -- I would definitely take your class. ;-)

Now what was the topic of this thread again??? Oh yeah -- the subjunctive.

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Thank you, Grant, for your kind and generous comments. When it's published, I'll send you an autographed copy.
Yes, as you say, it is time to get back to the thread. As Shakespeare's Hamlet might have said, if he'd had a sense of humour:
"To be or not to be.... er, what was the question?"

All the very best
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> *NewdestinyX*, your explanation of the subjunctive in Spanish (and Portuguese)* is excellent.
> 
> *I've been realising lately that French is a different story altogether.



Thanks, Outsider, that means a lot coming from you as you too have great explanations you give and great questions you ask here. For me it's about simplifying things for students but not oversimplifying. But so many of the simplifications I found in my grammar books over the years were so convoluted or overly simple.

And you're right about French -- their subjunctive use is a lot less and dieing like English's. 

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Thank you, Grant, for your kind and generous comments. When it's published, I'll send you an autographed copy.
> Yes, as you say, it is time to get back to the thread. As Shakespeare's Hamlet might have said, if he'd had a sense of humour:
> "To be or not to be.... er, what was the question?"
> 
> All the very best
> Virgilio



LOL!!!. But I wouldn't mind if you sent me a private message giving me a little hint how datives are 'disguised' adverbs.

All the best,
Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> And you're right about French -- their subjunctive use is a lot less and dieing like English's.


I wouldn't say that it's dying (except for the past subjunctive), but I do see a profound difference in that in French the subjunctive seems to be much more tied to a set of conjunctions and verbs that act as "triggers", while in Spanish and Portuguese it's mostly governed by the speaker's convictions about the statements he makes.

Well, at least this is my impression right now. But my French is rather rusty, and I especially need to do a throrough review of the subjunctives, so take it all with a grain of salt.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> I wouldn't say that it's dying (except for the past subjunctive), but I do see a profound difference in that in French the subjunctive seems to be much more tied to a set of conjunctions and verbs that act as "triggers", while in Spanish and Portuguese it's mostly governed by the speaker's convictions about the statements he makes.
> 
> Well, at least this is my impression right now. But my French is rather rusty, and I especially need to do a throrough review of the subjunctives, so take it all with a grain of salt.



Well I can't agree that Spanish isn't tied to triggers. As I mentioned earlier in the thread. The Spanish Subjunctive is 85% triggers and should be taught that way. The last 15% is the 'intent' of the speaker and this is so only in 'adjective clauses' and certain subordinators:

*Tal vez* (indicative = 90% sure; subjunctive = not sure at all)
*Por muy/mucho/más que* (usually subjunctive)
*Dado que* (indicative = given that; subjunctive = Though____may)
*El hecho de que *(usually subjunctive because we use this to make a value judgement -- if it's an actual fact -- then indicative)
*Aunque* (indicative=even though; subjunctive present = even though___may; subjunctive past = even if)

They can all take either with the noted exceptions.

The "subordinators of time" can also take either -- but that has to do with futurity and not really with any 'shade of meaning' from the speaker.

But even that short list there is memorizable.

I can't speak much to French -- but the Spanish I'm sure of.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

I won't challenge your point of view; it's a point of view. But let me note that at the start of this thread several posters made the point that you can't expect that just because the main clause has the verb _querer_ the dependent clause will be in the subjunctive. You yourself made this point. In my view, it's not the presence of a particular verb or conjunction which triggers the subjunctive (usually). It's the semantics of whether the speaker wishes to assert or not assert (or determine versus not determine) what's in the dependent clause.

Learning the subjunctive in French (from what I recall of the classes I took years ago) is much more a question of memorizing a list of types of clauses that will require it "just because". Well, this is a caricature, but I hope you'll see the contrast I'm trying to make.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> I won't challenge your point of view; it's a point of view. But let me note that at the start of this thread several posters made the point that you can't expect that just because the main clause has the verb _querer_ the dependent clause will be in the subjunctive. You yourself made this point. In my view, it's not the presence of a particular verb or conjunction which triggers the subjunctive (usually). It's the semantics of whether the speaker wishes to assert or not assert (or determine versus not determine) what's in the dependent clause.
> 
> Learning the subjunctive in French (from what I recall of the classes I took years ago) is much more a question of memorizing a list of types of clauses that will require it "just because". Well, this is a caricature, but I hope you'll see the contrast I'm trying to make.



Oh I see your point -- You're just using the wrong argument that I made. -- I totally agree with you that the subjunctive is not tied to specific verbs. We're in total agreement with that -- and I told that to Bilbo as well. But 85% of Spanish's subjunctive is indeed tied to type of clauses. That's not a point of view. It's a fact. Easily provable. And if you try to learn Spanish's subjunctive on feel -- you'll be second guessing yourself all of the time and I fully believe it will shipwreck your studies. I have taught many and they all master the essentials of subjunctive with memorizing the cases for its use.

So agreed -- not ties to verbs.

But 'every time' you see 'Quiero que + a change of subject -- 100% of the time -- it uses subjunctive. No guess - no feeling around -- simple clause memorization. 85% of Spanish subjunctive is just that easy.

Does that make my point clearer?

Here's the list I gave to the foro in another thread:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=3396545&postcount=2

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> But 'every time' you see 'Quiero que + a change of subject -- 100% of the time -- it uses subjunctive. No guess - no feeling around -- simple clause memorization.


I find it even easier to think that that's because when you _want_ something you can't be sure that you'll get it (or you'd just take it) -- in other words, because the state of affairs that you want is not a fact to you. The same-old, same-old, basic rule of thumb.

But I must also admit that the Spanish subjunctive is no doubt much more intuitive to me than to English speakers learning Spanish. Perhaps it is easier for them to learn it by memorizing a list of clause types. 

And of course one's mileage may vary in these things. For myself, I dislike lengthy memorizations of disconnected cases. I like to have a unifying principle. I learned all the clause types that required the subjunctive in French years ago, but I'm coming to terms with the fact that I have now forgotten them due to lack of practice. I'm always making mistakes with the French subjunctive, in my opinion precisely because it works so much on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> I find it even easier to think that that's because when you _want_ something you can't be sure that you'll get it (or you'd just take it) -- in other words, because the state of affairs that you want is not a fact to you. The same-old, same-old, basic rule of thumb.
> 
> But I must also admit that the Spanish subjunctive is no doubt much more intuitive to me than to English speakers learning Spanish. Perhaps it is easier for them to learn it by memorizing a list of clause types.
> 
> And of course one's mileage may vary in these things. For myself, I dislike lengthy memorizations of disconnected cases. I like to have a unifying principle. I learned all the clause types that required the subjunctive in French years ago, but I'm coming to terms with the fact that I have now forgotten them due to lack of practice. I'm always making mistakes with the French subjunctive, in my opinion precisely because it works so much on a case-by-case basis.



You know, Outsider, I keep forgetting you are a Portuguese native. Of 'course' the Spanish Subjunctive would be a very different learning process for you. I can agree that for the English speaker -- cases and triggers are by far the best way to go -- again for 85%.. But I totally agree with your observation about 'querer' (and it works for most other 'indirect commands'; the clause type we're talking about) - and I remember early on in my personally study -- longing for a unifying principle myself -- I happened upon the 'but you might not get what you want' aspect of the indirect commands -- or 'it might not come to pass' is what I remember thinking. The problem was it didn't work for all uses of the subjunctive. Then I tried to add other exceptions to my little unifying principle and the principle got so long that the statement was useless. Then many a grammar-savvy native in my forum tried to really simplify it -- but then I would show them cases -- 'many' cases where their unifying principle didn't work. 

Thru a lot of study I found out the foundation of all subjunctive use is in _grammatical dependency_ and 'that's' the only explanation that explain all usage -- but it's a pretty linguistic-heavy topic and not user friendly at all. I still maintain there is no 'feel' to the Spanish subjunctive and that it's not all about uncertainty and doubt which most students stumble upon early in the their learning and then have to unlearn because they get stuck and overanalyze sentences for 'real doubt'. In Intermediate Spanish as we enter Subjunctive my very first statement is 'I don't care what you've heard' the Spanish Subj is not about 'doubt and uncertainty'.  

I will say though that at my stage of nearing fluency -- i now am starting to intuit a lot of those adjective clause cases and love the freedom I have with which to use the 'subjunctive' to express. It's just that no matter how hard I try or want something I can't use indicative to convey a 'real want' upon someone else. The 'grammar' not the 'feel' holds me back from expressing myself that way.

I gave my best shot at a unifying principle in a recent thread but I can't find it -- and it was something like:

The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is a the mood of:
•the unrealized
•the subjective reaction
•the unpredictable/unverifiable result (this is where 'querer que' fits)
•the unidentified
•the denied

It's not flowing or catchy. I'd love to find a "5 U's" principle. But I think my summation covers all cases for the English speaker.


----------



## lazarus1907

NewdestinyX said:


> Well I can't agree that Spanish isn't tied to triggers. As I mentioned earlier in the thread. The Spanish Subjunctive is 85% triggers and should be taught that way. The last 15% is the 'intent' of the speaker and this is so only in 'adjective clauses' and certain subordinators:
> 
> *Por muy/mucho/más que* (usually subjunctive)


No es por molestar, pero:

_ Por más que me esfuerzo, nunca lo consigo
Por mucho que intento aprender el idioma, siempre fracaso.

_Son dos ejemplos que se me vienen a la cabeza de manera espontánea y sin planearlo. Para mí, la diferencia es la de siempre: si se declara, es indicativo; si no, subjuntivo:

Por más que lo intento... (Declaro que lo he intentado)
Por más que lo intentes... (No declaro que lo has intentado; puede que lo hagas, puede que no)


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
       I am sincerely impressed by your intuitive grasp of the subjunctive (I hope that doesn't sound patronising; it's certainly not so intended) I hope you'll take it as a complement (which *is* intended) when I say that you should have been a classical linguist. Perhaps you are already, I don't know.
There was an interesting subjunctive I came across years ago in Miguel Delibes (I don't remember it completely). To which of your five categories would you ascribe it?
"El hecho de que a doña Lola se la conociera por La Guindilla Mayor ya hace suponer que......................etc."
If it does nothing else, that subjunctive certainly knocks on the head the mistaken notion that the subjunctive is just about doubt. It seems to me that one might call this a "substantive clause subjunctive" (not here an Indirect Request clause plainly) but nevertheless translatable into English by what I call a "qualified gerund".
The very fact of Miss Lola's being known as the Guindilla Mayor leads one to suppose that......."
I hope I've remembered it accurately. If not, sorry señor Delibes!.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> I am sincerely impressed by your intuitive grasp of the subjunctive (I hope that doesn't sound patronising; it's certainly not so intended) I hope you'll take it as a complement (which *is* intended) when I say that you should have been a classical linguist. Perhaps you are already, I don't know.
> There was an interesting subjunctive I came across years ago in Miguel Delibes (I don't remember it completely). To which of your five categories would you ascribe it?
> "El hecho de que a doña Lola se la conociera por La Guindilla Mayor ya hace suponer que......................etc."
> If it does nothing else, that subjunctive certainly knocks on the head the mistaken notion that the subjunctive is just about doubt. It seems to me that one might call this a "substantive clause subjunctive" (not here an Indirect Request clause plainly) but nevertheless translatable into English by what I call a "qualified gerund".
> The very fact of Miss Lola's being known as the Guindilla Mayor leads one to suppose that......."
> I hope I've remembered it accurately. If not, sorry señor Delibes!.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 I received your kind comment in the spirit in which it was given. But truth be told I was playing to an audience. I mean -- I think most good students of grammar know that the origin of the Subjunctive Mood or should I more accurately say grammatical dependency' is in Latin and 'classic grammar'. That was a point I had to argue much as many 'throw out the old' mentalities in my forum needed to be addressed. I often found myself arguing your points. Though I never took Latin in a school setting my subsequent reading about linguistics and grammar is full of enough info for me to be able to conjugate a few verbs and hang in a discussion on the topic. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have a few questions about cases where 'grammatical dependency' is a hard sell for some of Spanish's use of the Subj. I will PM you on those.

"El hecho de que" -- most often sets up a value judgment or perception about something the speaker thinks a fact. It may or may not be a fact. So it fits in my 'subjective reaction' category with the verbs of emotion... believe it or not.


----------



## NewdestinyX

lazarus1907 said:


> No es por molestar, pero:
> 
> _ Por más que me esfuerzo, nunca lo consigo
> Por mucho que intento aprender el idioma, siempre fracaso.
> 
> _Son dos ejemplos que se me vienen a la cabeza de manera espontánea y sin planearlo. Para mí, la diferencia es la de siempre: si se declara, es indicativo; si no, subjuntivo:
> 
> Por más que lo intento... (Declaro que lo he intentado)
> Por más que lo intentes... (No declaro que lo has intentado; puede que lo hagas, puede que no)



I'm sorry, Laz. I really want to understand the difference and the Spanish explanation isn't really making it clear to me. Could you explain the last half again in English. I want to be very clear about this.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I gave my best shot at a unifying principle in a recent thread but I can't find it -- and it was something like:
> 
> The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is a the mood of:
> •the unrealized
> •the subjective reaction
> •the unpredictable/unverifiable result (this is where 'querer que' fits)
> •the unidentified
> •the denied
> 
> It's not flowing or catchy. I'd love to find a "5 U's" principle. But I think my summation covers all cases for the English speaker.


I agree with those guidelines, but in my opinion they can be simplified even more.

The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is used:

to present a statement as non-factual
to refer to an indefinite (not specified) item from a class
Most "other" uses of the subjunctive can be regarded as instances of (1), provided you interpret "non-factualness" in a sufficiently liberal way. Sometimes, for instance, "non-factual" means not-yet-realized, or not-yet-accomplished, or I-don't-wish-to-commit-to-the-claim, or even nevermind-if-it's-true-or-not.

On thing that often confuses learners is that they fail to realise that as far as the subjunctive is concerned there are no absolute truths. "Factual" just means that the speaker believes it's true. More precisely, it just means that he wishes to _assert_ that it is true (he may be lying, of course).

Which leads me to another thing. Sometimes, I feel that the best way to define the subjunctive is in a negative way, by defining the indicative first.

The Spanish Indicative Mood is used to make or ask for assertions (statements of fact), or to refer to a definite item from a class. The subjunctive covers (almost) everything that isn't indicative.*​Well, of course there is also the imperative, for instance, and the non-finite forms, but it seems relatively easy, in general, for an English speaker to predict when those other forms need to be used. The tricky choice is between indicative and subjunctive.

*I would add that the subjunctive appears in dependent clauses.


----------



## mhp

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm sorry, Laz. I really want to understand the difference and the Spanish explanation isn't really making it clear to me. Could you explain the last half again in English. I want to be very clear about this.
> 
> Grant



I'm not Laz! But let me give it a shot. 
It is the same difference whether you use subjunctive or not after _cuando _when the main clause is in present tense: When something always occurs (habitually) you don't use subjunctive--i.e. It is a declarative statement. Does that make sense?


----------



## lazarus1907

mhp said:


> I'm not Laz! But let me give it a shot.
> It is the same difference when you use subjunctive or not after cuando when the main clause is in present tense: When something always occurs (habitually) you don't use subjunctive--i.e. It is a declarative statement. Does that make sense?


Listen to mhp! Is it clear to you now?


----------



## NewdestinyX

lazarus1907 said:


> Listen to mhp! Is it clear to you now?



Hmm.. okay then.. But "por muy/más/mucho que" is not a 'time subordinator' -- right? Like "cuando" is... Usually the issue with cuando is whether or not the action was unrealized in the present or past at the moment of utterance.

It seems that with -- "No matter how much I try...." how could one tell whether that's 'habitual' or not?? Or are you saying that "that's" exactly what the speaker transmits by choosing 'subj or ind'? Is that it?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> I agree with those guidelines, but in my opinion they can be simplified even more.The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is used:
> to present a statement as non-factual
> to refer to an indefinite (not specified) item from a class


First off most students would stumble on the word 'class' as you've used it there. Please explain. 





> Most "other" uses of the subjunctive can be regarded as instances of (1), provided you interpret "non-factualness" in a sufficiently liberal way. Sometimes, for instance, "non-factual" means not-yet-realized, or not-yet-accomplished, or I-don't-wish-to-commit-to-the-claim, or even nevermind-if-it's-true-or-not.


My feeling is that any of the 1 or 2 statement attempts to summarize the all of subjunctive require you to contort your explanation so as to fit many of the cases into any one or the two statements; just like you had to do with writing that paragraph (quoted immediately above) to explain and expand your statement #1 to include 'futurity' and other aspects -- opino que you'd *have to *include that paragraph or your students would be lost. They could not intuitively make "Cuando venga esta noche... " fit into either of your #1 or #2 alone. That's my opinion, Outsider -- maybe you've had great success. But the test of these is in a classroom of non-natives. That tells the whole story. Though I like your statements -- I think they may be too simple and may not be able to 'intuitively' explain all the cases for subj.



> One thing that often confuses learners is that they fail to realise that as far as the subjunctive is concerned there are no absolute truths. "Factual" just means that the speaker believes it's true. More precisely, it just means that he wishes to _assert_ that it is true (he may be lying, of course).


 I agree with this assertion.



> Which leads me to another thing. Sometimes, I feel that the best way to define the subjunctive is in a negative way, by defining the indicative first.The Spanish Indicative Mood is used to make or ask for assertions (statements of fact), or to refer to a definite item from a class. The subjunctive covers (almost) everything that isn't indicative.*​


I still don't get 'class' but again I agree with the assertion about the Indicative. But again -- for non-native students it would be too broad a statement out of which to make a reliable assertion. The best example that usually defeats the "subjunctive isn't about facts" summations is the sentence: "The sun will come up tomorrow after we sleep tonight". That is, of course, a complete assertion of fact. And yet the Spanish verb for 'sleep' there has to go in the Subjunctive. 



> *I would add that the subjunctive appears in dependent clauses.


Yes, but every time it does, it meets one of the other criteria in my list. And 'dependent clause' isn't a student-friendly term. For some context, my course (grammar) attempts to get rid of the 'high grammar' terminology that really has no meaning to the average learner of Spanish. They don't wish to become grammarians -- just fluent Spanish speakers.


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Re examples of subjunctives like " "El hecho de que a doña Lola se la conociera por La Guindilla Mayor ya hace suponer que......................etc.": how about designating them "appositional subjunctives" since the whole subjunctive clause is in apposition to the noun "el hecho"?
Just a thought.

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Re examples of subjunctives like " "El hecho de que a doña Lola se la conociera por La Guindilla Mayor ya hace suponer que......................etc.": how about designating them "appositional subjunctives" since the whole subjunctive clause is in apposition to the noun "el hecho"?
> Just a thought.
> 
> All the best
> Virgilio



If I'm going to consider a new title of a subgroup -- there needs to be more than 1 example of it. Is there another subordinator or clause starter that you can think of that would be another example?

Grant


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Re examples of subjunctives like " "El hecho de que a doña Lola se la conociera por La Guindilla Mayor ya hace suponer que......................etc.": how about designating them "appositional subjunctives" since the whole subjunctive clause is in apposition to the noun "el hecho"?
> Just a thought.


Supongo que para una gramática inglesa podría estar bien. En español, a la subordinada de este tipo las denominan sustantivas, y su función es núcleo del complemento del nombre "hecho".


----------



## Forero

Are the following synonymous?

1. el hecho de que ...
2. el que ...
3. que ...

Would the choice of 1, 2, or 3 change the appropriateness of the subjunctive?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> Are the following synonymous?
> 
> 1. el hecho de que ...
> 2. el que ...
> 3. que ...
> 
> Would the choice of 1, 2, or 3 change the appropriateness of the subjunctive?



From my experience -- they *can* all be synonymous but aren't all the time. And they would all, if meaning 'el hecho de que' use the subjunctive most of the time and the indicative only for a universally held fact.

But 'el que' also means 'the one that' (el que quiere/quiera ir)
And 'que', alone, starting a sentence is usually expressed as a wish or someone wanting you to do something which takes subj.
Que descanses. (I hope you rest)
Que te sientes. (Why don't you take a seat)

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

lazarus1907 said:


> Supongo que para una gramática inglesa podría estar bien. En español, a la subordinada de este tipo las denominan sustantivas, y su función es núcleo del complemento del nombre "hecho".


Vaya, esto sí lo entiendo. Así me lo aprendí yo.


----------



## virgilio

Forero,
         Soy inglés pero según mi experiencia del castellano no sería alterado el subjuntivo por ninguna de las tres expresiones.


Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Sorry to disagree but re your:
"'el que' also means 'the one that' (el que quiere/quiera ir)
And 'que', alone, starting a sentence is usually expressed as a wish or someone wanting you to do something which takes subj.
Que descanses. (I hope you rest)
Que te sientes. (Why don't you take a seat)

Estoy convencido de haber visto "el que" en el senso de "el hecho que" o "la proposición que"
e.g.
El que te guste o no el queso no me interesa.

Surely you can start a sentence with "que" without the sentence being a direct request?
e.g.
Que non hubieran ladrado los canes durante la noche interesaba mucho al señor Sherlock Holmes.

OK, natives?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> First off most students would stumble on the word 'class' as you've used it there. Please explain.


I was referring to something you mentioned earlier:



NewdestinyX said:


> The other 15% of the cases where subjunctive is called for is in that 'twilight zone' of the 'adjective clause- formed: noun + que + verb, where the que + verb after the noun is an adjective describing the noun. In these cases the 'oversimplification' we all hear as students about the subjunctive being about 'doubt or uncertainty' has its full day in court. Though you need to add 'futurity' to the reasons subjunctive would be used in adjective clauses.
> 
> [...] When coming upon the adjective clauses you can teach yourself to think this way:
> 
> "I want to buy __noun__ that ________"
> --ask yourself if the description you're giving is '_uncertain/denied/off in the future_. If that is the case -- then there's a good chance the verb goes in the *subjunctive*. As with all rules of thumb there are exceptions. If the description is something _identified/known in present or past _then the mood is *indicative*.


Obviously, any rule should be illustrated with examples.



NewdestinyX said:


> The best example that usually defeats the "subjunctive isn't about facts" summations is the sentence: "The sun will come up tomorrow after we sleep tonight". That is, of course, a complete assertion of fact.


Not really. When you're making that statement, you haven't slept yet. "Sleeping tonight" is not an established fact to you.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Sorry to disagree but re your:
> "'el que' also means 'the one that' (el que quiere/quiera ir)
> And 'que', alone, starting a sentence is usually expressed as a wish or someone wanting you to do something which takes subj.
> Que descanses. (I hope you rest)
> Que te sientes. cross:Why don't you take a seat)


_¡Que te sientes!_ is rather rude! (I want you to sit down right now!).


virgilio said:


> Estoy convencido de haber visto "el que" en el senso de "el hecho que" o "la proposición que"
> e.g.
> El que te guste o no el queso no me interesa.
> 
> Surely you can start a sentence with "que" without the sentence being a direct request?
> e.g.
> Que non no hubieran ladrado los canes/perros durante la noche interesaba/interesó mucho al señor Sherlock Holmes.
> 
> OK, natives?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

Forero said:


> Are the following synonymous?
> 
> 1. el hecho de que ... the fact that
> 2. el que ... the one that/who
> 3. que ... that/may/what/which


No.



Forero said:


> Would the choice of 1, 2, or 3 change the appropriateness of the subjunctive?


As I note in this thread, the Spanish subjunctive is not "triggered" by particular conjunctions. Any of those may or may not be followed by the subjunctive. It's better, in my opinion, to focus on understanding the semantics of the subjunctive.


----------



## virgilio

Gracias, Pedro.
Siempre voy mezclando el castellano y el italiano.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

outsider,
           When you awrite "the Spanish subjunctive is not "triggered" by particular conjunctions. Any of those may or may not be followed by the subjunctive. It's better, in my opinion, to focus on understanding the semantics of the subjunctive." you are, of course, quite right but I didin't get the impression that forero was suggesting that they were what you call "triggers".

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Sorry to disagree but re your:
> "'el que' also means 'the one that' (el que quiere/quiera ir)
> And 'que', alone, starting a sentence is usually expressed as a wish or someone wanting you to do something which takes subj.
> Que descanses. (I hope you rest)
> Que te sientes. (Why don't you take a seat)
> 
> Estoy convencido de haber visto "el que" en el senso de "el hecho que" o "la proposición que"
> e.g.
> El que te guste o no el queso no me interesa.



Your sentence is of course right and I certainly agree that 'el que' can mean 'el hecho de que' as it does in your sentence. But equally perfect Spanish is to day: Puedes llevar el que te guste. = You can take whichever one you like. And that was my point.



> Surely you can start a sentence with "que" without the sentence being a direct request?
> e.g.
> Que non hubieran ladrado los canes durante la noche interesaba mucho al señor Sherlock Holmes.


 With respect you need to read my post a little more carefully, Virg. Your sentence there is another usage of 'el hecho de que' shortened to 'que' and I acknowledge that that's perfect Spanish. I simply wanted to point out that 'el que' and 'que', starting a sentence don't 'always' mean 'el hecho de que'. I think that's clear.

Grant

OK, natives?

Best wishes
Virgilio[/quote]


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Obviously, any rule should be illustrated with examples.


 Oh of course. But when we strive to find an 'overarching statement' about Subjunctive's use the goal is to make the statement 'predictive' of 'all' uses of the subjunctive -- without any sub-definitions or examples. That was what I was driving at.



> Not really. When you're making that statement, you haven't slept yet. "Sleeping tonight" is not an established fact to you.



That's exactly the point, Outsider.. The reason subjunctive is used there is because you haven't slept yet -- it's off in the future. That has nothing to do with the 'fact' that the sun will be up when you wake. Indicative being about 'factual' -- just doesn't work without a lot of explanation.

There are many things that are not fact that are expressed with the indicative.

Mi madre tiene menos años que yo.

Sure it's a ridiculous example -- but it illustrates that this issue can't be about the factual or perceived factual -- without more qualification of the statement.

Additionally there are many sentence that can never take the subjunctive and others that can never take the indicative. For those -- triggers are easily discerned as grammarians targertting non natives demonstrate in their books.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> There are many things that are not fact that are expressed with the indicative.
> 
> Mi madre tiene menos años que yo.


An assertion may be false. Remember: the subjunctive is not about logical, absolute truth. It's about what the speaker _presents_ as true.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> An assertion may be false. Remember: the subjunctive is not about logical, absolute truth. It's about what the speaker _presents_ as true.



Yes I understand that aspect of your statement. Can you at least acknowledge that the student is sent in circles wondering what is presented as true and what is actually true? I'm presenting as true that 'cuando vengas mañana, intentaremos......' -- but only subjunctive works.. Why? For grammatical reasons. What I'd like your statements to explain, at first glance are the times I can 'never use indicative' and 'never use subjunctive'. That's what's missing for me in its current form.

I just realized I gave you the wrong example to 'debunk' the factual = indicative myth. Here's the right example.

Cuando salga el sol mañana, reunámonos. -- o algo así..

There is no doubt that the sun will rise. It is fact - and presented as fact. It simply hasn't come to pass yet. But 'reality' perceived or actual has nothing to do with the statement. Subjunctive is triggered by the futurity of the event.



Outsider said:


> As I note in this thread, the Spanish subjunctive is not "triggered" by particular conjunctions. Any of those may or may not be followed by the subjunctive. It's better, in my opinion, to focus on understanding the semantics of the subjunctive.



I believe it's a both and. For the cases that are always subjunctive or subjunctive due to futurity there are conjunctions and cases that 'trigger' the subjunctive every time. This accounts for 85% of subjunctive's use. And I stand by that and can prove it.

Simple triggers:
a menos que
a no ser que
no sea que
en caso de que
sin que
con tal de que
para que
a condición de que

----indicative is never possible with those. Memorize and you're done.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes I understand that aspect of your statement. Can you at least acknowledge that the student is sent in circles wondering what is presented as true and what is actually true?


It seems more worthwhile to me to teach them to "think subjunctively" about statements.



NewdestinyX said:


> What I'd like your statements to explain, at first glance are the times I can 'never use indicative' and 'never use subjunctive'.


I have persuaded myself that in most cases they can be explained by semantic, rather than syntactic, considerations. 




NewdestinyX said:


> I'm presenting as true that 'cuando vengas mañana, intentaremos......' -- but only subjunctive works.. Why?
> 
> [...] Cuando salga el sol mañana, reunámonos. -- o algo así..
> 
> There is no doubt that the sun will rise.


I see no statement of fact, no assertion, in those dependent clauses (I stress again the word *assertion*: it's about whether you're being assertive or not, not about what's true). "When the Sun rises" and "When you come tomorrow" are conditions, not statements of fact. The point of the sentences is not to assert that the Sun _will_ rise tomorrow, or that "you" _will_ come tomorrow.

I realise that your many years of experience have led you down a different pedagogical path, but I'm being insisting because I believe that a heated debate between opposing intellectual positions often teaches something new to both sides.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the following synonymous?
> 
> 1. el hecho de que ... the fact that
> 2. el que ... the one that/who
> 3. que ... that/may/what/which
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


I disagree with Outsider's simple 'no' there. "El que..." and "Que...." can both be synonymous with "el hecho de que" as shown in Virgilio's examples. Of course as I also noted to Forero, the translations in blue are also common. Context tells you whether the 'el que' or the 'que' is synonymous with 'el hecho de que'.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I disagree with Outsider's simple 'no' there. "El que..." and "Que...." can both be synonymous [...]


They _can_ be synonymous, but since the question was a generic "Are they synonymous?", without any concrete sentences to discuss, I chose to answer "No" to be on the safe side. They are not always synonymous.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> It seems more worthwhile to me to teach them to "think subjunctively" about statements.



Not convinced that works with non-natives who have no reference point. THough I like the assertion you make -- I just haven't experienced it working. Where I would 'love' for your philosophy to really work is by the time my students reach the 'adjective clauses'. They haven't learned to 'think subjunctively' and therefore this 'choosing' between ind and subj is yet another uphill climb.



> I have persuaded myself that in most cases they can be explained by semantic, rather than syntactic, considerations.


 I'd like to know what semantic consideration is at hand when you 'have to use'. "Es importante que usemos otra manera..."



> I see no statement of fact, no assertion, in those dependent clauses (I stress again the word *assertion*: it's about whether you're being assertive or not, not about what's true). "When the Sun rises" and "When you come tomorrow" are conditions, not statements of fact. The point of the sentences is not to assert that the Sun _will_ rise tomorrow, or that "you" _will_ come tomorrow.


Okay your methodology works for 'subordinators of time when toward future. Explain 'el hecho de que + subj' using the 'assertion of truth' paradigm.



> I realise that your many years of experience have led you down a different pedagogical path, but I'm being insisting because I believe that a heated debate between opposing intellectual positions often teaches something new to both sides.



Oh you know me by now, Outsider.  I am no stranger to heated debate and am very comfortable in it -- though I don't think we're to 'heated' quite yet. And I am learning something. And we may never come to a resolve only because the context for my push back on your statements is in working with teaching the subjunctive to non natives. I don't believe your 2 statement summation of the subjunctive works to explain its use in every case to a non native who has no 'subjunctive sensors'. That's my only point. If I haven't made clear that "I like it" and thing "it works" for the near fluent -- then I apologize. Good job. It's one of the better simple summations I've read. Really. I need you to test it against some potential rule breakers. What I'm saying is that in the context of teaching non-natives -- it's oversimplified and needs contorting to help the student understand 'why' it's ind or subj.

Ragards,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> They _can_ be synonymous, but since the question was a generic "Are they synonymous?", without any concrete sentences to discuss, I chose to answer "No" to be on the safe side. They are not always synonymous.



Agreed. THough when I ask here 'are they synonymous' I mean 'can they be'. I guess you would prefer us to be very precise. Though couldn't we answer a student by saying. 'They can be, but......' The 'no' struck me as 'stark'.


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I'd like to know what semantic consideration is at hand when you 'have to use'. "Es importante que usemos otra manera..."
> 
> [...] Explain 'el hecho de que + subj' using the 'assertion of truth' paradigm.


Could you give a couple more examples? Full sentences with a context, preferably.



NewdestinyX said:


> I don't believe your 2 statement summation of the subjunctive works to explain its use in every case to a non native who has no 'subjunctive sensors'.


I'm sure it doesn't. I can think of exceptions in Portuguese, although they don't work for Spanish. However, I am convinced that the two rules I wrote, interpreted broadly enough, accound for the vast majority of subjunctive uses in these languages.



NewdestinyX said:


> THough when I ask here 'are they synonymous' I mean 'can they be'. I guess you would prefer us to be very precise.


I was replying to Forero. I accept that my reply should have been more nuanced.


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:


> The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is used:
> to present a statement as non-factual
> to refer to an indefinite (not specified) item from a class



Me alegra que estés aquí.

1 or 2?


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> Me alegra que estés aquí.
> 
> 1 or 2?


Is it also possible to say the folowing?

Me alegra que estás aquí.​


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Is it also possible to say the folowing?Me alegra que estás aquí.​



No it's not. Mhp beat me to it -- but the 'emotional reaction' main clauses also don't fit neatly into an 'assertion of fact'-based summation. And they always take subjunctive.


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> No it's not. Mhp beat me to it -- but the 'emotional reaction' main clauses also don't fit neatly into an 'assertion of fact'-based summation.


Wanna bet? 

The idea is that it doesn't matter whether the state in the dependent clause is factual or not. What matters -- what the speaker wishes to express here -- is how he feels about it. Notice the contrast between indicative in the main clause and subjunctive in the dependent clause: what the speaker wishes to assert or stress is "Me alegra".


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Could you give a couple more examples? Full sentences with a context, preferably.



Es importante que usemos otra manera. (This is a complete context and needs no more info. Again a realiable summation needs to be able to explain the syntax without expansive contexts.)
Es interesante que pienses así.
El hecho de que él sea el profesor más destacado en su esfera desafortunadamente no me impresiona tanto.




> I can think of exceptions in Portuguese, although they don't work for Spanish. However, I am convinced that the two rules I wrote, interpreted broadly enough, account for the vast majority of subjunctive uses in these languages.


 Okay -- but the operative phrase in your sentence is 'interpreted broadly enough'. I prefer a more precise summation. But that's just me.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Wanna bet?
> 
> The idea is that it doesn't matter whether the state in the dependent clause is factual or not. What matters -- what the speaker wishes to express here -- is how he feels about it. Notice the contrast between indicative in the main clause and subjunctive in the dependent clause: what the speaker wishes to assert or stress is "Me alegra".



Pretty good -- but you see how you had to 'twist' your summation to say 'the speaker _wishes_ to assert'. It's a slippery slope from here, compadre.  Even this advanced student would raise his hand and ask -- "which/what is he asserting"?

Additionally how does your summation account for the subjunctive in clause 2?

-------
All 'fact/assertion' based summations end up having trouble accounting for the:
• emotional reaction main clauses
• the SER + Adj. + QUE main clauses
• el hecho de que --and the--
• time subordinators toward the future syntaxes.

Yours is the first 2 statement one that accounted for the time subordinators well by calling them conditions. Though your summation doesn't actually address conditions.


----------



## Outsider

You're both right. 

I can account for your counterexamples by stretching the meaning of my words, but I end up with a rationale so farfetched that even I don't buy it. 

I must add one more case to my summary. Hopefully, a fourth one won't be necessary:



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is used:
> 
> 
> to present a statement as non-factual
> when you make a judgement about a statement
> to refer to an indefinite (not specified) item from a class


In my mind, I see (1) and (2) as a single kind of situation, because in both you are evaluating a claim in abstract, you are talking _about_ the statement in a somewhat detached way, rather than asserting that it's true.

Of course, I must also explain in detail what I mean by "make a judgement", and here a "list of cases" does come into play. By "judgements" I mean one of the following:

likes and dislikes:

"I like that..." / "I don't like that..."​desirability and undesirability (value judgements):

"It would be nice if..." / "It would be bad if..." / "It's good that..." / "It's not right that..." / "It's important that..."​possibility and impossibility:

"It is possible that..." / "It is impossible that..."​plausibility:

"It is logical that..." / "It makes sense that..." / "It is implausible that..."​probability:

"It is likely that..." / "It is improbable that..." / "There's a 10% probability that..." / "There's a 90% probability that..." / "There's a 100% chance that..."​And there are probably other situations to take into account.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> You're both right.
> 
> I can account for your counterexamples by stretching the meaning of my words, but I end up with a rationale so farfetched that even I don't buy it.
> 
> I must add one more case to my summary. Hopefully, a fourth one won't be necessary:
> 
> In my mind, I see (1) and (2) as a single kind of situation, because in both you are evaluating of a claim in abstract, you are talking _about_ the statement in a somewhat detached way, rather than asserting that it's true.
> 
> Of course, I must also explain in detail what I mean by "make a judgement", and here a "list of cases" does come into play. By "judgements" I mean one of the following:
> 
> likes and dislikes:
> "I like that..." / "I don't like that..."​desirability and undesirability (value judgements):
> "I would be nice if..." / "I would be bad if..." / "It's good that..." / "It's not right that..." / "It's important that..."​possibility and impossibility:
> "It is possible that..." / "It is impossible that..."​plausibility:
> "It is logical that..." / "It makes sense that..." / "It is implausible that..."​probability:
> "It is likely that..." / "It is improbable that..." / "There's a 10% probability that..." / "There's a 90% probability that..." / "There's a 100% chance that..."​And there are probably other situations to take into account.



  Now we're gettin' somewhere!!! Thanks for being willing to stretch -- your summation is getting sharper and sharper and my mind is having to bend less. Is there anyway you can make the cases flow into a statement?

Talk soon!
Grant


----------



## Outsider

If I wanted a keyword for case (2), it would be something like "evaluation", "judgement", "assessment", or "detachment".


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:


> The Spanish Subjunctive Mood is used:
> to present a statement as non-factual
> when you make a [judgment] about a statement
> to refer to an indefinite (not specified) item from a class



No me gusta hacer ejercicio, de ahí que dejé dejara de ir al gimnasio
(I don’t like to exercise, that’s why I stopped going to the gym)

1, 2, or 3?

(No me gusta hacer ejercicio, así que dejé de ir al gimnasio)


----------



## Jeromed

_<<No me gusta hacer ejercicio, de ahí que dejara de ir al gimnasio_
_(I don’t like to exercise, that’s why I stopped going to the gym)_
_1, 2, or 3?>>_


Reescribamos la oración:
No me gusta hacer ejercicio; por tanto, es lógico /tiene sentido que dejara de ir al gimnasio.

De acuerdo con la terminología de Outsider, sería el caso #2 (plausibility: "It is logical that..." / "It makes sense that..." / "It is implausible that...")


----------



## Outsider

Thank you Jeromed, but I think the phrase _de ahí que_ more precisely introduces a consequence. "I don't like to exercise, that's why I stopped going to the gym".

This is a good counterexample, Mhp. You would expect the second clause to be in the indicative, since "I stopped going to the gym" is a factual statement. 

And, anyway, in the other, practically identical sentence, _No me gusta hacer ejercicio, así que dejé de ir al gimnasio_ ("I don't like to exercise, so I stopped going to the gym"), you have the indicative in the same place.

The subjunctive here can probably only be explained by syntax. In this case, I would say that the conjuncive clause _de ahí que_ does trigger the subjunctive. There certainly are a number of such cases, though my impression is that they are manageably few.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Thank you Jeromed, but I think the phrase _de ahí que_ more precisely introduces a consequence. "I don't like to exercise, that's why I stopped going to the gym".
> 
> This is a good counterexample, Mhp. You would expect the second clause to be in the indicative, since "I stopped going to the gym" is a factual statement.
> 
> And, anyway, in the other, practically identical sentence, _No me gusta hacer ejercicio, así que dejé de ir al gimnasio_ ("I don't like to exercise, so I stopped going to the gym"), you have the indicative in the same place.
> 
> The subjunctive here can probably only be explained by syntax. In this case, I would say that the conjunctive clause _de ahí que_ does trigger the subjunctive. There certainly are a number of such cases, though my impression is that they are manageably few.



Let me again reiterate to you, Outsider, and to onlookers that though I am very much intrigued in finding summation statements that capture the majority of the Subjunctive use -- I am still vehemently opposed to any notion that the Subjunctive Mood is not a grammatically-based thing and that it has any less 'triggers' than any romance language employing a Subjunctive Mood. It simply isn't so. Triggers are a tried and true method of teaching Spanish subjunctive and it's worked for thousands of students over scores of years. It is simply the fastest and most effective way to master the subjunctive until the student tackles subjunctive in adjective clauses (sometimes called "unidentified antecedent"). 

An assertion I 'am' very open to would be something like: "though it will take longer overall, if a student can learn to think 'subjunctively' from teh onset, there won't be as much or any barrier to overcome upon getting to the adjective clause usages." I am very open to that notion -- though in my own attempts and evaluation of the attempts of others (as has Outsider made), I have not yet found a summation that really 'sets the mind' toward thinking subjunctively. A voracious student at my forum undertook a grade school approach to about 15 of us students about a year ago. And he gave us exercises aimed at reprogramming our brains -- and it was an exciting undertaking. The proposition started in these 2 threads:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/advspanish/messages?msg=1824.1
http://forums.delphiforums.com/advspanish/messages?msg=1828.1
And then continued in several exercise threads in the "Spanish Acquisition" Folder with the titles "Subj Feel". I was less than supportive that it could taught that way. And the person whose idea it was no longer participates there -- but ultimately about 12-14 steps into the process he gave up because he realized that there were too many cases that worked against the idea of a summation that accounts for all or even most of the cases. Natives growing up hearing it and that's all about imitation. Students must learn by cases. Just like they have to learn SE.

My considered opinion...
Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I am still vehemently opposed to any notion that the Subjunctive Mood is not a grammatically-based thing and that it has any less 'triggers' than any romance language employing a Subjunctive Mood.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by that...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by that...



I'm probably referring back to your statement that Spanish has no conjunctive triggers or has less than Portuguese or French. Though I only know a little bit about French and Portuguese, as I've asserted from the beginning that Spanish Subj in 85% triggers. Last time I check in with you I think you disagree with that.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm probably referring back to your statement that Spanish has no conjunctive triggers [...]


Did I state that in this thread? I don't remember doing so...



NewdestinyX said:


> [...] or has less than Portuguese [...]


I definitely never said that.



NewdestinyX said:


> [...] or French.


Now, that I did say, and I stand by it. 



NewdestinyX said:


> [...]Though I only know a little bit about French and Portuguese, as I've asserted from the beginning that Spanish Subj in 85% triggers.


We're obviously using the word "trigger" in different ways.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> _<<No me gusta hacer ejercicio, de ahí que dejara de ir al gimnasio_
> _(I don’t like to exercise, that’s why I stopped going to the gym)_
> _1, 2, or 3?>>_
> 
> 
> Reescribamos la oración:
> No me gusta hacer ejercicio; por tanto, es lógico /tiene sentido que dejara de ir al gimnasio.
> 
> De acuerdo con la terminología de Outsider, sería el caso #2 (plausibility: "It is logical that..." / "It makes sense that..." / "It is implausible that...")



Yes -- this is an important thing.. I think with both 'el hecho de que' and 'de ahí que' it's almost like an emotional statement that doesn't depend on the the reality or unreality of the subclause. For 'de ahí que' it's like saying: "and that's why I really feel like..." -- it's a moderately emotionally charged value judgement. Oddly considering all of my other input so far -- 'de ahí que' just "feels like" the subjunctive should follow it now.. ;-)

Grant


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider:

How can you say that French has more subjunctive triggers than Spanish, when the subjunctive appears to be disappearing from that language?

Not disagreeing with you.  Just curious.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Did I state that in this thread? I don't remember doing so...
> 
> I definitely never said that.
> 
> Now, that I did say, and I stand by it.
> 
> We're obviously using the word "trigger" in different ways.



Maybe not Portuguese -- but you said that Spanish is 'not' about triggers early on. That's what 'started our debate'. How do you define 'trigger' then?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> No me gusta hacer ejercicio, de ahí que dejé dejara de ir al gimnasio
> (I don’t like to exercise, that’s why I stopped going to the gym)



For the meticulous, it's more correct to say - 'No me gusta hacer ejercicios, de ahí que dejé dejara haya dejado de ir al gimnasio.'

Don't you think?


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      It's a counsel of perfection, I know, and today's students are probably too busy with other things to be bothered with it anyway, but, if you really want to get the feel of the Spanish subjunctive, learn Latin.
A word of caution: it's not many people's cup of tea!

Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

Jeromed said:


> How can you say that French has more subjunctive triggers than Spanish, when the subjunctive appears to be disappearing from that language?


What I meant was that you don't need to appeal to triggers to explain the subjunctive in Spanish as often as you do in French. In Spanish, subjunctive use can often (usually, I argue) be explained by semantics. You _can_ also mention syntax and triggers, but you don't need to memorize them as much as in French, so long as you develop a feel for the contexts that require the subjunctive _semantically_.



			
				NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> Maybe not Portuguese -- but you said that Spanish is 'not' about triggers early on. That's what 'started our debate'. How do you define 'trigger' then?


Please point to the post where I said that, so that we can all look at it in its proper context.


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> For the meticulous, it's more correct to say - 'No me gusta hacer ejercicios, de ahí que dejé dejara haya dejado de ir al gimnasio.'
> 
> Don't you think?


 
No. The RAE says that the perfect tenses of the subjunctive can be substituted by the imperfect ones, if the speaker does not want to emphasize the "perfection" or completion of the action (Esbozo de una nueva gramática....3.15.4.a)

Their example:
No es posible que don Ramón, siendo tan indocto, haya pasado ante el país como uno de los hombres más grandes y sesudos de nuestra época (Pio Baroja, La busca).

Their comment:
Así en el ejemplo de Baroja antes citado, _haya pasado_ podría reemplazarse por_ pasara o pasase..._

I admit that the construction with the imperfect is far more common in Spain than in Latin America, where it's often considered unusual by native speakers.


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> What I meant was that you don't need to appeal to triggers to explain the subjunctive in Spanish as often as you do in French. In Spanish, subjunctive use can often (usually, I argue) be explained by semantics. You _can_ also mention syntax and triggers, but you don't need to memorize them as much as in French, so long as you develop a feel for the contexts that require the subjunctive _semantically_.
> .


 
I understand and I agree.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Please point to the post where I said that, so that we can all look at it in its proper context.



In long threads it's hard to go find all the quotes. When I refer back to what you said I'm usually darn close. But here are the two quotes that I disagree with:



Outsider said:


> I wouldn't say that it's dying (except for the past subjunctive), but I do see a profound difference in that in French the subjunctive seems to be much more tied to a set of conjunctions and verbs that act as "triggers", while in Spanish and Portuguese it's mostly governed by the speaker's convictions about the statements he makes.
> 
> 
> --Grant disagrees
> 
> Well, at least this is my impression right now. But my French is rather rusty, and I especially need to do a thorough review of the subjunctives, so take it all with a grain of salt.



And then again here in #74:



Outsider said:


> I won't challenge your point of view; it's a point of view. But let me note that at the start of this thread several posters made the point that you can't expect that just because the main clause has the verb _querer_ the dependent clause will be in the subjunctive. You yourself made this point. In my view, it's not the presence of a particular verb or conjunction which triggers the subjunctive (usually). It's the semantics of whether the speaker wishes to assert or not assert (or determine versus not determine) what's in the dependent clause.
> 
> ---Grant disagrees and can show and has shown why it's an incorrect statement. Semantics only comes into play with the adjective clauses and a few other cases I listed like "tal vez, dado que, etc."
> 
> Learning the subjunctive in French (from what I recall of the classes I took years ago) is much more a question of memorizing a list of types of clauses that will require it "just because". Well, this is a caricature, but I hope you'll see the contrast I'm trying to make. --so is Spanish



I was wrong about the 'Portuguese' aspect. But Spanish is much more like French if you believe that triggers are what makes French tick. In all of the places English still uses Subjunctive -- there are triggers 'conjunctively or or a trigger main clause' that's just like Spanish. This is so in French and all other Romance languages -- Why? Simple.--> Latin. it is a 'gramatical thing' not a 'semantic thing'. The adjective clauses in Spanish are the exception to the rule. And they are many adjective clauses in Spanish for sure.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant was that you don't need to appeal to triggers to explain the subjunctive in Spanish as often as you do in French. In Spanish, subjunctive use can often (usually, I argue) be explained by semantics. You _can_ also mention syntax and triggers, but you don't need to memorize them as much as in French, so long as you develop a feel for the contexts that require the subjunctive _semantically_.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand and I agree.
Click to expand...


And I completely disagree. Outside of the adjective clauses and the short list of conjunctions I listed I challenge anyone to show me a case where semantics governs the choice of Spanish subjunctive. Let's not deal with indicative -- because the search gets too wide.


----------



## Jeromed

This is what I'm agreeing to:

_What I meant was that you don't need to appeal to triggers to explain the subjunctive in Spanish as often as you do in French._

Is that what you're disagreeing to?


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> It's a counsel of perfection, I know, and today's students are probably too busy with other things to be bothered with it anyway, but, if you really want to get the feel of the Spanish subjunctive, learn Latin.
> A word of caution: it's not many people's cup of tea!
> 
> Virgilio



No practical value today, Virg. When I get done all my searching I want to be fluent and have something to use. With Latin that would not be the case. Though I know your statement is totally true with regard to the 'answers' to many of these mysteries we struggle with in attempting fluency in Spanish. But that's why you're here -- to give us 'that angle'. Why would I take the time to learn all that Latin syntax when I can just ask my buddy, Virgilio? ;-) -- who knows way more than I would ever want to know about it.. LOL!! All that said with enormous respect for what you bring to a forum environment. What's beautiful about the internet age is that you don't need to be a specialist yourself in any one area to learn pretty much 'all you'd ever need to learn' about any topic. Forums attract specialists -- and I can just ask them. That's what I love about it. This should be called the 'Learning Age' not the 'Information Age'. ;-)

Grant


----------



## mhp

NewdestinyX said:


> For the meticulous, it's more correct to say - 'No me gusta hacer ejercicios, de ahí que dejé dejara haya dejado de ir al gimnasio.'
> 
> Don't you think?



No, I don't. If you like to start a new thread about this, I'll be happy to participate.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> This is what I'm agreeing to:
> 
> _What I meant was that you don't need to appeal to triggers to explain the subjunctive in Spanish as often as you do in French._
> 
> Is that what you're disagreeing to?



I can't agree or disagree to that -- since I'm not an Intermediate or better In French -- but implicit in each of Outsider's posts where another language is mentioned - is the strong assertion that triggers, in Spanish, are a myth or unnecessary. He/She uses careful language not to come out and say it stronger but it is clearly the communication in my read. I just want to forcefully push back on that clear assertion. 

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> No, I don't. If you like to start a new thread about this, I'll be happy to participate.


It's probably been debated in 20 thread here already -- I'll take a pass -- but I have consultas from the RAE agreeing with me. Using 'dejara' there is a 'vulgarismo'. But my consultas are from before the printing of the DPD. "Much" changed after the writing of the DPD. 

Grant


----------



## mhp

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes -- this is an important thing.. I think with both 'el hecho de que' and 'de ahí que' it's almost like an emotional statement that doesn't depend on the the reality or unreality of the subclause. For 'de ahí que' it's like saying: "and that's why I really feel like..." -- it's a moderately emotionally charged value judgement. Oddly considering all of my other input so far -- 'de ahí que' just "feels like" the subjunctive should follow it now.. ;-)
> 
> Grant



"de ahí" means "hence". It is often used in mathematical proofs with that value. I don't think there is anything emotional about it.


----------



## mhp

NewdestinyX said:


> It's probably been debated in 20 thread here already -- I'll take a pass -- but I have consultas from the RAE agreeing with me. Using 'dejara' there is a 'vulgarismo'. But my consultas are from before the printing of the DPD. "Much" changed after the writing of the DPD.
> 
> Grant


As you wish 

I had already given you some quotes by Galdós and others that have used this "vulgarismo" way before the DPD was published. If you wish I can give you many more as there is no shortage of this. I'm surprised how easily you dismiss these literary figures. As a good friend of ours usually points out, perhaps they don't know how to speak properly.


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> [...] but implicit in each of Outsider's posts where another language is mentioned - is the strong assertion that triggers, in Spanish, are a myth or unnecessary.


That's entirely your opinion. I never said such a thing. 



NewdestinyX said:


> He/She uses careful language not to come out and say it stronger but it is clearly the communication in my read.


Each of us has a user profile. Get to know it.


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> "de ahí" means "hence". It is often used in mathematical proofs with that value. I don't think there is anything emotional about it.


Yes, describing _de ahí que_ as "emotional" is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> It's probably been debated in 20 thread here already -- I'll take a pass -- but I have consultas from the RAE agreeing with me. Using 'dejara' there is a 'vulgarismo'. But my consultas are from before the printing of the DPD. "Much" changed after the writing of the DPD.
> 
> Grant


 
My comment is based on the RAE's _Esbozo_, the last grammar published by them, back in the 70's. We can decide to wait till the new grammar comes out next year, but I doubt that a construction that is so common in Spain, and that was given a blessing in the 70's (and perhaps before), will now be found to be "less correct."

The RAE's _consultas_ should be taken with a grain of salt, as they sometimes grossly contradict each another.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> No. The RAE says that the perfect tenses of the subjunctive can be substituted by the imperfect ones, if the speaker does not want to emphasize the "perfection" or completion of the action (Esbozo de una nueva gramática....3.15.4.a)
> 
> Their example:
> No es posible que don Ramón, siendo tan indocto, haya pasado ante el país como uno de los hombres más grandes y sesudos de nuestra época (Pio Baroja, La busca).
> 
> Their comment:
> Así en el ejemplo de Baroja antes citado, _haya pasado_ podría reemplazarse por_ pasara o pasase..._
> 
> I admit that the construction with the imperfect is far more common in Spain than in Latin America, where it's often considered unusual by native speakers.



Jermod -- this is an entirely different syntax than the other sentence. The other sentence was main and subclause where the main clause is a standard trigger of the subjunctive. Timing concordance requires a present verb in the main clause needs "un verbo en la esfera del presente' in the subclause. The present perfect is such a tense. I've never seen a contradicting consulta if the person making the consulta is very clear in their question and not too broad in scope. EVen then I haven't seen a contradiction. The consultas and their books are the final word for me on Spanish Grammar. The DPD was hard to stomach as it changed many traditionally held positions. They accept as correct now -- con tal que and antes que, etc. They even tolerate 'en caso que' -- unbelievable.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

mhp said:


> As you wish
> 
> I had already given you some quotes by Galdós and others that have used this "vulgarismo" way before the DPD was published. If you wish I can give you many more as there is no shortage of this. I'm surprised how easily you dismiss these literary figures. As a good friend of ours usually points out, perhaps they don't know how to speak properly.


 As I've told Lazarus on many occasions -- there are many, many things that 'literary figures' say that are 'questionable' to grammarians. I don't think I'm hearing you say that just because it's in literature, it's correct. ??? Are you? I can show you 'several' examples in published works of literature the usage of dequeísmo and queísmo and even 'cantastes' but I doubt you're ready to tell a student to start using them. It's the age old -- descriptive versus prescriptive which we don't want to digress to here -- I'm sure Laz and you can give me many examples in Literature -- but I doubt you can find those who 'prescribe' using it -- not in 'upper register' works of non-fiction. I am 'corrected' all the time using 'dejara' in the way that sentence suggested -- and I'm corrected in several registers of society but mostly by people over 35. This "no time concordance thing' in the syntax you cited is a 'modern invention' -- with regard to it becoming part of speech in 'all registers' of society. But that will be my final word on this topic. This is one of those circular argument topics that get everyone mad in the end. 

As I said -- I'll pass. I know what I teach and I know it's sound.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> That's entirely your opinion. I never said such a thing.



Agreed -- but let's focus on the main issue point of tension -- you believe it's about semantics more than triggers in Spanish. Agreed or not? If 'agreed'  -- then we disagree. 

But I think we've had the effect on each other that you had hoped for in the debate right? I have had to accept that the summation can be shorter and that semantics can't be entirely ignored in Subjunctive's use in Spanish -- and you had to expand your summation by at least one summation point that had 'cases' listed. So I think we've both moved on this topic -- right? I think that we've both moved as far as we're going to move on the topic -- and I think we can move on. You tell me.

I withdraw my statement about 'de ahí que'. It was far-fetched.

Grant


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> Jermod -- this is an entirely different syntax than the other sentence. The other sentence was main and subclause where the main clause is a standard trigger of the subjunctive. Timing concordance requires a present verb in the main clause needs "un verbo en la esfera del presente' in the subclause. The present perfect is such a tense. I've never seen a contradicting consulta if the person making the consulta is very clear in their question and not too broad in scope. EVen then I haven't seen a contradiction. The consultas and their books are the final word for me on Spanish Grammar. The DPD was hard to stomach as it changed many traditionally held positions. They accept as correct now -- con tal que and antes que, etc. They even tolerate 'en caso que' -- unbelievable.
> 
> Grant


 
Let's agree to disagree.

The syntax is different, but in this case too, the main clause is a standard trigger of the subjunctive ("No es posible que...").

I prefer the RAE's Grammar over their response to _Consultas_, because to me the decision of the _Board of Directors,_ as reflected in a "publication," is final; that of a _manager_, as reflected in a "memo," is not.

I do have examples of contradictions in the RAE's responses to _Consultas, _and specifically with the use of "déjame saber" vs. "hazme saber". One consultant found the first one acceptable, and equivalent to the second; and the other found it to be a calc of English "let me know" (as does the DPD now). But that's another matter.


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> But I think we've had the effect on each other that you had hoped for in the debate right?


LOL, yes, the objections raised by you and others have allowed me to refine my ideas a little bit, and that's what matters most. Reading the posts you made today, I seriously doubt that your ideas moved an inch, but that's alright.


----------



## mhp

NewdestinyX said:


> [...]but I doubt you can find those who 'prescribe' using it -- not in 'upper register' works of non-fiction.



 To be honest with you, my level of Spanish is not so high as to lock horns with RAE, not even with a well educated native speaker; let alone with writers and poets. You learn a certain degree of humility when you try to become educated in a new language. But as it turns out in this case, I’m not quoting how tense/mood agreement works from some high and mighty source. It is from my “advanced” Spanish grammar books designed for foreign speakers who want to pass DELE. I also remember when in Spanish 102 my teacher, a charming Argentinean woman, was telling me about tense/mood agreements as you describe them—She even had a nifty diagram to go along with it.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Jeromed said:


> No. The RAE says that the perfect tenses of the subjunctive can be substituted by the imperfect ones,_* if the speaker does not want to emphasize the "perfection" or completion of the action*_ (Esbozo de una nueva gramática....3.15.4.a)
> 
> Their example:
> No es posible que don Ramón, siendo tan indocto, haya pasado ante el país como uno de los hombres más grandes y sesudos de nuestra época (Pio Baroja, La busca).
> 
> Their comment:
> Así en el ejemplo de Baroja antes citado, _haya pasado_ podría reemplazarse por_ pasara o pasase..._
> 
> I admit that the construction with the imperfect is far more common in Spain than in Latin America, where it's often considered unusual by native speakers.


Eso es exactamente lo que sucede en mi mente. Si digo:

No me gusta hacer ejercicio, de ahí que _dejara_ de ir al gimnasio.
Me retrotraigo a los tiempos en los que dejé el gimnasio, un pasado difuso.

Por el contrario:

No me gusta hacer ejercicio, de ahí que _haya dejado_ de ir al gimnasio.
Me sitúo en el presente: Ahora ya no voy al gimnasio. Lo he dejado hace no mucho.

Opinión personalísima: Hay que ser un gramático muy imbécil para catalogar a este subjuntivo de vulgar... es muy sutil y hermoso.


----------

