# Nadie no dijo nada (triple negación)



## Tazzler

Hola:

Estoy un poco confundido en cuanto a esta oración negativa.

¿Sería correcta la siguiente oración?

"Tampoco le mandé ninguna a nadie."

¿Por qué no necesita haber un "no" antes del verbo? ¿Tampoco le quita su función?

Gracias.


----------



## Rayines

Tazzler said:


> Hola:
> 
> Estoy un poco confundido en cuanto a esta oración negativa.
> 
> ¿Sería correcta la siguiente oración?
> 
> "Tampoco le mandé ninguna a nadie."
> 
> ¿Por qué no necesita haber un "no" antes del verbo? ¿Tampoco le quita su función?*: Sí, claro. "Tampoco" es en sí mismo adverbio de negación.*
> 
> Gracias.


Sin embargo, diríamos: "*No* le mandé *tampoco* *ninguna* a *nadie*".


----------



## jm.gilgado

"Tampoco" is making the sentence negative, as Raylines said, so probably you could understand better the sentence without "Tampoco", but that option is incorrect.

By the way, "Tampoco" is used many times for saying a couple of negative sentences fixed. e.g. "No he trabajado, tampoco he dormido". 

On the contrary "También" has a positive sense. e.g. "He trabajado, también he dormido". 

If you would say: "He trabajado, tampoco he dormido", it would be incorrect.

P.D. Please, I'm learning, so you are free to correct me. Thanks!


----------



## Tazzler

jm.gilgado said:


> "Tampoco" makes (simple present sounds better here) the sentence negative, as Raylines said, so you could probably understand the sentence better without "tampoco", but that option is incorrect.
> 
> By the way, "tampoco" is used many times for saying a couple of fixed negative sentences. e.g. "No he trabajado; tampoco he dormido".
> 
> On the contrary, "también" has a positive sense. e.g. "He trabajado; también he dormido".
> 
> If you said "He trabajado, tampoco he dormido", it/the sentence would be incorrect.
> 
> P.D. Please, I'm learning, so you are free to correct me. Thanks!


 


But "Nadie dijo nada" is incorrect, right? The sentence should be "Nadie no dijo nada", right?


----------



## fsabroso

Tazzler said:


> But "Nadie dijo nada" is incorrect, right? The sentence should be "Nadie no dijo nada", right?


Don't ask me why 

"_Nadie dijo nada_" is commonly use.
"_Nadie no dijo nada_" does not sound natural but weird.


----------



## Búkarus

Hi,
It would be useful to know that "nadie" and "nada" are relatives to "nacer (to be born)". The original meaning was not negative. "Nadie" comes from Latin expressions like "hominis *nati* (any born man, anybody)" and "nada" from "res *nata* (any born thing, anything)".

So, it was completely natural that "nati/nata" (as objects, not subjects) and a negation were together in the same sentence. Just like "nadie/nada" and "no". Centuries passed and "nadie/nada" were defined as negative words, but spaniards keept using them with a "no" or any other negative adverb (tampoco, nunca, jamás, etc.).

But it is not correct to use two negative adverbs together: 
_Tampoco no_ le mandé ninguna a nadie
_Tampoco _le mandé ninguna a nadie
_No_ le mandé ninguna a nadie

Still, in Spanish we can also say, "Tampoco le mandé cosa alguna a persona alguna"; understandable, but a bit stilted.

"_Nadie no dijo nada_" is incorrect because "nadie" is the subject. 
But, for instance, in "No dije nada a nadie", "nada" and "nadie" are objects.

Bye


----------



## Tazzler

So, in short, "nadie" takes over the function of "no"? We don't need to use "no" because "nadie" and other words like it already have it inherent in themselves, right?

Ningún caballo corrió hacia nada. (correct)

Ningún caballo no corrió hacia nada. (incorrect)

Is that right?


----------



## Rayines

Tazzler said:


> So, in short, "nadie" takes over the function of "no"? We don't need to use "no" because "nadie" and other words like it already have it inherent in themselves, right?
> 
> Ningún caballo corrió hacia nada. (correct)
> 
> Ningún caballo no corrió hacia nada. (incorrect)
> 
> Is that right?


I'll try to explain it in English: it's more or less as you say. "Nada" and "Nadie" are indefinite pronouns. "Tampoco" is an adverb, the same as "no"; then this one is -if you like- more equivalent to "no".
But it's true that "nada" and "nadie" have a "negative" meaning. Anyway, in Spanish we repeat the negation: "*No* me gusta *nada* de lo que me muestras"; "Hoy *no* vino *nadie*".
But your sentences are a bit strange. We wouldn't say: "El/ningún/algún caballo corrió hacia nada": it has no sense in Spanish. We'd say: "*Ningún* caballo corrió", or "El caballo *no *comió *nada*", or in an afirmative sense: "El caballo corrió hacia *algo*". We don't use "nada" as a noun (except Sartre, in "El ser y la nada" ).
Don't hesitate in asking if it isn't clear for you.


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi,
Well, Tazzler. I think you got the idea, although your example is not the best one, yet very understandable.

If all horses actually ran and they had a determined goal, so no one seemed to ran right to nowhere, we use "nada" as a noun, not as a pronoun:
Ningún caballo corrió hacia *la* *nada*, todos parecían conocer su meta.

Still, my suggestions sounds a little unnatural. I think Inés tries to say that it's better to not consider them as negative words but simply pronouns refering to an inexistent or not evident person/being/thing.

So they can come to mean "nobody/nothing" as well as "anybody/anything".

Bye


----------



## Camilo1964

Tazzler said:


> Ningún caballo corrió hacia nada ningún lugar. (correct)


Regards,

Camilo


----------



## Ynez

This looks difficult...as a hint I'll tell you we never say_ nunca no/nadie no/tampoco no._ It seems when those words start the sentence, there is no "no".

But we do say:

_No hay nadie que te conozca mejor que yo.

No quiero ir nunca más a ese sitio.

No tenían pizza tampoco._


----------



## litelchau

Es decir, si el verbo aparece antes de _nada, nadie, tampoco, nunca, ninguno_, hay que poner el _no_ al principio.
_No sé nada._
_No ha venido nadie._
_Juan no ha venido tampoco._
_Juan no viene nunca._

Pero si esas formas negativas preceden al verbo, sustituyen al _no_ y éste ya no es necesario:
_Nada es mejor que el chocolate._
_Nadie sabe qué ha pasado._
_Tampoco tú lo sabes._
_Nunca digas mentiras._

_Tampoco le mandé ninguna a nadie._


----------



## paulrobert

I think litelchau's explanation very informative and, if I understand him correctly, then we could say also:    
 
_No le mandé ninguna a nadie, tampoco._


----------



## Búkarus

Hi,


paulrobert said:


> _No le mandé ninguna a nadie, tampoco._


Well, it doesn't sound weird, just a bit colloquial. Although the "tampoco" certainly is not offering any needed information. I mean, it would be a redundancy, unless that tampoco refers to the action which is suppose to be denied toghether with another (like in "_I didn't do this and didn't do that either_") .

Que no escondí ninguna flor, que no le mandé ninguna a nadie tampoco. Créeme: sólo se me perdió y no supe cómo.

I think it would be useful to repeat this grammatical-like tip:
"_Nadie no dijo nada_" is incorrect because "nadie" is the subject. 
But, for instance, in "No dije nada a nadie", "nada" and "nadie" are objects.

Bye


----------



## SpanTchr

Here are some simple rules to remember when making Spanish sentences negative:

You can do it one of two ways:

1.  Use "no" before the verb, and your negative word(s) after the verb, OR
2.  Use a (logical) negative word before the verb (and don't use "no" at all.)  (If you want to have more negative words, you can have them after the verb.)

Also, you can think of it this way: Among all the negative words, like nadie, ninguno, nada, etc., "no" is also a negative word.  You have to have some negative word before the verb, but only one.  The others would go after the verb.

I hope this helps.


----------



## SpanTchr

Sorry -- litelchau basically said the same thing I did, except I said it in English. I usually read the posts carefully, but I guess I didn't this time.  I guess I skimmed!  

Also, let me make one more clarification:

The negative words have their respective meanings, like:
nadie = no one, nada = nothing, etc.
In English, these get _translated_ as anyone (for nadie) and anything (for nada) due to the English language rule that double negatives aren't allowed.  The first negative word of a sentence in English will have its true translation, but every negative word afterwards will have to change to it's indefinite counterpart.  Again, this is because of the rule in English.


----------



## Forero

How about "No dijo nada nadie"? ¿Se puede decir?


----------



## litelchau

Forero said:


> How about "No dijo nada nadie"? ¿Se puede decir?


 Por supuesto Y también:
_No dijo nunca nada a nadie._


----------



## Tazzler

Búkarus said:


> I think it would be useful to repeat this grammatical-like tip:
> "_Nadie no dijo nada_" is incorrect because "nadie" is the subject.
> But, for instance, in "No dije nada a nadie", "nada" and "nadie" are objects.
> 
> Bye


 
So, in summary, even though there is a negative word after the verb, because there is a negative word as a subject, you should not place a "no" before the verb. I shall remember that. 

Thank you all! I'm glad this thread drew a lot of opinions.


----------



## SpanTchr

Small correction: The negative word doesn't act as a subject, just because it is before the verb.  It just means you don't need the word "no."


----------



## Búkarus

SpanTchr said:


> Small correction: The negative word doesn't act as a subject, just because it is before the verb. It just means you don't need the word "no."


They are subjects indeed. I mean, "nadie" and "nada" are indefinite pronouns and pronouns can work as subject and often as objects... hmm... don't they?
Bye


----------



## Forero

I meant _nadie_ as the subject (in post #17), _nada_ as the object.


----------



## SpanTchr

Now I must retract. I previously said a negative word cannot be a subject. I am not sure what I was thinking, but this is incorrect. Sorry for any confusion. I should have stopped before that one, last small "correction".

Thank you, Búkarus, for pointing this out.  I don't know what I was thinking!


----------



## Tazzler

Could I have these sentences reviewed?

Nunca veo a nadie. (And not: Nunca no veo a nadie)

Ninguno de ellos no hace nada vs. Ninguno de ellos hace nada.

Ni yo ni tú va a ver nada vs. Ni yo vs tú no va a ver nada.


----------



## mhp

Tazzler said:


> Could I have these sentences reviewed?
> 
> Nunca veo a nadie.  (Nunca no veo a nadie )
> 
> Ninguno de ellos no hace nada  vs. Ninguno de ellos hace nada.
> 
> Ni yo ni tú va a ver nada vs. Ni yo vs tú no va a ver nada.



Ni tú ni yo vamos a ver nada. 

El burro delante pa' que no espante...

In Spanish, you never say "I and you", it is always "you and I".


----------



## Rayines

Tazzler said:


> Ni yo ni tú va a ver nada vs. Ni yo vs tú no va a ver nada.


Además de la corrección de mhp, se prefiere: "Ni tú ni yo vamos a ver nada" .


----------



## Tazzler

¿Sería "va" correcta, aunque no se prefiera? Los sujetos no se piensen de unidades singulares, ¿correcto? Así que los ponemos en plural.


----------



## mhp

Tazzler said:


> ¿Sería "va" correcta, aunque no se prefiera?



No.

------
 Si entre dos o más elementos coordinados figura un pronombre de segunda persona (y ninguno de primera), la concordancia con el verbo y con los demás pronombres se establece en segunda persona del plural o, en las zonas del mundo hispánico donde no se usa el pronombre _vosotros,_ sino _ustedes,_ en tercera persona del plural:_ «La niña y tú cobraréis lo que es vuestro» _(Leguina _Nombre _[Esp. 1992]); _«Murphy y tú son unos testigos peligrosísimos»_ (VLlosa_ Fiesta _[Perú 2000]); si hay un pronombre de primera persona, la concordancia se establece en primera persona del plural: _«¿Te acuerdas de aquel día en que bailamos Chema, tú y yo?»_ (Diosdado _Trescientos_ [Esp. 1991]).
_Diccionario panhispánico de dudas ©2005_


----------



## saulmario

But "Nadie dijo nada" is incorrect, right? The sentence should be "Nadie no dijo nada", right?[/QUOTE]

*Yo creo *lo correcto sería "*Nadie dijo Algo*" ahí se utiliza una negación ('nadie') para volver negativa toda la oración.

Pero no se usa tanto como "*Nadie dijo nada*" (_que ESTRICTAMENTE es una *doble* negación por lo tanto se vuelve positiva, y equivaldría a "Nadie se mantuvo callado" que significaría lo contrario a lo que uno normalmente pensaría_). Pero la población general entiende "Nadie dijo nada" como "Nadie habló".


----------



## saulmario

*"No enamorame de tí sería inevitable"*

Es una oración que a primera instancia le vemos *2* negaciones (*no* e* in*-).
Por ser el *2* número *par* lo que pensaríamos que sería una oración positiva. Pero hay que analizar la partícula '-evitable' de la palabra 'inevitable'. _Evitar: (verb) Impedir que suceda._ El mismo verbo es una acción negativa. Por lo que en total contaríamos *3* negaciones. Por ser número *3* *impar* la oración resultante será negativa.

Por lo que "No_(1)_ enamorarme de tí sería in_(2)_evitable_(3)_" equivaldría a "Enamorarme de tí sería evitable_(1)_" 

... lo que nos da a entender que esa persona *no* se enamoraría de la otra.


----------



## botanico

How about "No dijo nada nadie"? ¿Se puede decir?

Yes, but "Nadie dijo nada" (nobody tells nothing) means the same and is preferred


----------

