# Hablaste/Hablastes



## Don Borinqueno

I am not sure if this has already been asked but where i work there are a lot of Mexicans and i always here them adding on that weird type of ending. Usually with ar verbs. Can anyone explain this to me

Por ejemplo:
Hablaste=Hablastes
Veniste=Venistes
Corriste=Corristes

I appreciate your help.


----------



## alvarezp

Hablaste*s* is NOT correct.

Lots of people have that problem.


----------



## VenusEnvy

I agree with alva. I've heard Spanish speakers make that mistake, but it is just that: a mistake. 


Cheers!


----------



## diegodbs

Don Borinqueno said:
			
		

> I am not sure if this has already been asked but where i work there are a lot of Mexicans and i always here them adding on that weird type of ending. Usually with ar verbs. Can anyone explain this to me
> 
> Por ejemplo:
> Hablaste=Hablastes
> Veniste=Venistes
> Corriste=Corristes
> 
> I appreciate your help.


 
Lo correcto es:
 - Hablaste
 - V*i*niste
 - Corriste


----------



## Calario

Al final de los verbos puedes poner algunos pronombres como sufijos, y "tes" no es ningún pronombre.
Puedes encontrar los sufijos:
me, nos, te, se, le, lo, la, les, los, las


----------



## irisheyes0583

From a gramatical standpoint, this form of speech is definitely incorrect. However, from a linguistic standpoint, it is not "wrong", it is just "different". As long as a form of speech is understood and practiced by a group of people as a form of communication, it isn't wrong. Language helps us communicate, so if we are communicating, it can't be wrong.

So, in the same way that "ain't" and "walkin'" aren't wrong, "hablastes" and "andaste(s)" aren't wrong; in certain regions/countries, this speech pattern is often used in informal situations, especially among friends. I think they are more often said than written (in the same way that many people say "walkin'", but will write it as "walking", regardless of how they would pronounce it). However, I have many friends that use this form when writing me on messenger... it all depends.

I think that the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." ("Donde fueres, haz lo que vieres.") certainly applies in this situation. In informal speech, mimic those around you. Learn how natives speak. That's how you'll achieve true fluency. The ability to adjust to your surroundings and use colloquial speech is what sets apart a person who is learning a language and someone who knows a language. And yes, this sometimes means using incorrect grammar. I know that I don't speak with my friends in the "correct" way that I was taught in school. I split infinitives, use run-on sentences, employ double negatives, and so much more and thats *okay*. Likewise, it's okay to say "andaste(s)" or "hablastes" if that's how everyone is speaking around you. Just remember the correct grammar for when you're in a formal situation (such as with older adults, in written form, etc.).


----------



## ITA

Hablaste,comiste,viste,visitaste,etc,etc


----------



## Alunarada

yo creo que el error viene porque se mezclan "fuiste" 2ª persona en singular con "fuisteis" 2ª en plural.


----------



## FmhR

@ Irisheyes:
I DO NOT recommend anybody saying "hablaste*s*,comiste*s, *etc", even if the people around you are using this form.  This one does not qualify as informal, it is just plain wrong and sounds horrible to the ears of native Spanish speakers.

@mhp:
Yes, this is one of those that make me cringe...


----------



## Outsider

Alunarada said:
			
		

> yo creo que el error viene porque se mezclan "fuiste" 2ª persona en singular con "fuisteis" 2ª en plural.


También lo creo. "Hablastes" resulta de confundir "hablaste" con "hablasteis".


----------



## irisheyes0583

FmhR said:
			
		

> @ Irisheyes:
> I DO NOT recommend anybody saying "hablaste*s*,comiste*s, *etc", even if the people around you are using this form.  This one does not qualify as informal, it is just plain wrong and sounds horrible to the ears of native Spanish speakers.
> 
> @mhp:
> Yes, this is one of those that make me cringe...



I disagree. I think it depends on what you're used to. One of my friends from Nicaragua would give me a funny look if I spoke any other way in an informal setting... as if I were snobby or putting on airs (this is, of course, because he knows me and knows that I understand this form).

To me, "ain't" and "fallin'" and many other forms of speech sound "horrible", and I would never use them, but that doesn't negate their position in the spoken English community.  I really think that what sounds "horrible" and what sounds "acceptable" completely depends on where you're from & how you've been brought up.


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

Alunarada said:
			
		

> yo creo que el error viene porque se mezclan "fuiste" 2ª persona en singular con "fuisteis" 2ª en plural.


 


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> También lo creo. "Hablastes" resulta de confundir "hablaste" con "hablasteis".


 
Creo que ésta teoría es correcta. En México hemos perdido con el tiempo el uso del vosotros, pero mucha gente agrega la s como error común. El error tiene su origen justamente en esto.
Saludos.
Tggr


----------



## Outsider

Una pregunta: en los países donde se vosea, ¿se dice "hablastes"? (En caso de voseo, no sería incorrecto.)


----------



## irisheyes0583

Outsider said:
			
		

> Una pregunta: en los países donde se vosea, ¿se dice "hablastes"? (En caso de voseo, no sería incorrecto.)



Aha! Maybe this is why all my friends say it this way (Nicaragua & Costa Rica)... I didn't realize that this was the correct conjugation of the voseo! Everything I've read on the subject says that the preterite is to be conjugated exactly as in the "tu" form...


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

Outsider said:
			
		

> Una pregunta: en los países donde se vosea, ¿se dice "hablastes"? (En caso de voseo, no sería incorrecto.)


 
No uso el voceo, pero creo que es "teis" y no "tes" (sólo para plural, en singular "te")

Hablaste (sing)
Hablasteis (pl)

Esperemos la confirmación de un español


----------



## princesa azteca

No estoy de acuerdo con irisheyes en cuanto que si se oye mal no importe por que así habla la gente.  En México si alguien dice "hablastes" nadie le dirá que esta mal, pero se le catalogará como ignorante.

Ese error, que para mi punto de vista es malisisisímo, en México no es aceptado como correcto de ninguna manera.  

Mi recomendación... no usar la "s" al final, da una sensación de ignorancia, escasos recursos, no crees?

saludos


----------



## Dr. Quizá

princesa azteca said:
			
		

> No estoy de acuerdo con irisheyes en cuanto que si se oye mal no importe por que así habla la gente.  En México si alguien dice "hablastes" nadie le dirá que esta mal, pero se le catalogará como ignorante.
> 
> Ese error, que para mi punto de vista es malisisisímo, en México no es aceptado como correcto de ninguna manera.
> 
> Mi recomendación... no usar la "s" al final, da una sensación de ignorancia, escasos recursos, no crees?
> 
> saludos



Estoy de acuerdo, y además añado que no creo que sea propio de ninguna comunidad, sino de individuos aislados y no bien hablados.


----------



## Calario

En España a veces la gente añade las "s" al final cuando hablan en plan "fino". Esto se debe a que en muchas zonas de España se "comen" las "s" del final de las palabras, y cuando quieren hablar imitando el acento neutro, ponen "s" donde no las hay.
Esto les ocurre a muchos locutores y presentadores que al hablar parece que son serpientes:
"Buenasss nochesss, estamosss entrevistando a Pepito Perez: Peptio, ayer vistessss a Paquita López ¿estuvistesss cenando con ella?"


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Lo que se diría "complejo de ignorante", vaya.


----------



## irisheyes0583

Ouch! For a community of language learners, we seem to be very unaccepting and intolerant of others who may not have had the _opportunity_ to learn.

However, my point is this: the word "ain't" is considered to be a word used by the "uneducated" in America. When I hear it, of course it is going to bring certain stereotypes into my head. However, just because someone uses the word "ain't" does not mean that he does not know how to "correctly" speak English. Many of my friends, now that I live in Virginia, talk "country". For example, 

"Ma, I ain't gonna do nothin' t'day 'cause I just don' wanna." ("Mom, I'm not going to do anything today because I just don't want to.")

This is a very relaxed form of speech, and does not indicate that my friends are uneducated or ignorant of proper English. In fact, they are highly educated (college & post-grads). 

The Spanish-speaking friends to whom I referred are _not_ highly educated. *But*, it is how they speak among themselves: when we're out at a bar, on the job, etc., this is how they speak. When they are conversing in the presence of, for example, someone's parents, they use "hablaste" and not "hablastes". My observation has always been that it is just an extremely informal way of speaking. I will pay more attention in the future because I may be very wrong!


----------



## Farahon05

las palabras escritas;;;como hablastes.......es un palabra acopocada...qquiere decir que se omiten ( o comen ciertas letras).....en España se usa mucho.....hablasteis....sois....etc., y nosotros los latinos la hemos deformado........en hablastes.....y sos...........pero lo correcto seria hablasteis o hablaste......


----------



## Outsider

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> Ouch! For a community of language learners, we seem to be very unaccepting and intolerant of others who may not have had the _opportunity_ to learn.
> 
> However, my point is this: the word "ain't" is considered to be a word used by the "uneducated" in America. When I hear it, of course it is going to bring certain stereotypes into my head. However, just because someone uses the word "ain't" does not mean that he does not know how to "correctly" speak English. Many of my friends, now that I live in Virginia, talk "country". For example,
> 
> "Ma, I ain't gonna do nothin' t'day 'cause I just don' wanna." ("Mom, I'm not going to do anything today because I just don't want to.")
> 
> This is a very relaxed form of speech, and does not indicate that my friends are uneducated or ignorant of proper English. In fact, they are highly educated (college & post-grads).


We're not just talking about making a few contractions, here, though. This is adding a consonant that isn't supposed to be there. 
Consider also that contractions are much less common in Spanish than they are in English. And I've seen some English speakers say that even contractions like "it's" and "I'd" are not proper English, and should never be used in writing!


----------



## Hadamaris

En México lo correcto es *hablaste, *aunque existe mucha gente que agrega *s*  al final de algunos verbos.


----------



## alvarezp

@irisheyes: Significa que decir "hablastes" en España está mal, pero decirlo en México está bien? Por favor no nos trates de esa manera. Una cosa es que se entienda una frase y otra que esté bien.

Entenderlo así es ofensivo para mí, pues esta deformación viene de los pueblos, donde la educación es MUCHO menor que en la urbe. Si soy totalmente de mente abierta, debería aceptar "cisne" como sinónimo de "fregadero" por deformación de "sink" (pocho), "arrebasar" como deformación de "rebasar", "pushar" derivada de "push" usada por algunas con habla pocha.

Lo voy a plantear de otra manera: una persona que está malacostumbrada a decir "hablastes", cuando visite España y un español la escuche decir eso, le va a costar trabajo, mucho trabajo, porque es un error que está justamente a la mitad entre la 2da del singular y la 2da del plural. En más de algún caso, el español no podrá corregir lo que la persona dice. No sabrá si quiso decir "hablaste" o "hablásteis". La diferencia entre la palabra correcta y la incorrecta es, en ambos casos, de 1 fonema.

Además, es impráctico. Además está mal, todo mundo lo sabe, incluso algunos que lo hablan mal saben que está mal.


----------



## asm

Lamentablemente muchos "errores/horrores" se van extendiendo en su uso hasta que llegan a ser aceptados; asi cambio nuestra lengua y asi cambiara. De ahi que los calificativos de ignorancia y de escasez de recursos pueden llegar a ser innecesarios en el futuro. Tienes razon que en Mexico no se ha llegado al punto de aceptar esta frase como correcta, pero no estes tan segura que en el futuro nuestros hijos o nietos lo digan sin mayor empacho.
Estoy seguro que tu y yo usamos palabras/frases que tecnicamente son incorrectas, pero que asi nos fueron ensenadas en su momento, ademas de que fueron reforzadas por el entorno.

Sobre el origen del problema, creo que estamos un poco como dando palos de piNata; algunas ideas son congruentes. recuerdo solamente que en Mexico no usamos el venisteis, asi que no lo creo como fuente del problema. Encontre una pagina de internet (y no la pongo como la verdad, sino como otro intento de darle a la pinata) que menciona que el problema pudo haber surgido por la semejanza con otras terminaciones con la segunda persona. Muchas de estas terminacicones son con "S", ?porque no asi VINISTES, incluso VENISTES? vieneS, veniaS, vendraS, vendriaS, vengaS, vinieraS ?y, por que no, vinistes?

Interesante escuchar la opinion de un filologo



			
				princesa azteca said:
			
		

> No estoy de acuerdo con irisheyes en cuanto que si se oye mal no importe por que así habla la gente. En México si alguien dice "hablastes" nadie le dirá que esta mal, pero se le catalogará como ignorante.
> 
> Ese error, que para mi punto de vista es malisisisímo, en México no es aceptado como correcto de ninguna manera.
> 
> Mi recomendación... no usar la "s" al final, da una sensación de ignorancia, escasos recursos, no crees?
> 
> saludos


----------



## Maeron

IrishEyes: I think you are right on with your assessment. To give another analogy in English, a common "error" (or regionalism) where I come from is  "youse" as the plural of "you". Plenty of people stigmatize it as a marker of low social class, education or intelligence, but in my home territory, it just isn't so. There are geographical pockets of "youse"-speakers that cut all across social and educational lines---I don't say it myself, but I had friends in university that did. It's just the way people from certain places talk.

I am doubtful of explanations of "_hablastes_" that appeal to _voseo _or _vosotros_, neither of which have ever been a feature of the speech of Mexicans who use "_hablastes_". Note that all conjugations of _tú_ end with "s" with the single exception of the preterite; _habla*s*_, _hable*s*_, _hablaba*s*_, _hablará*s*_, _hablara*s*_, etc. It makes more sense to me that people just extended the "_s_" to the one tense that "correctly" doesn't have it.


----------



## Outsider

Your hypothesis makes sense, perhaps more than mine. However:



			
				Maeron said:
			
		

> I am doubtful of explanations of "_hablastes_" that appeal to _voseo _or _vosotros_, neither of which have ever been a feature of the speech of Mexicans who use "_hablastes_".


While Mexicans may not use _vosotros_ and its conjugations _today_, I believe they did use it in past times.



> “Durante el siglo XVI, entonces, el sistema básico de tratamiento para el singular estaba formado por _tú, vos_, y _Vuestra Merced_, yendo de menor a mayor formalidad. En el plural se utilizaban _vosotros_ (ya no _vos_ sino _vos-otros_ para distinguirse del _vos_ singular) y _Vuestras Mercedes_ como formas de cercanía y lejanía, respectivamente. Estas fueron formas que llegaron a América en boca de conquistadores y colonizadores (ver cuadro III)”
> 
> source (pdf)


----------



## irisheyes0583

Maeron said:
			
		

> IrishEyes: I think you are right on with your assessment. To give another analogy in English, a common "error" (or regionalism) where I come from is  "youse" as the plural of "you". Plenty of people stigmatize it as a marker of low social class, education or intelligence, but in my home territory, it just isn't so. There are geographical pockets of "youse"-speakers that cut all across social and educational lines---I don't say it myself, but I had friends in university that did. It's just the way people from certain places talk.
> 
> I am doubtful of explanations of "_hablastes_" that appeal to _voseo _or _vosotros_, neither of which have ever been a feature of the speech of Mexicans who use "_hablastes_". Note that all conjugations of _tú_ end with "s" with the single exception of the preterite; _habla*s*_, _hable*s*_, _hablaba*s*_, _hablará*s*_, _hablara*s*_, etc. It makes more sense to me that people just extended the "_s_" to the one tense that "correctly" doesn't have it.


Finally someone that can agree!  

  I myself am pretty well educated and I _certainly_ know how to speak English correctly. However, I am from Philly and I absolutely use "youse" and "youse guys" when I'm talking to my Philly friends! Thanks for bringing that one up! It's *completely* incorrect and sounds horrible to those who aren't used to it (my parents included, who berate me constantly for my Philly-isms). We also say that we "go down the shore" instead of "go (down) to the shore". Gramatically incorrect; regionally acceptable (in informal situations). 

My point was simply that the type of speech one uses in informal speech does not necessarily indicate that person's level of education or knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language. I never said that "hablastes" is grammatically correct (in fact, I said the opposite), simply that it is acceptable as a means of communication since it is understood. Linguists say that there is no such thing as an "incorrect" form of language (as long as it is mutually intelligible), and that was what I was trying to get across.


----------



## bluejazzshark

I have heard "hablastes" used by Ecuadorians and Spaniards. I don't think it has anything to do with "vosotros", just the natural tendency to think that verbs in the second person singular should end with an "s", just as in all the other tenses.

It's a spoken informal form (tu is after all informal!!!). People who say "hablastes" write "hablaste" normally.

We can't be prescriptive about language: it evolves and grows, so you cant infer anything about the intelligence or other qualities of a person who speaks in a particular way.

Just my 2p worth...

- Blue


----------



## CatXS

Hablastes is a quite common mistake, but still a mistake. I do not think it can be considered as an informal way of speaking. I mean, it is not the same that saying "hablao" (skipping the "d"), while you write "hablado".
In many situations, "hablastes" would be considere as a plain mistake related to lack of knowledge. At least, it is so in Spain.


----------



## gisele73

CatXS said:
			
		

> Hablastes is a quite common mistake, but still a mistake. I do not think it can be considered as an informal way of speaking. I mean, it is not the same that saying "hablao" (skipping the "d"), while you write "hablado".
> In many situations, "hablastes" would be considere as a plain mistake related to lack of knowledge. At least, it is so in Spain.



I agree with you 100%, it is not "informal" way of speaking, for that matter we would use slang, but "hablastes" and the like are mistakes, pure and simple.


----------



## gisele73

Farahon05 said:
			
		

> las palabras escritas;;;como hablastes.......es un palabra acopocada...qquiere decir que se omiten ( o comen ciertas letras).....en España se usa mucho.....hablasteis....sois....etc., y nosotros los latinos la hemos deformado........en hablastes.....y sos...........pero lo correcto seria hablasteis o hablaste......




Hola Farahon05,

Lo correcto es decir "hablasteis" (vosotros) o "hablaron" (ustedes), ambos se refieren a la segunda personal del plural. 

Un saludo


----------



## bluejazzshark

But where do you draw the line? that's the point....The following is a "mistake" in Latin America:Le conocí ayerBut it's common usage in most of Spain. And probably:Lo conocí ayersounds wrong to many Spaniards. I've heard a lot of Spanish speakers using the "s" on the end of the 2 person singular of the indefinido and so it's "current usage". It's what people say. There are many things that English speakers say that according to prescriptive grammaticians are "wrong", but nothing is wrong if it is understood and is shared by however small a language community. It's how language evolves.Saying "it's a mistake" is nothing more than saying "I wouldn't say that because people I talk to don't do it". There is no absolute grammar, and no book of absolute rules. The RAE tries to enforce rules, but even it cannot state categorically what is "correct" with respect to the use of something as basic as object pronouns, for example.-Blue





			
				gisele73 said:
			
		

> I agree with you 100%, it is not &quot;informal&quot; way of speaking, for that matter we would use slang, but &quot;hablastes&quot; and the like are mistakes, pure and simple.


----------



## CatXS

Of course it is a difficult matter to draw the line between "common" and "correct", and it is not to me to determine it.
However, should that mean that anything is acceptable?
Because it is very common to hear things as:
"el celebro" instead of "el cerebro"
"me se cae al suelo" instead of "se me cae al suelo" 
"creo de que no es así" insted of "creo que es así"

If nothing is wrong, in English lessons, you would get an A writing  something like "I do not understand no nothing".


----------



## irisheyes0583

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, since I think we will all have to eventually just agree to disagree. However, I just wanted to point out that languages absolutely, positively evolve and as they evolve, the new words, grammar structures, etc. *are considered wrong*. Until, of course, they become mainstream enough that someone declares that it is acceptable and even proper. Language, just as culture, is dynamic. It moves, it flows and it will always continue to change. I am not saying that "hablastes" is evolving to become a new "correct" form of speech (although it might); all I'm saying is that it is not our right or in our power to say that a form of speech is unacceptable.

Below are some examples of Old English, Middle English, and Early Modern English. We're all aware of what Modern English sounds/looks like, so you can come to your own conclusions about what the speakers of the following English samples would have said about how we speak.

*Old English* (from Beowulf--900AD)

Hwæt! We Gar-Dena
þeodcyninga,
hu ða æþelingas
Oft Scyld Scefing
monegum mægþum,
egsode eorlas. 

(Translation: Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!)

*Middle English *(from the Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer--14th century)

Here bygynneth the Book of the Tales of Caunterbury

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour...

*Early Modern English *(from Othello, by William Shakespeare--1603AD)

*Iago:* 
Though in the trade of Warre I have slaine men,
Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th' conscience 
To do no contriu'd Murder: I lacke Iniquitie 
Sometime to do me seruice. Nine, or ten times
I had thought t'haue yerk'd him here vnder the Ribbes.

*Othello:* 'Tis better as it is.


----------



## gisele73

bluejazzshark said:
			
		

> but nothing is wrong if it is understood and is shared by however small a language community.-Blue



Hi,

Well, I don´t agree with that. The fact that a grammatically incorrect word is understood and shared by a few or many people doesn´t turn that word into a correct one for that reason.
It´s true that languages evolve, and it´s not in our hands to decide waht things should be accepted or not, but I hope things like "hablastes" never become accepted.


----------



## Outsider

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to beat a dead horse, since I think we will all have to eventually just agree to disagree. However, I just wanted to point out that languages absolutely, positively evolve and as they evolve, the new words, grammar structures, etc. *are considered wrong*. Until, of course, they become mainstream enough that someone declares that it is acceptable and even proper. Language, just as culture, is dynamic. It moves, it flows and it will always continue to change. I am not saying that "hablastes" is evolving to become a new "correct" form of speech (although it might); all I'm saying is that it is not our right or in our power to say that a form of speech is unacceptable.


Are you saying people shouldn't label "hablastes" as incorrect?


----------



## Orgullomoore

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to beat a dead horse, since I think we will all have to eventually just agree to disagree. However, I just wanted to point out that languages absolutely, positively evolve and as they evolve, the new words, grammar structures, etc. *are considered wrong*. Until, of course, they become mainstream enough that someone declares that it is acceptable and even proper. Language, just as culture, is dynamic. It moves, it flows and it will always continue to change. I am not saying that "hablastes" is evolving to become a new "correct" form of speech (although it might); all I'm saying is that it is not our right or in our power to say that a form of speech is unacceptable.
> 
> Below are some examples of Old English, Middle English, and Early Modern English. We're all aware of what Modern English sounds/looks like, so you can come to your own conclusions about what the speakers of the following English samples would have said about how we speak.
> 
> *Old English* (from Beowulf--900AD)
> 
> Hwæt! We Gar-Dena
> þeodcyninga,
> hu ða æþelingas
> Oft Scyld Scefing
> monegum mægþum,
> egsode eorlas.
> 
> (Translation: Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!)
> 
> *Middle English *(from the Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer--14th century)
> 
> Here bygynneth the Book of the Tales of Caunterbury
> 
> Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
> The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
> And bathed every veyne in swich licour...
> 
> *Early Modern English *(from Othello, by William Shakespeare--1603AD)
> 
> *Iago:*
> Though in the trade of Warre I have slaine men,
> Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th' conscience
> To do no contriu'd Murder: I lacke Iniquitie
> Sometime to do me seruice. Nine, or ten times
> I had thought t'haue yerk'd him here vnder the Ribbes.
> 
> *Othello:* 'Tis better as it is.


I completely agree with IrishEyes. There is no reason for me as a speaker--as a learner--to resist the speech patterns of my teachers, especially if it's just informal speech and somewhere in my head I have the correct way to say it. I don't say 'hablastes' because the majority of the people I speak with don't say it. I do, however, hear it often and I just let it slide, I don't want to stop a conversation, slow things down, and hinder communication, just so the guy on the other end of the conversation knows that I know more than him. Languages evolve because people bend the rules, and I personally don't have any motivation to resist it...go with the flow.


----------



## irisheyes0583

Outsider said:
			
		

> Are you saying people shouldn't label "hablastes" as incorrect?



No, if you see my posts above (yes, I know I've said a lot! ) I have stated that "hablastes" is certainly "incorrect" from a by-the-rules grammatical standpoint.


----------



## alvarezp

When you teach something, you also encourage to use what is taught, or at least, you leave it to the choice of the aprentice (unless you don't know it's wrong).

However, these words, plain wrong, should either not be taught or be taught with their use discouraged, this is, only for their information. If the words were right or its use were ok, this would not be the case.


----------



## gisele73

Orgullomoore said:
			
		

> I completely agree with IrishEyes. There is no reason for me as a speaker--as a learner--to resist the speech patterns of my teachers, especially if it's just informal speech and somewhere in my head I have the correct way to say it. I don't say 'hablastes' because the majority of the people I speak with don't say it. I do, however, hear it often and I just let it slide, I don't want to stop a conversation, slow things down, and hinder communication, just so the guy on the other end of the conversation knows that I know more than him. Languages evolve because people bend the rules, and I personally don't have any motivation to resist it...go with the flow.



But again, "hablastes" is not "informal speech", it is wrong, probably it´s not easy to see the differecne for someone that is not a native speaker, but it´s like saying "tooks" instead of "took"or something like that. Ex: "She _tooks_ the bus yesterday".


----------



## Orgullomoore

gisele73 said:
			
		

> But again, "hablastes" is not "informal speech", it is wrong, probably it´s not easy to see the differecne for someone that is not a native speaker, but it´s like saying "tooks" instead of "took"or something like that. Ex: "She _tooks_ the bus yesterday".


 It's not hard to see the difference, we do the same thing in English. For example, I don't know a single friend who is completely sure how to conjugate drink, or sink. _

He sank 3 feet deep? He sinked 3 feet deep? Is he sunk righ now? No silly, he's sank! 

I drank so much last night. You didn't drink it, Bobby drunk it, and then we all drank a little together, but you woke up with the hungover because you got the most drunk. 

_I truly don't know if the above paragraphs are gramatically correct, and as long as I don't have to write a formal essay on it, I truly don't care. My friends, and anyone I talk to (1) probably don't know either and (2) don't care either. "Hablastes" is incorrect, without a doubt, but when people say it, I understand it. There are plenty of people, uneducated as they are, that I speak with that say things like "A eso *venemos*", or "¿*salemos*, o nos quedamos un ratillo más?", and they are truly incorrect, but who am I to correct them?


----------



## irisheyes0583

gisele73 said:
			
		

> But again, "hablastes" is not "informal speech", it is wrong, probably it´s not easy to see the differecne for someone that is not a native speaker, but it´s like saying "tooks" instead of "took"or something like that. Ex: "She _tooks_ the bus yesterday".


Much the same way people say "I gone to the store" or "He be back soon"? Or, as in a previous example, "youse guys" instead of "you guys"? 

If those are too anti-mainstream, how about the following? (I bet many of us make these "mistakes"!): How about "me too"? This is _definitely_ incorrect, but who doesn't say it? "None of us are having dessert." should be "None of us is having dessert." "What are you bringing on vacation?" should be "What are you taking on vacation?". "Itch" is the noun, not a verb, so you can always "scratch an itch", but you can't technically "itch" anything. 

Yes, these are all "incorrect", but I understand them. Many are widely used and accepted. Just because more people make these "mistakes" than make the "hablastes" mistakes does not make them any more "acceptable" under grammatical terms...

And, if you're still *sure* that what was once deemed incorrect should always be "incorrect", please fill in the blank:

Today I work. Yesterday I __________. 

(Chances are, unless you've looked it up, you got that one wrong. If the theory that what is correct now should always be correct and that "incorrect" conjugations [like Orgullo's _venemos_ or _hablastes_] should never be tolerated, you would have said "Yesterday I _wrought_.")


----------



## Orgullomoore

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> Much the same way people say "I gone to the store" or "He be back soon"? Or, as in a previous example, "youse guys" instead of "you guys"?
> 
> If those are too anti-mainstream, how about the following? (I bet many of us make these "mistakes"!): How about "me too"? This is _definitely_ incorrect, but who doesn't say it? "None of us are having dessert." should be "None of us is having dessert." "What are you bringing on vacation?" should be "What are you taking on vacation?". "Itch" is the noun, not a verb, so you can always "scratch an itch", but you can't technically "itch" anything.
> 
> Yes, these are all "incorrect", but I understand them. Many are widely used and accepted. Just because more people make these "mistakes" than make the "hablastes" mistakes does not make them any more "acceptable" under grammatical terms...


And don't forget "Lookit! A bird!" LOL, just playing, we say that alot around here, though


----------



## Outsider

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> How about "me too"? This is _definitely_ incorrect, but who doesn't say it? "None of us are having dessert." should be "None of us is having dessert." "What are you bringing on vacation?" should be "What are you taking on vacation?".


I think you will find a much greater percentage of English speakers using those phrases, than you will find Spanish speakers using "hablastes", though.


----------



## irisheyes0583

Outsider said:
			
		

> I think you will find a much greater percentage of English speakers using those phrases, than you will find Spanish speakers using "hablastes", though.


 Yes, which is why I asked: does excessive or widespread use of a "mistake" make it any more "correct" than a lesser-used one? I don't think so... you're letting stereotypes get in the way. Just because one phrase is less stigmatized, by the purist definition, it is still "wrong".


----------



## Outsider

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> Yes, which is why I asked: does excessive or widespread use of a "mistake" make it any more "correct" than a lesser-used one? I don't think so...


I would say that if/when enough people adopt a language mistake, it can become the norm. That's how languages evolve, to repeat something you said earlier. 



			
				irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> you're letting stereotypes get in the way. Just because one phrase is less stigmatized, by the purist definition, it is still "wrong".


Are you referring to me, specifically, or to other posters as well?


----------



## irisheyes0583

Outsider said:
			
		

> I would say that if/when enough people adopt a language mistake, it can become the norm. That's how languages evolve, to repeat something you said earlier.
> 
> Are you referring to me, specifically, or to other posters as well?



No, no, no! I'm sorry!  (What I meant was, "se deja" or "se permite", not "dejas" or "permites"!)

All I'm saying is that "hablastes" is widely used in some circles/areas and if Don Borinqueno hears it, he should realize he has not misheard...


----------



## Orgullomoore

Outsider said:
			
		

> I would say that if/when enough people adopt a language mistake, it can become the norm. That's how languages evolve, to repeat something you said earlier.


So who are we to stop it? Let the language evolve... (Not that you could stop it, even if you tried )


----------



## Outsider

When a person who is learning Spanish asks about a particular construction, and native speakers tell that person that the construction is "incorrect", I don't see that necessarily as an attempt to stop change. 
It can be simply a description of the present stage of the language, what is currently considered valid, and what is not. Only the future will tell what Spanish will turn into tomorrow, but it's useful to know what it is today.


----------



## irisheyes0583

Outsider said:
			
		

> When a person who is learning Spanish asks about a particular construction, and native speakers tell that person that the construction is "incorrect", I don't see that necessarily as an attempt to stop change.
> It can be simply a description of the present stage of the language, what is currently considered valid, and what is not. Only the future will tell what Spanish will turn into tomorrow, but it's useful to know what it is today.



Agreed (imagine that! )! 

I just think it's also important to mention all forms of speech, whether correct or not.


----------



## gisele73

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> How about "me too"? This is _definitely_ incorrect, but who doesn't say it?



Hi 

I didn't know_ "me too"_ was incorrect. Actually I've said it many times, but I'm not a native speaker. I use either _"me too"_ or _"so do I"_, but now I know. I assume then the latter is the correct one.


----------



## mhp

gisele73 said:
			
		

> Hi
> 
> I didn't know_ "me too"_ was incorrect. Actually I've said it many times, but I'm not a native speaker. I use either _"me too"_ or _"so do I"_, but now I know. I assume then the latter is the correct one.


Hi Gisele, I think you can safely continue to say “me too” without being corrected. You can even say all the me-too people, me-tooer or me-tooism.   
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/me%20too


----------



## gisele73

mhp said:
			
		

> Hi Gisele, I think you can safely continue to say “me too” without being corrected. You can even say all the me-too people, me-tooer or me-tooism.
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/me%20too



Thanks a lot for posting that link mhp!


----------



## bluejazzshark

In South Wales, English speakers say just that:"I knows what you're talking about"for example. It's part of the South Wales community language, and just because we don't like it, it doesn't mean it isn't "correct", if there is such a thing in a language. We can talk about "common usage" as a standard in English, but that's as far as we get. Given the diversity of language in the English and Spanish communities, enforcing one model on the rest doesn't work, as I have pointed out with object pronouns and the RAE.So I would only say "hablastes" is "incorrect" if we are judging all spanish speakers by the same authorititive and prescriptive standard (i.e. RAE), which doesn't event attempt to include all variations in the language seen throughout Latin America. If we do this, then there are literally millions ofnative speakers who are "wrong".And it is at this point we have to accept a relativism in language - that is that it doesn't fit any one model, and authorities are only useful for the purposes of exams, which aren't "real" language.- Blue





			
				gisele73 said:
			
		

> But again, &quot;hablastes&quot; is not &quot;informal speech&quot;, it is wrong, probably it´s not easy to see the differecne for someone that is not a native speaker, but it´s like saying &quot;tooks&quot; instead of &quot;took&quot;or something like that. Ex: &quot;She _tooks_ the bus yesterday&quot;.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

"Haber" (what do you think of this?) que "hablastes" no es característico de ciertas zonas, sólo de individuos aislados que intentan disimular que hablan mal.


----------



## Kaia

"Haber" (= a ver) ?????....un desastre!! HablasteS es un horror, aunque he oído a muchos españoles decir esto (si no escuchen las canciones del grupo "Mecano"..un poquito ochentosos pero bueno!)


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Kaia said:
			
		

> "Haber" (= a ver) ?????....un desastre!!



Te aseguro que aquí la mayoría de los chavales escriben "haber" en vez de "a ver"... no por eso vamos a darlo por bueno. Incluso he visto escrito más de una vez "habeces"


----------



## gisele73

bluejazzshark said:
			
		

> In South Wales, English speakers say just that:"I knows what you're talking about"for example. It's part of the South Wales community language, and just because we don't like it, it doesn't mean it isn't "correct", if there is such a thing in a language. We can talk about "common usage" as a standard in English, but that's as far as we get. Given the diversity of language in the English and Spanish communities, enforcing one model on the rest doesn't work, as I have pointed out with object pronouns and the RAE.So I would only say "hablastes" is "incorrect" if we are judging all spanish speakers by the same authorititive and prescriptive standard (i.e. RAE), which doesn't event attempt to include all variations in the language seen throughout Latin America. If we do this, then there are literally millions ofnative speakers who are "wrong".And it is at this point we have to accept a relativism in language - that is that it doesn't fit any one model, and authorities are only useful for the purposes of exams, which aren't "real" language.- Blue



I'm not saying "hablastes" is wrong because I don't like the word. It is incorrect, whether I like the word or not  isn't the point here. At least until now it hasn't been accepted.


----------



## Fonεtiks

tigger_uhuhu said:
			
		

> Creo que ésta teoría es correcta. En México hemos perdido con el tiempo el uso del vosotros, pero mucha gente agrega la s como error común. El error tiene su origen justamente en esto.
> Saludos.
> Tggr


I disagree. The mistake comes from the inability to distinguish the 2nd person singular conjugation in the simple present with the 2nd person singular in the past, future, conditional or subjunctive (which always take a final "s")

Tú come*s*
Tú comiera*s* / tú comiese*s*
Tú comera*s*
Tú comería*s*
Tú hubiese*s* comido

Ergo: tú comiste(s)

If I heard this mistake, I'd hold myself back not to correct it on the spot, but since it's getting widespread... what can I do?


----------



## Fonεtiks

Outsider said:
			
		

> We're not just talking about making a few contractions, here, though. This is adding a consonant that isn't supposed to be there.
> Consider also that contractions are much less common in Spanish than they are in English. And I've seen some English speakers say that even contractions like "it's" and "I'd" are not proper English, and should never be used in writing!


 
I agree with you. Adding a consonant that should not be there sounds like an aberration. It's like saying "warter" instead of "water"


----------



## irisheyes0583

Fonεtiks said:
			
		

> I agree with you. Adding a consonant that should not be there sounds like an aberration. It's like saying "warter" instead of "water"



We say "wooter" in Philly and "warsh" (not "wash") in NW PA. It's still "correct" in terms of communication...


----------



## alvarezp

bluejazzshark said:
			
		

> So I would only say "hablastes" is "incorrect" if we are judging all spanish speakers by the same authorititive and prescriptive standard (i.e. RAE), which doesn't event attempt to include all variations in the language seen throughout Latin America.



This is not fair. RAE has included Argentina's imperative and Latin America's plural second person. I don't know where did these come from. But there is pretty much difference between "usage, common usage, convenience" and "mistakes".

What you are implying that dyslexic people do not exist, since their wording is not incorrect. Then, why help them? I disagree. They are dyslexic and they should be helped. (I hope this isn't taken bad).


----------



## ayaram7700

I BEG TO DIFFER...

I totally disagree with Irisheye, you cannot *EVER *use an incorrect form, Ok, do not correct those who do, but if you know how to pronounce the words, please do it correctly. There is nothing that sticks to you more than an incorrect word or usage, that is why you should never write wrong words, as your eye captures them and before you know, you start repeating them. Our language is a treasure, we are supposed to pass it on to the next generations as pure as possible, of course, incorporating the new usages, but there is a limit to everything. Sorry...


----------



## Fonεtiks

Not everyone is as well read as irisheyes and people who say "warsh" instead of "wash" knowing they are saying it incorrectly, ok, go ahead, but people who don't know? Should we just let them because it's regional and thus, correct? Pretty dangerous. Then let's just start writing as we want and we'll have a new basis for disintegration and groundless nationalism: new languages.


----------



## irisheyes0583

Fonεtiks said:
			
		

> Not everyone is as well read as irisheyes and people who say "warsh" instead of "wash" knowing they are saying it incorrectly, ok, go ahead, but people who don't know? Should we just let them because it's regional and thus, correct? Pretty dangerous. Then let's just start writing as we want and we'll have a new basis for disintegration and groundless nationalism: new languages.



Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?!  Hehe... well, I think I give up! I'll just stick with one of my original statements: we're all just going to have to agree to disagree!

Note: If you'd like to look at this argument from an academic standpoint, look up the differences between prescriptive & descriptive linguistics. (I have some background in modern linguistics, which is generally descriptive, and which is why I have fought this fight. )


----------



## jmx

Outsider said:
			
		

> I think you will find a much greater percentage of English speakers using those phrases, than you will find Spanish speakers using "hablastes", though.


"Hablastes" is by no means unusual. I hear it all the time, and what's more, I think I have said it myself, though I'm not sure.

It's funny, in Classical Latin this form was already the only one for 2nd person singular not ending with 's', as you can check here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation

I wouldn't be surprised to know that this "hablaste"/"hablastes" question dates back to Vulgar Latin, and that "hablastes" has been regularly rebuked by grammarians all these centuries to keep the similarity with Latin. It would be interesting to know how the corresponding form is said in other Romance languages, but neither French nor Catalan have forms derived from "amavisti".


----------



## Outsider

Portuguese is just like Spanish in this regard, including the tendency to add that spurious _-s_: _falastes_  _falaste_


----------



## jmx

Dr. Quizá said:
			
		

> Te aseguro que aquí la mayoría de los chavales escriben "haber" en vez de "a ver"... no por eso vamos a darlo por bueno. Incluso he visto escrito más de una vez "habeces"


You are mixing up spoken and written language. Written language is artificial and based on conventions. Therefore writing "haber" instead of "a ver" serves no purpose at all.

On the other hand, spoken language is natural and deeply ingrained into each native speaker's psychology, which means that for a particular speaker saying "hablaste" instead of "hablastes" can be simply antinatural, and forcing him to do so is a way to repress his expressivity.


----------



## San

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> From a gramatical standpoint, this form of speech is definitely incorrect. However, from a linguistic standpoint, it is not "wrong", it is just "different". As long as a form of speech is understood and practiced by a group of people as a form of communication, it isn't wrong. Language helps us communicate, so if we are communicating, it can't be wrong.
> 
> So, in the same way that "ain't" and "walkin'" aren't wrong, "hablastes" and "andaste(s)" aren't wrong; in certain regions/countries, this speech pattern is often used in informal situations, especially among friends. I think they are more often said than written (in the same way that many people say "walkin'", but will write it as "walking", regardless of how they would pronounce it). However, I have many friends that use this form when writing me on messenger... it all depends.
> 
> I think that the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." ("Donde fueres, haz lo que vieres.") certainly applies in this situation. In informal speech, mimic those around you. Learn how natives speak. That's how you'll achieve true fluency. The ability to adjust to your surroundings and use colloquial speech is what sets apart a person who is learning a language and someone who knows a language. And yes, this sometimes means using incorrect grammar. I know that I don't speak with my friends in the "correct" way that I was taught in school. I split infinitives, use run-on sentences, employ double negatives, and so much more and thats *okay*. Likewise, it's okay to say "andaste(s)" or "hablastes" if that's how everyone is speaking around you. Just remember the correct grammar for when you're in a formal situation (such as with older adults, in written form, etc.).



Bueno, yo he de reconocer que digo "hablastes" en muchas ocasiones. No es un problema de desconocimiento porque escribo "hablaste". Tampoco de parecer fino sobreactuando con las "eses", porque de hecho no pronuncio las "eses" finales de sílaba, digo "hablahteh". No es confusión con el plural, porque yo no rechazo el  "vosotros". Digo por tanto "hablasteis".

Supongo que tiene que ver con lo de los romanos. Pero en fin, prometo autoflagelarme más de lo normal esta noche


----------



## Dr. Quizá

jmartins said:
			
		

> You are mixing up spoken and written language. Written language is artificial and based on conventions. Therefore writing "haber" instead of "a ver" serves no purpose at all.
> 
> On the other hand, spoken language is natural and deeply ingrained into each native speaker's psychology, which means that for a particular speaker saying "hablaste" instead of "hablastes" can be simply antinatural, and forcing him to do so is a way to repress his expressivity.



Entonces habría que dar por buenos "pograma", "celebro", "yo es que no me gusta" ...


----------



## jinti

San said:
			
		

> Bueno, yo he de reconocer que digo "hablastes" en muchas ocasiones. No es un problema de desconocimiento porque escribo "hablaste". Tampoco de parecer fino sobreactuando con las "eses", porque de hecho no pronuncio las "eses" finales de sílaba, digo "hablahteh". No es confusión con el plural, porque yo no rechazo el "vosotros". Digo por tanto "hablasteis".
> 
> Supongo que tiene que ver con lo de los romanos. Pero en fin, prometo autoflagelarme más de lo normal esta noche


 
No soy nativa, pero les diré que cuando empecé a estudiar español, cometí el mismo error.  No fue por confusión con _hablasteis_, porque no nos enseñaban _vosotros_ en mis clases de español.  Ni tuve una conexión psíquica con los romanos.  Fue porque en todos los tiempos menos en el pretérito, la 2ª persona singular termina con _s_ (_hablas, hablabas, hablarás, hablarías, hables, hablaras, hablares_....).  Y extendí el uso de la _s_ lógicamente a _hablastes_.  (Y entonces mi profesor de español me regañó como si yo hubiera planeado la perdición del idioma español....)


----------



## Jérémie

I am used to hearing Mexican Spanish, almost exclusively, since graduating from college.  Unfortunately, most Mexican immigrants to the United States bring with them an inferior vocabulary (average for parents of my Spanish-speaking students is under 500 words), low literacy rates, and improper grammar.  While I can identify with the idea that some educated people want to relate to their "country" roots at times, many who use "ain't", "fixin' to", and other slang terms do so without actually knowing that their usage is an impediment to getting a job, excelling in academics, and climbing the social ladder.  This is the same for my students and their parents, who mostly hail from poor areas of Jalisco and Michoacan (México).  They add the extra "s" onto the 2nd person past tense, e.g. hablasteS, comisteS, escribisteS, out of ignorance for the correct way of speaking.  This is apparent, also, in their writing.  While few California "Okies" would actually write "ain't" or "nuthin'" in an essay, all of my students will write "hablastes", believing they are writing proper Spanish.  With apologists around, ignoring the problem, these kids may return to Mexico, someday, and be in for a rude awakening, as educated, more urban Mexicans, can be quite unforgiving.


----------



## Franra

Raro, Irish Eyes. Las personas de mi comunidad, es decir, Chile, que usan aquella "s" al final y eso va también para la mayoría de hispano parlantes que lo hacen, no saben que aquello está mal. Por lo tanto es una muestra de ignorancia y no me parece que deba ser imitada por nadie, nisiquiera en lo coloquial. Distinto es el uso de otras informalidades en el idioma castellano, como decir "na" en vez de nada o "pa" en vez de para, que son utilizados como contracción de la palabra original para hacer más fluída una conversación, por ejemplo. Aquello se acerca bastante más al uso del "ain´t" al que tú haces referencia, que puede sonar desagradable ala oído, pero es utilizado a sabiendas de que aquella es una mera expresión y no la negación ni la conjugación correcta de un verbo. Hay una gran diferencia entre ser distendido a la hora de hablar y promover el mal uso del lenguaje.


----------



## jorcorbalan

NO NO NO 
I come from a the "voseo" country "par excellence: Argentina, and hablastes is totally forbidden, here it is uneducated language. 
Linguistically speaking, this is a case of hypercorrection, by assimilation from the second person of other tenses where there is an "s" ending.

So at least in Argentina, second person singular, indefinite past (pretérito indefinido) (now called simple perfect past (pretérito perfecto simple) has no "s" ending. Pleople using that ending are considered uneducated, among other things, and we do NOT SAY "hablastes" and write "hablaste" as you say "walkin' " and write "walking". NO WAY, DEFINITELY NOT!

Thanks
Jorge


----------



## soltango

Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer? 

Yo supongo que sería algo regional y/o ineducado y/o habla del campo? Pero me gustaría confirmar esta noción, y saber si hay algo más aquí que esté yo perdiendo. 

Muchas gracias.


----------



## Fernita

soltango said:


> Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?
> 
> Yo supongo que sería algo regional y/o ineducado y/o habla del campo? Pero me gustaría confirmar esta noción, y saber si hay algo más aquí que esté yo perdiendo.
> 
> Muchas gracias.


Hola Soltango.
Es muy común también aquí en Argentina. *Pero no es correcto*. 
No te preocupes porque no estás perdiendo nada más.
Saludos,


----------



## virgilio

soltango,
            Así solía pronunciarlo una amiga mía, natural de Valencia (España). No sé si es regional.

Virgilio


----------



## San

soltango said:


> Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?
> 
> Yo supongo que sería algo regional y/o ineducado y/o habla del campo? Pero me gustaría confirmar esta noción, y saber si hay algo más aquí que esté yo perdiendo.
> 
> Muchas gracias.



Es un error que cometen muchos hispanohablantes en todas partes, en el campo, en la ciudad, en España, en América, intenta evitarlo siempre que puedas


----------



## soltango

Muchas gracias. Me quedo sin dudas.


----------



## Jeromed

soltango said:


> Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?


 
That ending is incorrect. It's characteristic of people with a low educational level, and not just in Mexico. 

It can also sometimes be found among relatively 'well-educated people' in some countries.

PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though).


----------



## lazarus1907

Jeromed said:


> PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though).


No; es un vulgarismo. Antes del siglo XVII existía la terminación -stes (para el plural), que luego cambiaría a -steis.


----------



## Jeromed

lazarus1907 said:


> No; es un vulgarismo. Antes del siglo XVII existía la terminación -stes (para el plural), que luego cambiaría a -steis.


 
Entonces eso explica las terminaciones en el voseo americano: _ Vos tenés_ en lugar de V_os tenéis._ ¿O no?


----------



## virgilio

Jeromed, 
Re:" PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though)."
It would certainly have been a mistake in Latin, where the equivalent form ends in -isti.
In Latin the perfect stem of many verbs ends in "v" and even in classical Latin the Present Perfect/Aorist tense was abbreviated in colloquial speech in much the same way that Spanish has abbreviated it, by dropping this "v" and the following vowel.
e.g.
amavisti     -  amasti       -  amaste
amavistis    -  amastis     - amasteis
amaverunt  - amarunt      - amaron

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

(This was suggested a while ago in another thread where the topic came up.) Take a look at the full conjugation of "hablar".

Every simple form of the 2nd. person singular (_tú_) ends with _-s_, except for the _indefinido_. It seems likely that variants like _*hablastes_ arise by analogy with the other simple tenses.


----------



## lazarus1907

virgilio said:


> Re:" PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though)."
> It would certainly have been a mistake in Latin, where the equivalent form ends in -isti.


No es una conjugación arcaica; no existía en latín, y nunca se ha usado sistemáticamente. Como dice Outsider, la "s" se añadía a veces (p. ej. "cantastes") por confusión debido a las demás formas verbales, pero nunca se ha considerado estándar. No es lo que pienso, sino que aparece documentado en muchos libros. Si alguien quiere referencias, se las daré con gusto.


----------



## lazarus1907

Jeromed said:


> Entonces eso explica las terminaciones en el voseo americano: _ Vos tenés_ en lugar de V_os tenéis._ ¿O no?


No creo. El verbo latino "cantatis" cambió a "cantades", empezó a perder la "d" en el siglo XV, y desapareció en el XVI (cantaes); Entre el XVI y el XVII se formaron "cantáis" y "cantás". La última forma perdura en Argentina y otros países.


----------



## virgilio

lazarus,
          I believe you, I believe you. Ud escribe "Esto aparece documentado en muchos libros; no es mi opinión personal." Que lástima! Yo habría preferido que fuese su opinión personal. Podemos prescindir de los muchos libros; la opinión sincera de un filòsofo vale más de cien libros, por eruditos que sean.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

lazarus1907 said:


> No creo. El verbo latino "cantatis" cambió a "cantades", empezó a perder la "d" en el siglo XV, y desapareció en el XVI (cantaes); Entre el XVI y el XVII se formaron "cantáis" y "cantás". La última forma perdura en Argentina y otros países.


Coincido con Lazarus. Por lo que he visto, la conjugación del _vos_ es posterior a la del _vosotros_, y una simplificación de esta, si es que se puede hablar así. Bueno, puede que cronológicamente se hayan desarollado en simultáneo, pero al menos morfológicamente la conjugación del _vos_ se puede describir como una "reducción" de la del _vosotros_.


----------



## Jeromed

Lazarus:
¿A partir de cuándo se empezaron a calificar los términos, construcciones, conjugaciones, etc. como 'estándar' o no en castellano? Supongo que habrá sido después del _Quijote--_quizá con la creación de la RAE. Te lo pregunto porque leo lo siguiente en la sección _Preliminares_ de ese libro_:_

Por cuanto por parte de vos, Miguel de Cervantes, nos fue fecha relación que habíades compuesto un libro intitulado _El ingenioso hidalgo de la Mancha_, el cual os había costado mucho trabajo y era muy útil y provechoso, nos pedistes y suplicastes os mandásemos dar licencia y facultad para le poder imprimir, y previlegio por el tiempo que fuésemos servidos, o como la nuestra merced fuese.

Gracias.


----------



## Outsider

Jeromed, eso es una 2.ª persona de plural arcaica:



			
				Miguel de Cervantes said:
			
		

> Por cuanto por parte de *vos*, Miguel de Cervantes, nos fue fecha relación que *habíades* compuesto un libro intitulado _El ingenioso hidalgo de la Mancha_, el cual *os* había costado mucho trabajo y era muy útil y provechoso, nos pedistes y suplicastes os mandásemos dar licencia y facultad para le poder imprimir, y previlegio por el tiempo que fuésemos servidos, o como la nuestra merced fuese.


Fíjese que este "vos" es el étimo del "vosotros" actual (y del "vos" sudamericano actual también), que en esos tiempos de usaba como tratamiento formal.


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> Jeromed, eso es una 2.ª persona de plural arcaica:


 
Gracias, Out.  ¡Entonces estamos confundiéndonos nosotros mismos y mezclando una cosa con otra!

¿Podríamos concluir entonces que:

_*Cantastes*_ fue en una época una de las posibles conjugaciones de vosotros/vos.
_*Cantastes*_ ha sido siempre una conjugación incorrecta de tú?
¿Existe alguna relación entre las dos?


----------



## lazarus1907

Jeromed said:


> ¿A partir de cuándo se empezaron a calificar los términos, construcciones, conjugaciones, etc. como 'estándar' o no en castellano? Supongo que habrá sido después del _Quijote,_ quizá con la creación de la RAE. Te pregunto porque leo lo siguiente en la sección _Preliminares_ de ese libro.


Te puedo dar ejemplos literarios de escritores famosos de cualquier siglo, si quieres, pero me refería a lo que usa la mayoría con más frecuencia. Esa "s" se añadía -y se añade- a veces, pero normalmente no. Por cada forma que encuentres con "s" , vas a encontrar cuarente sin ella. Si quieres llamar a lo primero una conjugación, allá tú; no pienso discutir contigo.

Y otra cosa es el tratamiento de cortesía con los morfemas de plural, claro.

_En español medieval, a veces se añadía una /-S/ a la segunda persona del singular de la terminación del pretérito (p. ej., cantastes), sin duda por imitación de las demás terminaciones de segunda persona del singular, marcadas con estemorfema. - *Ralph Penny, Gramática histórica del español*_

_Es vulgarismo dar a la forma de segunda persona del singular la terminación -stes por -ste, por analogía con la -s de las segundas personas de los demás tiempos (cantas, cantabas, cantarás, cantes, etc.). Muy raras veces pasa a la lengua literaria. En el siglo xix este uso no era raro en poesía, en alternancia con la forma normal -ste, probablemente como licencia poética requerida por la medida del verso. [...] En el español antiguo —hasta el siglo xvn— existió la desinencia -astes o -istes, pero con un valor diferente, pues era de segunda persona del plural (luego se transformó en la actual -asteis, -isteis): - *Manuel Seco
*
Asi tenemoa los paradigmas del latin popular: Cantasti. [...] En el siglo xi coexistian dos formas del perfecto Yo levantai arcaica latina vulgar, y levanté romance.Para Tú -stes, Vos -steis. Tú canteste, que domina en el siglo XIII, lo mismo en textos leoneses que castellanos que aragoneses, puede explicarse como analógico con e tónica tomada de la persona Yo, a imitación de dormí, dormiste (1); la forma -este se conserva aún en Asturias y Santander; luego prevaleció la etimológica -aste, como era natural, para uniformar la vocal con las demas personas del plural y tiempos afines al perfecto. - *Menéndez Pidal, Manual de gramática histórica española
*_


----------



## Jeromed

> Si quieres llamar a lo primero una conjugación, allá tú; no pienso discutir contigo.


 
Mi intención no era polemizar, sino informarme. Simplemente no estaba entendiendo la parte histórica de este asunto. Ahora con tu explicación, me queda todo claro. ¡Mil disculpas y gracias!


----------



## MarX

lazarus1907 said:


> _Asi tenemoa los paradigmas del latin popular: Cantasti. [...] En el siglo xi coexistian dos formas del perfecto Yo levantai arcaica latina vulgar, y levanté romance.Para Tú -stes, Vos -steis. Tú canteste, que domina en el siglo XIII, lo mismo en textos leoneses que castellanos que aragoneses, puede explicarse como analógico con e tónica tomada de la persona Yo, a imitación de dormí, dormiste (1); la forma -este se conserva aún en Asturias y Santander; luego prevaleció la etimológica -aste, como era natural, para uniformar la vocal con las demas personas del plural y tiempos afines al perfecto. - *Menéndez Pidal, Manual de gramática histórica española*_


So for the 2.sg. preterit form of *cantar* in Spanish there were variations:
1. with the vowel: *cantaste(s) *and *canteste(s)*
2. with the final *-S*

Both *cantaste(s) *and the final *-S* were modifications of the language which evolved naturally in the vernacular of its speakers.
In the case of Spanish, *cantaste* got accepted into the standard written language, whereas *cantastes* did not.
The fact that it is so widespread (it occurs in Spain -even in València where Castilian originally was "imported"-, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, so one may suppose, almost everywhere in the Spanish-speaking world) shows that it must have a long history and that it has something to do with the natural evolution of the Spanish language. The only thing is that it was not accepted into the written norm.

Interesting comparisons:

1. In Chile, *vos* was once more widespread than today and didn't have a strongly negative connotation. But through the work of Andres Bello, it deteriorated to the point that it is considered vulgar today.

2. Romance languages. 
Vulgar Latin was, well, as the name says, vulgar. 
But certain varieties got to be standardized which resulted in today's Romance languages. 
What is not accepted in one variety may be considered standard in another. 
For example the "vanishing" of final *-S *in pronunciation, which got accepted in the standard French language, but is considered as a widespread regionalism in the Spanish language: In Chile and Argentina, the aspiration of the final *-S* is accepted in the speech of all levels of the society, and doesn't carry a strong negative stigma as it might in certain other Spanish speaking countries.

Interesting thread.

Saludos,


MarK


----------



## aleCcowaN

Hablastes o cantastes es forma del voseo muy común que no tiene aceptación académica en ningún país, sin embargo es de uso extendido y aunque en general se lo considera de "entrecasa", no le atrae a quien la use una apreciación negativa siempre que conozca y entienda la forma estándar.

Por lo tanto, siendo voseo. no puede ser incorrecto como tal. Es simplemente otra cosa. Lo único incorrecto es considerarlo una forma paradigmática de conjugación general del castellano para el tuteo verbal. No lo sería en el caso del voseo verbal con uso del pronombre "tú", aunque vuelve a surgir la pregunta de si el hablante es consciente de lo que está utilizando.

Con respecto al voseo en general, encuentro una cierta ceguera por parte de quienes no lo usan. Los otros días, leyendo Fuente Ovejuna en la edición del catedrático español Francisco López Estrada, me encontré con tres presumibles casos de voseo que el editor dio por formas incorrectas del imperativo de la segunda persona del plural. El más notorio es en los versos 607 a 614:

LAURENCIA: Si los alcaldes entraran,/que de uno soy hija yo,/bien huera entrar; mas si no.../COMENDADOR: ¡Flores! FLORES: Señor COMENDADOR: ¿Qué reparan/ en no hacer lo que les digo?/ FLORES: *Entrá* pues LAURENCIA: No nos agarre./ FLORES: Entrad, que sois necias.


----------



## Ynez

Using "hablastes" instead of "hablaste" is a mistake of the same kind as saying "Bilbado" instead of "Bilbao" = hypercorrection.

Well, the first one is more common 

Those of us who never pronounce final -s have it easier in this case 
and don't think it's such a terrible stigma Marx.


Someone has commented on Mecano singing like this, and that probably made him think it is more normal in Spain, but it is not so. I know which song that is and I was like "come on, what are you saying?" when I heard it  One thing is to make the mistake when you are speaking fast, but that mistake in the song was a really ugly one.


----------



## Idiomático

Don Borinqueno said:


> I am not sure if this has already been asked but where i work there are a lot of Mexicans and i always here them adding on that weird type of ending. Usually with ar verbs. Can anyone explain this to me
> 
> Por ejemplo:
> Hablaste=Hablastes
> Veniste=Venistes
> Corriste=Corristes
> 
> I appreciate your help.


 
Really?  I've heard _vinistes_, never _venistes_.


----------



## jmx

Ynez said:


> Using "hablastes" instead of "hablaste" is a mistake of the same kind as saying "Bilbado" instead of "Bilbao" = hypercorrection.


I'm afraid you are wrong. A hypercorrection is something done when you're trying to speak in a formal register to which you're not used. "Hablastes" is about the opposite, it's something people say in their everyday conversations. Maybe you could tag it an "undercorrection".

It's amazing how many people in Spain don't understand the word "hypercorrection".


----------



## MarX

Ynez said:


> Using "hablastes" instead of "hablaste" is a mistake of the same kind as saying "Bilbado" instead of "Bilbao" = hypercorrection. (or undercorrection as kmartins says?)


In any case, this "mistake" has been present in Spanish for many centuries now, and still persists in the spoken language throughout the Spanish speaking territories, from Ushuaia to Mexico to Spain.
And no, I'm not saying people should start using -stes more, but one can stop judging people who use it, at least in the spoken language.

Saludos,


MarK


----------



## normaelena

Don Borinqueno said:


> I am not sure if this has already been asked but where i work there are a lot of Mexicans and i always here them adding on that weird type of ending. Usually with ar verbs. Can anyone explain this to me
> 
> Por ejemplo:
> Hablaste=Hablastes
> Veniste=Venistes
> Corriste=Corristes
> 
> I appreciate your help.


 
As it has been explained, it is incorrect. However, it is found in some of our very old literary works; El Amadis de Gaula is one of them.


----------



## brunoeuropa

aleCcowaN said:


> Hablastes o cantastes es forma del voseo muy común ......
> 
> Por lo tanto, siendo voseo. no puede ser incorrecto como tal....
> 
> Con respecto al voseo en general, encuentro una cierta ceguera por parte de quienes no lo usan....



Evidentemente estas del lado de la gente que no usa el voseo. En Argentina vosean prácticamente todas las personas, y escuchar a alguien agregar una S al final de un verbo es irritante.
Como dijo alguien mas arriba, es indistinto para gente con mayor o menor educación.



aleCcowaN said:


> Los otros días....



Este me suena como un ejemplo mas parecido al "hablastes".

Tambien esta el famoso "nos vamos a las casas".


Bruno


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi!
People with a lower cultural level usually let themselves get confused about the ending of simple past conjugations for "tú" because of the final "s" of the present tense:

Some voseo regions, like in Ocaña (colombian north-east), they end the conjugation in -"tes" instead of "-ste". That is because, centuries ago, "vos" (meaning plural you) has the conjugation of current "vosotros" (vos comisteis) and vos/vosotros were use as singular forms of adress.

Tú comes / Vos comés (correct present tense)
Tú/vos comistes (wrong tuteo/voseo past tense)
Tú/vos comiste (correct past tense)
Vos comi_tes_ (arcaic origin)

Like "comites", "comistes" is acceptable only as an arcaism for "vos/vosotros", not for "tú". I think this is the case of El Amadis de Gaula. Look at this examples taken from Don Quixote:

Valerosos caballeros, (...) haciendo batalla con *vosotros*, (...) _fablad_ y decidme punto por punto *vuestra* cuita; que aquí está en *vuestra* presencia el Caballero Desamorado, si nunca le *oístes* nombrar (...). (_Fablad_ is currently _hablad_).

-Por Dios -dijo otro-, que entendía que _*vuestro*_ lugar se llamaba otra cosa, según _*hablastes*_ de cortésmente al _nombralle_. Pero ¿qué lugar es la Argamesilla, que yo nunca le he oído decir? (_Nombralle_ is currently _nombrarle_).

Bye.


----------



## MarX

aleCcowaN said:


> Hablastes o cantastes es forma del voseo muy común que no tiene aceptación académica en ningún país


I reckon it is accepted as the appropriate _vos_ conjugation in Nicaragua, which is a tiny country compared to Argentina, of course.
It's interesting to note that many Argentines are not aware that _vos_ is widely used in Central America.
 
Saludos,


MarX


----------



## MarySol

As far as know in Argentina, they use "vosotros", in a different way; see the verb hablar, for example, the rule is "vosotros hablasteis", but the Argentinians usually get rid of vowel i, resulting in "vosotros hablastes"... Maybe happens the same process in Mexico.


----------



## MarX

MarySol said:


> As far as know in Argentina, they use "vosotros", in a different way; see the verb hablar, for example, the rule is "vosotros hablasteis", but the Argentinians usually get rid of vowel i, resulting in "vosotros hablastes"... Maybe happens the same process in Mexico.


Hi MarySol!

Welcome to WR!

You may take a look at this.

Apparently there are a couple of threads here talking about the same topic, and this question will keep on surfacing from Spanish learners because forms like _hablastes, dejastes, dijistes, comistes_, etc. is something you encounter all over the Spanish speaking world.

Salam,


MarX


----------



## Outsider

MarySol said:
			
		

> As far as know in Argentina, they use "vosotros", in a different way; see the verb hablar, for example, the rule is "vosotros hablasteis", but the Argentinians usually get rid of vowel i, resulting in "vosotros hablastes"... Maybe happens the same process in Mexico.


"Vosotros hablastes", or "*vos* hablastes"?


----------



## NewdestinyX

What a thread.

"hablastes" as many others have stated is wrong in every instance and nongrammatical. All linguistic bureaus -- even in voseo countries discount it as possible. Foreigners should never imitate it but also respect regional usage and not be arrogant about it. 

And I agree that it is not because of mixing up hablastes with hablasteis... but rather because all other 2nd person singular forms of Spanish verbs in Spanish end in '-s'. It's an easy mistake to make since as children learning a language we learn by repeating and mimicking patterns. Adding the -s to the end of 2nd pers sing preterite would be a very natural mistake for a child to make and then find difficult to unlearn.

English speakers do this kind of things all the time by using words like:
'Irregarless' for 'regardless' - 'irregardless' is not a word
'Personificate' for 'personify' -- 'personificate' is not a word.

But both 'non-words' above are based on learned patterns.

If said enough they eventually become part of the language and even added to dictionaries.. This happened in the late 70's with the word 'prejudicial'. Which was never a word in any dictionary before then. English already had an adjective in the word "prejudiced". But to many an English ear -- we needed another word to nuance -- and many a native English speaker will try and define the nuance between --
A prejudicial/prejudiced attitude -- but there really is no difference -- we just 'morphed' prejudiced into 'prejudicial' and now it's in the dictionary.

2 things to take away from this thread --
• "hablastes" in not a word in Spanish.
• Millions of native speakers using something doesn't make it correct -- just used (incorrectly).

_ Like English's "between you and I" = 100% incorrect - but used by millions. Learned by imitating another pattern._

Chao,
Grant


----------



## MarX

NewdestinyX said:


> English speakers do this kind of things all the time by using words like:
> 'Irregarless' for 'regardless' - 'irregardless' is not a word
> 'Personificate' for 'personify' -- 'personificate' is not a word.
> 
> But both 'non-words' above are based on learned patterns.
> 
> If said enough they eventually become part of the language and even added to dictionaries.. This happened in the late 70's with the word 'prejudicial'. Which was never a word in any dictionary before then. English already had an adjective in the word "prejudiced". But to many an English ear -- we needed another word to nuance -- and many a native English speaker will try and define the nuance between --
> A prejudicial/prejudiced attitude -- but there really is no difference -- we just 'morphed' prejudiced into 'prejudicial' and now it's in the dictionary.
> 
> 2 things to take away from this thread --
> • "hablastes" in not a word in Spanish.
> • Millions of native speakers using something doesn't make it correct -- just used (incorrectly).
> 
> _ Like English's "between you and I" = 100% incorrect - but used by millions. Learned by imitating another pattern._
> 
> Chao,
> Grant


In German you can say something like "unword" (_Unwort_). I don't know if "unword" is an _Unwort_ in English or not.

Based on your definition there would be loads of incorrect words used in English, many of which native speakers aren't aware of at all.
Things like "It's just me" or "She's taller than me".
But I get what you mean. 

Even though I don't criticize anybody using *-stes*, I'll try to advise new learners to stick to *-ste* because it would spare them from a lot of fuss.

Saludos,


MarX


----------



## avivir

I disagree that this form is necessarily vulgar. In my home we know exactly what we are saying and we use such forms between intimate family and friends. It is like "baby talk" but better. It's just another example of how Spanish is superior in having ways of changing the words themselves to show deeper meanings. It's also an example of how MOST of the Spanish-speaking world is not as homogenized and boring as the USA. 
I was born in southern Ohio a stone's throw from Appalachia. When I use certain "incorrect" structures and words while speaking with family back home on the phone, it's a way of showing I haven't forgotton where I came from, or how close I feel to them. We are not ignorant or vulgar. Rather, these are colloquialisms. 
Certain forms of speaking are not inherently inferior just because they are more predominant among people of a certain darker skin tone or from a certain place. 
We all need to learn the STANDARD form in school and be capable of writing and speaking in that way for formal situations. But let's drop the racist/classist attitude that any other form is incorrect and has no place in the language. 
Would you really want Spanish-speaking people in all regions and from all different types of backgrounds to be identical to each other? Isn't language just like food? Sometimes a formal restaurant is great, and we should all be trained how to eat in one. But sometimes, especially when you're with the people you love the most in the world, don't you just want a taco?


----------



## NewdestinyX

avivir said:


> I disagree that this form is necessarily vulgar. In my home we know exactly what we are saying and we use such forms between intimate family and friends. It is like "baby talk" but better. It's just another example of how Spanish is superior in having ways of changing the words themselves to show deeper meanings. It's also an example of how MOST of the Spanish-speaking world is not as homogenized and boring as the USA.
> I was born in southern Ohio a stone's throw from Appalachia. When I use certain "incorrect" structures and words while speaking with family back home on the phone, it's a way of showing I haven't forgotton where I came from, or how close I feel to them. We are not ignorant or vulgar. Rather, these are colloquialisms.
> Certain forms of speaking are not inherently inferior just because they are more predominant among people of a certain darker skin tone or from a certain place.
> We all need to learn the STANDARD form in school and be capable of writing and speaking in that way for formal situations. But let's drop the racist/classist attitude that any other form is incorrect and has no place in the language.
> Would you really want Spanish-speaking people in all regions and from all different types of backgrounds to be identical to each other? Isn't language just like food? Sometimes a formal restaurant is great, and we should all be trained how to eat in one. But sometimes, especially when you're with the people you love the most in the world, don't you just want a taco?



No one's taking a classist position. We're just establishing what's correct and incorrect within the standard that even you referred to. Certainly colloquialisms exist. Some more vulgar than others. But for those who are learning the language they shouldn't try to imitate something incorrect. That's the main point. What a native uses amongst family and for what reasons is their business. But what 'should' be used to speak 'correctly' is the topic of the thread as I've read it thru and looked at the original question.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Teachy

Hi,
I´m argentine and let me tell you that in my country it is not a matter of being formal or informal, but....using the language incorrectly due to ignoring the correct use ( being ignorant of the language...not uneducated , which certainly is not the same) . It is not well seen to say FUISTES...LLEGASTES...it´s just like saying SIENTENSEN instead of SIENTENSE... no N is needed at the end of the word . 
When speaking , nobody will correct you, of course that would be rude, but everybody will realize it is not correct, unless you have no knowledge at all of the language you are speaking.

As regards voseo one should say: "*Vos* fuiste a la fiesta? *Vos* viniste ? no *s* is needed either. Voseo it´s because we say *VOS* instead of *TU* 

From my point of view one can try to merge with a group of people to feel accepted and more comfortable, but bad habits...should be left aside...!!


----------



## MarX

avivir said:


> I disagree that this form is necessarily vulgar. In my home we know exactly what we are saying and we use such forms between intimate family and friends. It is like "baby talk" but better.


This is not the first time I read that the forms with -S is used to show closeness.



Teachy said:


> Hi,
> I´m argentine and let me tell you that in my country it is not a matter of being formal or informal, but....using the language incorrectly due to ignoring the correct use ( being ignorant of the language...not uneducated , which certainly is not the same) . It is not well seen to say FUISTES...LLEGASTES...it´s just like saying SIENTENSEN instead of SIENTENSE... no N is needed at the end of the word .
> When speaking , nobody will correct you, of course that would be rude, but everybody will realize it is not correct, unless you have no knowledge at all of the language you are speaking.
> 
> As regards voseo one should say: "*Vos* fuiste a la fiesta? *Vos* viniste ? no *s* is needed either. Voseo it´s because we say *VOS* instead of *TU*
> 
> From my point of view one can try to merge with a group of people to feel accepted and more comfortable, but bad habits...should be left aside...!!


That's the thing with a language which has hundreds of millions of native speakers in more than a dozen countries. It has many variations. 
For someone from Argentina, or perhaps most of native Spanish speakers, *-stes* is seen as a bad habit, for others, it is something used among family and friends, for others, it is seen as the original form of voseo, etc.
I think it is quite important in language usage, especially such a huge one like Spanish, to keep this in mind, and to explain to the learners that they may encounter this and that, and to show them which one(s) is/are considered acceptable in most cases.
That's why I said that I wouldn't criticize someone who uses *-stes*, since I don't know his/her background, or why (s)he uses it, but I'll point out to him/her, that *-ste* is more widely accepted and  in fact considered as the standard by most Spanish speakers, and that in most situations it's better to stick to that.

Saludos,


MarX


----------



## etelberta

I totally agree with MarX

No one should feel discriminated in any way just because in other people's experience a certain form is considered 'wrong'.
In Argentina, a non-native speaker should be advised never to use this form in any situation, for it is considered to be plainly wrong. 
A well known Reggaeton song reads 'tu me dejasteS caer...' The S is obviously denoting a certain social procedence, it´s a colloquial form of the verb.
When I first heard that song it reminded me of this debate. That use souds nice to some argentines in that song, while it is just disgusting to be heard if uttered by a fellow coutryman.


----------



## Idiomático

etelberta said:


> I totally agree with MarX
> 
> No one should feel discriminated in any way just because in other people's experience a certain form is considered 'wrong'.
> In Argentina, a non-native speaker should be advised never to use this form in any situation, for it is considered to be plainly wrong.
> A well known Reggaeton song reads 'tu me dejasteS caer...' The S is obviously denoting a certain social procedence, it´s a colloquial form of the verb.
> When I first heard that song it reminded me of this debate. That use souds nice to some argentines in that song, while it is just disgusting to be heard if uttered by a fellow coutryman.


 
I find this comment particularly interesting.  I fully agree with it, but insofar as it pertains to the use of the form in Argentina I must say that I hear the _*tes*_ ending most frequently precisely in the mouths of Argentine acquaintances who are college educated, exceptionally urbane, and professional wordsmiths to boot.  What is all the more fascinating is that although they use it constantly in conversation, they never write it.  I've known these people for decades and the phenomenon has never stopped surprising me because, as this forero says, it is considered lowbrow _("...a certain social procedence...")_ throughout the Spanish-speaking world.  Until now I thought it was part of the Argentine way of speaking.


----------



## MarX

Idiomático said:


> I find this comment particularly interesting.  I fully agree with it, but insofar as it pertains to the use of the form in Argentina I must say that I hear the _*tes*_ ending most frequently precisely in the mouths of Argentine acquaintances who are college educated, exceptionally urbane, and professional wordsmiths to boot.  What is all the more fascinating is that although they use it constantly in conversation, they never write it.  I've known these people for decades and the phenomenon has never stopped surprising me because, as this forero says, it is considered lowbrow _("...a certain social procedence...")_ throughout the Spanish-speaking world.  Until now I thought it was part of the Argentine way of speaking.


Thank you Idiomático.

You shed new light into the matter.

The use of *-tes* may be considered lowbrow in most (just an assumption) of Spanish speaking world, yet in some societies (not necessarily uneducated) it is perceived as relaxed speaking.
It's interesting how many said that they say *-tes* among family and friends, and would find it even awkward omitting the *-S* in informal situations.



Another thing that escaped me was the logic behind *-tes*.





jmartins said:


> "Hablastes" is by no means unusual. I hear it all the time, and what's more, I think I have said it myself, though I'm not sure.
> 
> It's funny, in Classical Latin this form was already the only one for 2nd person singular not ending with 's', as you can check here :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to know that this "hablaste"/"hablastes" question dates back to Vulgar Latin, and that "hablastes" has been regularly rebuked by grammarians all these centuries to keep the similarity with Latin. It would be interesting to know how the corresponding form is said in other Romance languages, but neither French nor Catalan have forms derived from "amavisti".





Outsider said:


> Portuguese is just like Spanish in this regard, including the tendency to add that spurious _-s_: _falastes_  _falaste_


Based on the fact that *-tes* exists in basically the whole Spanish speaking world and even Portuguese, it is probable that the adding of the *-S* already existed in Vulgar Latin times.
I know that we should stick to the tradition (although fact is, the Romance languages are descended from Vulgar Latin), but I think someone who applies the logic by adding the *-S* shouldn't be called stupid at all.
After all, many modern sciences _are_ based on logical thinking, aren't they?



I'd like to assure you all that I am not promoting *-tes*, yet I try not to pass judgment upon those who use it. And as I said, I think the best way is to explain the students about the situation and the reactions they may get from using *-tes*, and give them a fair, non-judgmental advice.

Saludos,


MarX


----------



## NewdestinyX

MarX said:


> Another thing that escaped me was the logic behind *-tes*.
> Based on the fact that *-tes* exists in basically the whole Spanish speaking world and even Portuguese, it is probable that the adding of the *-S* already existed in Vulgar Latin times.
> I know that we should stick to the tradition (although fact is, the Romance languages are descended from Vulgar Latin), but I think someone who applies the logic by adding the *-S* shouldn't be called stupid at all.
> After all, many modern sciences _are_ based on logical thinking, aren't they?
> 
> I'd like to assure you all that I am not promoting *-tes*, yet I try not to pass judgment upon those who use it. And as I said, I think the best way is to explain the students about the situation and the reactions they may get from using *-tes*, and give them a fair, non-judgmental advice.



My only problem with this line of thinking and rationalizing of its use, is that the same "logic" could be used to try and prove uses like 'brung' and 'dived' in English. If you open this can of worms it can get very messy. -TES, is learned in childhood by natives just like young children in English accidentally say 'brung'. It should be corrected by parents raising their children and, for the most part, is not used by the educated that I've talked to or read in books. I can use 'brung' to 'sound' a certain way for 'affect' -- but it's not a serious or even conversational usage. It's interesting to me that this thread has gone on so long. 

Grant


----------



## etelberta

Idiomático said:


> What is all the more fascinating is that although they use it constantly in conversation, they never write it. I've known these people for decades and the phenomenon has never stopped surprising me because, as this forero says, it is considered lowbrow _("...a certain social procedence...")_ throughout the Spanish-speaking world. Until now I thought it was part of the Argentine way of speaking.


 

True, you may hear it. Pronunciation varies throughout the country. 
Never to be used during a lecture, and of course never to be written, this form might be heard in everyday conversation! If corrected, the person who used it would probabily agree with you that (s)he's made a mistake.

"a certain social procedence" means exactly that. I didn't say it was lowbrow, it's just considered grammatically incorrect among those who I live with. I live in Buenos Aires city, and we _never_ use the -tes ending, not even at home.

You may also hear educated peope from San Miguel de Tucumán say: "_Si te querés ir, _*ite* [*andate*, verb _ir_, 2nd person singular _vos_]". Again, if corrected, they would agree that this form is ungrammatical.

By the way, of which part of Argentina are these people you know, Idiomático? If they are from BA, I give up.


----------



## MarX

NewdestinyX said:


> My only problem with this line of thinking and rationalizing of its use, is that the same "logic" could be used to try and prove uses like 'brung' and 'dived' in English. If you open this can of worms it can get very messy. -TES, is learned in childhood by natives just like young children in English accidentally say 'brung'. It should be corrected by parents raising their children and, for the most part, is not used by the educated that I've talked to or read in books. I can use 'brung' to 'sound' a certain way for 'affect' -- but it's not a serious or even conversational usage. It's interesting to me that this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> Grant


As I said, I'm not promoting the use of *-tes*.
I'm just saying that we should have more understanding towards the huge Spanish language.

Just because I reenforce what some native Speakers said about *-tes* being the familiar way of speaking in informal situations, doesn't mean that I encourage learners to use it themselves.

It's just that you cannot come to the friends and family of _Irisheyes_ or _avivir_ or some other Spanish speakers and pass a judgment saying that they speak wrong, although that's rather one's own decision, I admit. But to implant such way of thinking upon learners of Spanish would be rather unfair, don't you think?


I do realize that the Romance languages in general tend to be prescriptive instead of descriptive, which is a paradoxical fact remembering that they are the result of developments of Vulgar Latin.
Again, I'm not saying that Spanish should be reformed everytime there is a change in the spoken language.
It's just that I believe in some cases it would be better to separate language usage, which includes the oral usage, from prescriptive grammar.
In the case of *-tes*, the debate has probably been going on for centuries now.


I know I sound vague. But I hope you get my point here. 



Kind regards,


MarX


----------



## MarX

etelberta said:


> You may also hear educated peope from San Miguel de Tucumán say: "_Si te querés ir, _*ite* [*andate*, verb _ir_, 2nd person singular _vos_]". Again, if corrected, they would agree that this form is ungrammatical.


*Ite *may be incorrect, depending on what measure you use, but it is not ungrammatical. Do you see the difference between _incorrect_ and _ungrammatical_ here?
By the way, *ite* is also used in Central America, where, as far as I know, it is not considered standard, either.

But I'm getting off topic here.
Anyone who wishes to reply to this may create a new thread. 

Saludos,


MarX


----------



## NewdestinyX

MarX said:


> In the case of *-tes*, the debate has probably been going on for centuries now.
> 
> I know I sound vague. But I hope you get my point here.
> 
> Kind regards,
> MarX



MarX,
I think I do understand what you are saying. All 'descriptive grammar' books should refer to this 'vulgar' usage. It helps any student understand what they are hearing. But its usage is very, very, uncommon and rare amongst the educated people anywhere in the Spanish speaking world. In a few recent posts people attempted to assign a 'logic' to its use and even tried to point to its origin in Vulgar Latin. That's going too far for me in trying to make a point -- as there really isn't any grammatical precedent for it being considered in any way normative in the Spanish language.

So we don't pass judgement ON people who use it.. But we 'do' judge it as a usage. And on a learning forum like this they are mostly 'students' of language. And they should never learn to use it -- even if you spend a year in the house of an Argentinian family that uses it. The student should never imitate it. This is different than living in places that would say -- Espero que te gustara.... instead of the 'correct' Espero que te haya gustado.... There are regional differences there that can be imitated by a student depending on the region. But '-tes' is very bad grammar and shouldn't be promoted in a learning forum as 'acceptable grammar'. That's been my frustration in reading some arguments here -- the attempt to make is 'logically correct'. It is not correct in any situation in any country. All languages have things people say that are just wrong -- as I said, in English, with 'between you and I' -- completely incorrect but used by so many people. There are some people that can't even explain why it's wrong. But a foreigner should always say "between you and me" no matter how much they hear the other one. 

I think we agree more than we disagree, MarX. 

Thanks for your thoughts,
Grant


----------



## Idiomático

etelberta said:


> True, you may hear it. Pronunciation varies throughout the country.
> Never to be used during a lecture, and of course never to be written, this form might be heard in everyday conversation! If corrected, the person who used it would probabily agree with you that (s)he's made a mistake.
> 
> "a certain social procedence" means exactly that. I didn't say it was lowbrow, it's just considered grammatically incorrect among those who I live with. I live in Buenos Aires city, and we _never_ use the -tes ending, not even at home.
> 
> You may also hear educated peope from San Miguel de Tucumán say: "_Si te querés ir, _*ite* [*andate*, verb _ir_, 2nd person singular _vos_]". Again, if corrected, they would agree that this form is ungrammatical.
> 
> By the way, of which part of Argentina are these people you know, Idiomático? If they are from BA, I give up.


 
In this context,_ a certain social procedence_ means, at least to me, that one can discern the speaker's social stratum in his or her speech.  Am I wrong?  In all the Spanish-speaking countries I've visited, people who say _hablastes, comistes, fuistes_, etc., or who use other grammatically incorrect forms of speech, are generally the less educated members of society (lowbrow = not cultured, per the OED).  That is why I am surprised to hear genteel, educated, urbane Argentines use that form.  What would you say is their _social procedence?  _I've never been in Argentina, so I don't know.


----------



## Moritzchen

I just found this thread. It´s too long to read. It doesn´t matter. Hablaste*s* is wrong. Go complain to your granma.


----------



## Idiomático

Idiomático said:


> In this context,_ a certain social procedence_ means, at least to me, that one can discern the speaker's social stratum in his or her speech. Am I wrong? In all the Spanish-speaking countries I've visited, people who say _hablastes, comistes, fuistes_, etc., or who use other grammatically incorrect forms of speech, are generally the less educated members of society (lowbrow = not cultured, per the OED). That is why I am surprised to hear genteel, educated, urbane Argentines use that form. What would you say is their _social procedence? _I've never been in Argentina, so I don't know.


 
Incidentally, it just occurred to me that there is no such thing as _procedence _in English.  I take it you mean _origin_, perhaps _provenance._


----------



## kidika

A mi se me quedó grabada (más o menos) una frase que aparecía en el libro de Lengua del Instituto: "Lenguaje culto es aquel que sabe cambiar de registro idiomático", es decir que dependiendo del contexto en el que estemos usamos un registro más formal, coloquial, vulgar...what have you.  Por ejemplo, si siempre habláramos de manera culta igual seríamos unos pedantes... So I agree 100% with you irisheyes0583 

But having said that, decir  "tú hablastes" a mi me suena mal y no lo usaría en un contexto vulgar o informal o coloquial. Pero tengo que reconocer que muchííííísima gente de por aquí lo dice y no son gente necesariamente inculta. 
Creo que estamos delante de otra evolución del lenguaje que no sabemos si acabará cuajando o desaparecerá  o qué.
Love linguistics!
Saludos darlingcill@s!


----------



## etelberta

etelberta said:


> I totally agree with MarX
> A well known Reggaeton song reads 'tu me dejasteS caer...' The S is obviously denoting a certain social procedence, it´s a colloquial form of the verb.
> When I first heard that song it reminded me of this debate. That use souds nice to some argentines in that song, while it is just disgusting to be heard if uttered by a fellow coutryman.


 
Me entienden mejor cuando escribo en español, ¿no?  ¡Así debe ser! Yo seguía hablando de la persona que redactó la letra de la canción, que NO ES de mi país, sino de Puerto Rico. No tengo idea de si el uso de esa forma verbal se considera _lowbrow _en Puerto Rico, ni de si está mal visto. Me expresé mal; lo que quise decir es que, si bien yo no sé cómo reaccionan los compatriotas de Daddy Yankee cuando lo escuchan decir "tú me dejasteS caer", sé muy bien cómo reaccionan en mi país. 

Al menos lo sabía hasta HOY.

Saludos


----------



## Idiomático

etelberta said:


> Me entienden mejor cuando escribo en español, ¿no?  ¡Así debe ser! Yo seguía hablando de la persona que redactó la letra de la canción, que NO ES de mi país, sino de Puerto Rico. No tengo idea de si el uso de esa forma verbal se considera _lowbrow _en Puerto Rico, ni de si está mal visto. Me expresé mal; lo que quise decir es que, si bien yo no sé cómo reaccionan los compatriotas de Daddy Yankee cuando lo escuchan decir "tú me dejasteS caer", sé muy bien cómo reaccionan en mi país.
> 
> Al menos lo sabía hasta HOY.
> 
> Saludos


 
Pues ya tienes la respuesta porque, aunque nunca lo había oído nombrar, soy compatriota de Daddy Yankee.  Y la respuesta a tu pregunta sobre la procedencia de los argentinos que dicen (aunque no escriben) hablastes, fuistes, vinistes: Buenos Aires y Córdoba.


----------



## etelberta

De Córdoba lo sabía, de Buenos Aires, confieso que no. En la Capital (Ciudad de Buenos Aires), no se usa, doy fe.
En algún contexto social debe haber una cierta "licencia" para usar esa forma; si no, el rumbero antes mencionado no lo habría hecho. Todo nos lleva a la misma conclusión: las gramáticas consideran incorrecto el uso de la desinencia -tes, pero, en algunas regiones, algunos grupos la utilizan en contextos más o menos familiares. 

No recomendaría que se enseñara esa forma verbal a un estudiante de español. Para él, es mucho más seguro usar lo que los libros consideran correcto, porque a fin de cuentas a nadie le resulta molesto que se omita la -s.


----------



## Wyzguy

Hola a todo los foros, buenas noches!

Yo tengo una duda y no seguro si alguien podría ayudame.  Mi pregunta es cuando chateando con mis amigos latinos en msn siempre se usan un "s" como la útlima letra en el pretérito.

Ejemplos:

En mi libro de verbos es:
Hiciste, hablaste, entendiste

Pero en chat siempre se usan"
Hicistes, hablastes, entendistes

Por favor se puede alguien lo explicarme?

Gracias de antemano
Wyz


----------



## dinis.dinis

Hi Wyz!

As far as I remember the form with final 's' was correct in the period before the Renaissance when grammatical purist decided to suppress the final 's' in imitation of the 2nd pers. sing. preterite forms of Classical Latin.

You still see this final 's' in Modern Literary French: AIMÂTES for AMASTE!

But in Spanish the 's' survives mainly in rather conservative rural dialects and exhibits a higher incidence of usage among the uneducated/unschooled. Is it not recommended for use by non-natives unless you intend to sound humorous!

Best Regards, 
Dinis


----------



## elirlandes

Still very much in evidence in spoken spanish in Málaga, southern Spain.


----------



## Fernita

Wyzguy,

I'll move this thread to Grammar.
Regards,
Fernita.


----------



## MarX

Hi Wyzguy!

Apparently the *-stes* ending has its origin already in Vulgar Latin period, and it survives in French (where final -s ceased to be pronounced), Spanish, and Portuguese (especially in the spoken language).

The ending *-stes* is heard in practically every Hispanic country, yet some consider it vulgar.

Saludos


----------



## Wyzguy

MarX said:


> Hi Wyzguy!
> 
> Apparently the *-stes* ending has its origin already in Vulgar Latin period, and it survives in French (where final -s ceased to be pronounced), Spanish, and Portuguese (especially in the spoken language).
> 
> The ending *-stes* is heard in practically every Hispanic country, yet some consider it vulgar.
> 
> Saludos


 

Muchísimas Gracias a todos por las respuestas, ahora esta forma es mas claro y entiendo todas las explicaciones!


----------



## Chalon

Acá en Chile no lo hacemos de esa manera. Para nosotros es "amaste" , "comiste", "jugaste" , etc.

Saludos.


----------



## Handsome Dan

That s ending is considered incorrect, even uneducated, nowadays. 
Nonetheless, it's still used by many people in many regions.
Avoid it.



Chalon said:


> Acá en Chile no lo hacemos de esa manera. Para nosotros es "amaste" , "comiste", "jugaste" , etc.
> 
> Saludos.


 
Como los chilenos se comen las eses, pues no tendria sentido que incluyeran una donde realmente no debe ir.


----------



## Chalon

Handsome Dan said:


> Como los chilenos se comen las eses, pues no tendria sentido que incluyeran una donde realmente no debe ir.



jajajaja, That's true. We say "La cordillera de Lo Ande" instead of "Los Andes" 

I did't think We went known for that .


----------



## MarX

Chalon said:


> jajajaja, That's true. We say "La cordillera de Lo Ande" instead of "Los Andes"
> 
> I did't think We went known for that .


Chileans are not the only ones.
Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Dominicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Southern Spaniards generally speak like that.

Here is a thread.

And another.


----------



## jmx

dinis.dinis said:


> As far as I remember the form with final 's' was correct in the period before the Renaissance when grammatical purist decided to suppress the final 's' in imitation of the 2nd pers. sing. preterite forms of Classical Latin.


This information is very interesting for me. Can you recall any clue about where you heard or read it ?


----------



## romuloVG

Wyzguy said:


> Hola a todo los foros, buenas noches!
> 
> Yo tengo una duda y no seguro si alguien podría ayudame.  Mi pregunta es cuando chateando con mis amigos latinos en msn siempre se usan un "s" como la útlima letra en el pretérito.
> 
> Ejemplos:
> 
> En mi libro de verbos es:
> Hiciste, hablaste, entendiste
> 
> Pero en chat siempre se usan"
> Hicistes, hablastes, entendistes
> 
> Por favor se puede alguien lo explicarme?
> 
> Gracias de antemano
> Wyz




El uso en realidad tendría que ver con el voseo. Las desinencias voseantes eliminaron el diptongo etimológico:
*Vos cantasteis, comisteis, partisteis* > *vos cantastes, comistes, partistes.*

Sin embargo ocurre algo curioso, al menos en el español de Costa Rica, donde existe la tendencia de usar las desinencias sin "s" (aunque no sean etimológicas para el voseo)=
*vos cantaste, comiste, partiste*. 

Y, por otro lado, los hablantes de algunas variantes tuteantes, utilizan las formas con "s" final:
*tú cantastes, comistes, partistes*. 

Por último, en Costa Rica existe vacilación en cuanto al uso. Algunos hablantes utilizan la forma desinencial sin "s", y otros la forma con "s".


----------



## Berrocal98

Yo siempre he estudiado que esa "s" final es incorrecta. La forma correcta es "cantaste" "comiste" "partiste", y que es un error muy común en algunas zonas (al igual que lo puede ser el laísmo o el leísmo)


----------

