# en mi vida



## Basil Ganglia

Hola todos foreros.

  "en mi vida" seems to have both positive and negative meanings:


Gracias por estar en mi vida. / Thank you for being in my life . (This sentence is from this WordReference thread: Gracias por estar en mi vida.  Also see alguna vez en mi vida, in which "en mi vida" means "in my lifetime". ) 


en su vida habia visto … / never in his life had he seen …  (This phrase is from this WordReference thread: en mi(/su) vida)

In addition, various Spanish-English dictionaries (such as Velazquez and Webster's New World Concise) translate "en mi vida" as "never".

How does one know that the second example adds the notion of "never"? If the phrase _"en su vida habia visto …"_ means "never in his life had he seen …", how would one say "in his life he had seen …?" Is the negation inferred strictly from context or are there rules governing the usage?

Needless to say this is quite confusing for this Spanish language novice.

Muchas gracias por su ayuda.


----------



## Odri

hello!
as you said, it's inferred strictly *from the context.*
But I think this helps a lot. Look your first sentence:"Gracias por estar en mi vida. / Thank you for being in my life". You can't say: Thank you for being *never. *It sounds quite strange, didn't it?


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Odri said:


> hello!
> as you said, it's inferred strictly *from the context.*
> But I think this helps a lot. Look your first sentence:"Gracias por estar en mi vida. / Thank you for being in my life". You can't say: Thank you for being *never. *It sounds quite strange, didn't it?


I agree that the first situation wold be clear in context.  Inferring "never" would never fit that context.  But what about the second example I provided?

In the second example it's not at all clear that "en mi vida" could only mean "never in my life".  Context suggests that it could as easily mean "in my life".  How does one know that the second case transmits a "never"?


----------



## Odri

No, "en mi vida" means always "never in my life", because when you say something that has happened in your life, it's no necesary to say "in your life", I mean, that's redundant. For example:
-En mi vida he visto una ballena (= never in my life I've seen a whale)
but....
- He visto una ballena (=i've seen a whale). Of course you have seen a whale *in your life *(not in other's life)


----------



## Basil Ganglia

If I'm following this correctly, "en mi vida" transmits "never" unless the context prohibits that sense. ¿Es correcto?


----------



## Odri

¡¡Es correcto!! 
You get it!! 
I hope I'd helped you
bye!


----------



## Salsamore

In English you _*can*_ say something like:
I've seen many whales in my life.​This puts emphasis on a person's life experience. Would the "calque" (word-for-word) translation be negative?
_He visto muchas bellenas en mi vida._
I've never seen many whales in my life. (?)​_A propósito:_
I've never seen a whale in my life. *-BUT-
*Never in my life *have I* seen a whale.​For some strange reason, English requires you to switch the subject/verb order when you put a negative word in front.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Salsamore said:


> In English you _*can*_ say something like:I've seen many whales in my life.​This puts emphasis on a person's life experience. Would the "calque" (word-for-word) translation be negative?_He visto muchas bellenas en mi vida._
> I've never seen many whales in my life. (?)​_A propósito:_I've never seen a whale in my life. *-BUT-
> *Never in my life *have I* seen a whale.​For some strange reason, English requires you to switch the subject/verb order when you put a negative word in front.


I think we might be overthinking this one a bit. I hadn't known of this use either and I've been speaking and writing Spanish for a long time. I guess it just never came up. But when the 'en mi vida' falls at the end of the sentence -- it's more likely to mean 'in my life' without the 'never' aspect. I don't agree that 'en mi vida' 'always' means 'never' because "Gracias por estar en mi vida" clearly means - Thanks for being in my life. It's when 'en mi vida' falls into the 'adverb' position, before a verb -- then it means 'never'. 

I think it's helpful for the student to memorize it this way:

Never (in my life) = en mi vida
to be in my life = estar/ser en mi vida

I think that clears all ambiguities.

Grant


----------



## Odri

Now you've said that, I realised that the used of "en mi vida" with negative meaning it goes usually at the beginning of a sentence, the same use as "Never in my life I...". 

But if you put it at the end of the sentence, you have to add *NO* at the beginning:

 He visto una ballena (=I've seen a whale). 
*No* he visto una ballena *en mi vida *(=I've never seen a whale in my life)

And you could also say in Spanish (as you said): "_He visto muchas ballenas en mi vida". _

By the way......
_"Would the "calque" (word-for-word) translation be negative?"_
The word is *calco,* not calque


----------



## Odri

NewdestinyX, no one has said that "en mi vida" means never. 

Salsamore and me had agreed that:"*en mi vida" transmits "never" unless the context prohibits that sense.*

In your example:"Gracias por estar en mi vida", *you can't* translate: Thank you for being *never. *We talked about that before.


----------



## Odri

*No* he visto una ballena *en mi vida** =  No* he visto *nunca* una ballena (=I've never seen a whale in my life) 

The thing is that in Spanish we use *doble negation*. For example:
-I have nothing = *No* tengo *nada*


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Odri said:


> NewdestinyX, no one has said that "en mi vida" means never.
> 
> Salsamore and me had agreed that:"*en mi vida" transmits "never" unless the context prohibits that sense.*
> 
> In your example:"Gracias por estar en mi vida", *you can't* translate: Thank you for being *never. *We talked about that before.


For what it's worth, "Never" is the primary English meaning ascribed to _"en mi vida"_ in the Velazquez Spanish-English dictionary, in Webster's New World Concise Spanish Dictionary, and in my New College Spanish and English Dictionary.


----------



## dropofrain

for this reason Odri we usually say as well the following expression:
Nunca en mi vida he estado allí.
In this case, *en mi vida* is a negation as well as *nunca* is. I don´t want to twist the twister but in the part where I live  this expression is popular.
(Nunca) en mi vida he visto nada parecido.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Odri said:


> *No* he visto una ballena *en mi vida** =  No* he visto *nunca* una ballena (=I've never seen a whale in my life)
> 
> The thing is that in Spanish we use *doble negation*. For example:
> -I have nothing = *No* tengo *nada*


All of this is helping me.  So, if I undertand correctly, He visto una ballena en mi vida would not be grammatically proper.  "en mi vida" would still transmit the "never", but the sentence would be lacking the required double negative.

¿Es correcto?


----------



## Odri

_Basil Ganglia said: "He visto una ballena en mi vida". Here _"en mi vida" would still transmit the "never", but the sentence would be lacking the required double negative.¿Es correcto? 

No. Here: _"He visto una ballena en mi vida(= in my lifetime)" doesn't transmit the *never* BUT i_t sounds strange.
_"He visto una ballena en mi vida = I've seen a whale in my lifetime._
_It sounds like: I've seen a whale in my dreams _

_For me, it's better: En toda mi vida sólo he visto una ballena _or Sólo he visto una ballena en toda mi vida (It's completely the same) .In English: I've just seen a whale in my whole lifetime.


----------



## Odri

Dropofrain,o te he entendido mal , o no se porqué no estamos de acuerdo, ya que dices lo mismo que yo: 
_Donde yo vivo_ también se dice eso: *(Nunca)* en mi vida he visto *nada* parecido.
Pero ahí estás usando la doble negación, y si no se dice la palabra Nunca es porque la das por entendido, pero no quiere decir que no exista.

Es como en: Veo la tele. El sujeto se omite, pero existe (yo)


----------



## Odri

And......
in post number 10, I wanted to say *Basil Ganglia and me had agreed that*:
"en mi vida" transmits "never" unless the context prohibits that sense. (He said that in post number 5). And no Salsamore and me, sorry


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Odri said:


> _Basil Ganglia said: "He visto una ballena en mi vida". Here _"en mi vida" would still transmit the "never", but the sentence would be lacking the required double negative.¿Es correcto?
> 
> No. Here: _"He visto una ballena en mi vida(= in my lifetime)" doesn't transmit the *never* BUT i_t sounds strange.
> _"He visto una ballena en mi vida = I've seen a whale in my lifetime._
> _It sounds like: I've seen a whale in my dreams _
> 
> _For me, it's better: En toda mi vida sólo he visto una ballena _or Sólo he visto una ballena en toda mi vida (It's completely the same) .In English: I've just seen a whale in my whole lifetime.


So it's not grammatically incorrect, but it sounds strange and might actually have a different meaning.

That helps.  Muchas gracias.

+++

In English we wouldn't say _"I've just seen a whale in my whole lifetime_." We would say, "I've seen just one whale in my life."; or "I've seen whales in my lifetime."; or "In my entire life I've seen just (some number) of whales."

The construction "I've just seen ..." would refer to an event that immediately happened.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Odri said:


> NewdestinyX, no one has said that "en mi vida" means never.


I was only reacting to your statement when you said this.



Odri said:


> No, "en mi vida" means always "never in my life",


 At that point of the discussion you hadn't given a broader application. Now you have.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## dropofrain

Me he expresado mal. Odri. Estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo.


----------



## Odri

Vale, al fin, todo el mundo contento, uff! Ha costado, e?


----------



## AntsMarching

Basil Ganglia said:


> Hola todos foreros.
> 
> "en mi vida" seems to have both positive and negative meanings:
> 
> 
> Gracias por estar en mi vida. / Thank you for being in my life . (This sentence is from this WordReference thread: Gracias por estar en mi vida. Also see alguna vez en mi vida, in which "en mi vida" means "in my lifetime". )
> 
> en su vida habia visto … / never in his life had he seen … (This phrase is from this WordReference thread: en mi(/su) vida)
> 
> In addition, various Spanish-English dictionaries (such as Velazquez and Webster's New World Concise) translate "en mi vida" as "never".
> How does one know that the second example adds the notion of "never"? If the phrase _"en su vida habia visto …"_ means "never in his life had he seen …", how would one say "in his life he had seen …?" Is the negation inferred strictly from context or are there rules governing the usage?
> 
> Needless to say this is quite confusing for this Spanish language novice.
> 
> Muchas gracias por su ayuda.


 
“En mi vida” simply means what it means in English – “in my life.”  It is a prepositional phrase, and therefore neutral as to whether something happens “always” or “never.”  The noun “life’ is the object of the preposition “in.” If you want to communicate “never” or “always,” then you need to provide the appropriate adverb (_always_ and _never_ are adverbs) to modify the verb in question.  That’s true in English and in Spanish.
 
About your second example:
_en su vida había visto.../never in his life had he seen….._
 
Your translation is not accurate, and therefore, confusing to you.
 
_En su vida había visto_ means _in his life had he seen_.  You added the adverb “*never”* in English but omitted it in Spanish.
 
In other words, consider this:
 
*Siempre* en su vida había visto……..*always* in his life had he seen.
*Nunca* en su vida había visto............_.*never*_ in his life had he seen.
 
In both examples, the prepositional phrase _en su vida_ says nothing about “_always_” or “_never.”_ In each case, the adverb *“siempre” (always)* or *“nunca” (never*_)_ communicates the intended meaning by modifying the verb _“*had seen.”*_
* *
I’m puzzled that any dictionary would translate “en mi vida” simply as “never.”  There has to be some missing context.
 
(I should add that, in this example, _in his life_ functions as an adverbial prepositional phrase that also modifies the verb “had seen.”  But even as such, it doesn’t imply anything about “always” or “never.”)     
 
Hope this helps….


----------



## NewdestinyX

AntsMarching said:


> “En mi vida” simply means what it means in English – “in my life.”  It is a prepositional phrase, and therefore neutral as to whether something happens “always” or “never.”  The noun “life’ is the object of the preposition “in.” If you want to communicate “never” or “always,” then you need to provide the appropriate adverb (_always_ and _never_ are adverbs) to modify the verb in question.  That’s true in English and in Spanish.
> 
> 
> In other words, consider this:
> 
> *Siempre* en su vida había visto……..*always* in his life had he seen.
> *Nunca* en su vida había visto............_.*never*_ in his life had he seen.
> 
> In both examples, the prepositional phrase _en su vida_ says nothing about “_always_” or “_never.”_ In each case, the adverb *“siempre” (always)* or *“nunca” (never*_)_ communicates the intended meaning by modifying the verb _“*had seen.”*_
> 
> I’m puzzled that any dictionary would translate “en mi vida” simply as “never.”  There has to be some missing context.
> 
> (I should add that, in this example, _in his life_ functions as an adverbial prepositional phrase that also modifies the verb “had seen.”  But even as such, it doesn’t imply anything about “always” or “never.”)
> 
> Hope this helps….


 Actually it very much confuses the issue - since you're the only native that has stated that.  (are you a native?) And all my dictionaries contradict what you just said. Maybe it's used differently in your area.

Grant


----------



## Basil Ganglia

AntsMarching said:


> About your second example:
> _en su vida había visto.../never in his life had he seen….._
> 
> Your translation is not accurate, and therefore, confusing to you..


That is not my translation.  That is the translation provided in a different thread. For ease, I provided the link to the thread, which seems to have been accepted as a correct translation. Here is the link again: en mi(/su) vida)


----------



## AntsMarching

NewdestinyX said:


> Actually it very much confuses the issue - since you're the only native that has stated that.  (are you a native?) And all my dictionaries contradict what you just said. Maybe it's used differently in your area.
> 
> Grant


 
If I’ve confused the matter, then my job here is done. 

But seriously, let’s simplify. _En mi vida (in my life) _can have a positive or negative meaning, and what *gives* a positive or negative meaning is the choice of adverb:

*Never* _in his life had he seen. _*Nunca*_ en su vida había visto_.

*Always *_in his life he had seen. _*Siempre*_ en su vida había visto. _

The key is the adverb used, and that’s true of English and Spanish, or even Spanglish.

The problem with the second example provided is that the English translation uses the adverb “never,” which is not in the Spanish example:

_En su vida había visto……….*never* in his life had he seen_

_En su vida había visto_ *doesn’t mean* *“never”* unless you use “*nunca”* in Spanish:

*Nunca*_ en su vida había visto_

But I’m always appreciative of being corrected.
Cheers


----------



## Basil Ganglia

AntsMarching said:


> If I’ve confused the matter, then my job here is done.
> 
> But seriously, let’s simplify. _En mi vida (in my life) _can have a positive or negative meaning, and what *gives* a positive or negative meaning is the choice of adverb:
> 
> *Never* _in his life had he seen. _*Nunca*_ en su vida había visto_.
> 
> *Always *_in his life he had seen. _*Siempre*_ en su vida había visto. _
> 
> The key is the adverb used, and that’s true of English and Spanish, or even Spanglish.
> 
> The problem with the second example provided is that the English translation uses the adverb “never,” which is not in the Spanish example:
> 
> _En su vida había visto……….*never* in his life had he seen_
> 
> _En su vida había visto_ *doesn’t mean* *“never”* unless you use “*nunca”* in Spanish:
> 
> *Nunca*_ en su vida había visto_
> 
> But I’m always appreciative of being corrected.
> Cheers


What you have posted above is what I would have expected - to transmit "never" would require an adverb such as "nunca".

However:


I have three separate Spanish-English dictionaries that say the phrase transmits "never", even without using an adverb such as "nunca"
a thread from this board in which the phrase has been accepted as transmitting "never" (without the adverb), as well as another thread in which it does not transmit "never''
the comments from Odri above, which indicate the phrase transmits "never" unless the context demands otherwise.
As an English speaker I would fully expect that an expression such as "en mi vida" would not transmit the negative unless a negating adverb was attached.  But I know that's not always the case in other languages, "en absoluto" being an example in Spanish.  My desire to verify what was indicated in the dictionaries and to clarify the contrasting usages in the threads to which I linked was what prompted me to start the thread. 

So this is more than a bit confusing to me at this point, particularly since it appears to me that you and Odri are providing different commentary, with Odri saying the never is transmitted unless the context demands otherwise and you saying that "nunca" is required to trasnmit the negative.

So just "paint me confused" at this point.


----------



## AntsMarching

Basil Ganglia said:


> What you have posted above is what I would have expected - to transmit "never" would require an adverb such as "nunca".
> 
> However:
> 
> 
> I have three separate Spanish-English dictionaries that say the phrase transmits "never", even without using an adverb such as "nunca"
> a thread from this board in which the phrase has been accepted as transmitting "never" (without the adverb), as well as another thread in which it does not transmit "never''
> the comments from Odri above, which indicate the phrase transmits "never" unless the context demands otherwise.
> As an English speaker I would fully expect that an expression such as "en mi vida" would not transmit the negative unless a negating adverb was attached. But I know that's not always the case in other languages, ën absoluto" being an example in Spanish. My desire to verify what was indicated in the dictionaries and to clarify the contrasting usages in the threads to which I linked was what prompted me to start the thread.
> 
> So this is more than a bit confusing to me at this point, particularly since it appears to me that you and Odri are providing different commentary, with Odri saying the never is transmitted unless the context demands otherwise and you saying that "nunca" is required to trasnmit the negative.
> 
> So just "paint me confused" at this point.


 
I think you and I are in overall agreement. My comment was limited strictly to your original posting using the phrase _habia visto en su vida and its faulty english translation_. I wasn't commenting on Odri's views. But the issue has been beaten to death. But I'll say this: adverbs are useful, and context is always important.
Cheers, and don't give up on your learning


----------



## AntsMarching

Basil Ganglia said:


> That is not my translation. That is the translation provided in a different thread. For ease, I provided the link to the thread, which seems to have been accepted as a correct translation. Here is the link again: en mi(/su) vida)


 Yes, you are right.  It wasn't your translation.  My apologies.  It may have been accepted as the correct translation by _some_, but that doesn't mean it is the accepted translation by _all_.
Cheers again


----------



## Basil Ganglia

AntsMarching said:


> Yes, you are right.  It wasn't your translation.  My apologies.  It may have been accepted as the correct translation by _some_, but that doesn't mean it is the accepted translation by _all_.
> Cheers again


When I posted it above Odri didn't challenge the translation.

You've read the thread so far.  Is it fair to say that, despite both being native speakers,  you and Odri differ in your understandings about the meaning of "en mi vida"? And that you differ with the definition provided in the three Spanish-English Dictionaries I mentioned?


----------



## AntsMarching

Basil Ganglia said:


> When I posted it above Odri didn't challenge the translation.
> 
> You've read the thread so far. Is it fair to say that, despite both being native speakers, you and Odri differ in your understandings about the meaning of "en mi vida"? And that you differ with the definition provided in the three Spanish-English Dictionaries I mentioned?


 
“En mi vida” means simply “in my life.”  If I am to determine whether it means _always_ or _never_, then I need the appropriate adverb (I agree with myself; chuckles) or context (I agree with Odri).  If you use an adverb, then there is no misunderstanding what you mean to say. But the thing about context is that it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.  This example was used elsewhere in this thread:
 
_En mi vida he visto una ballena.  
_
It could either mean, literally, _in my life I have seen one whale.  _Is it wrong, grammatically, to say, in this manner, that the speaker _has seen one whale in his life_?  No.  Could it be said better?  Of course: _He visto una ballena en mi vida_.  But that doesn’t mean the former is wrong if the speaker simply means, even if clumsily but grammatically correct, that _he_ _has seen one whale in his life_.
 
Which is why it surprises me that any dictionary would give a universal definition that “_en mi vida”_ means “_never,”_ unless it was an idiomatic expression (modismo) of _en mi vida_ rather than a literal meaning.  Can you quote the full definition from any of the dictionaries you mentioned?      
 
Cheers


----------



## Basil Ganglia

AntsMarching said:


> Which is why it surprises me that any dictionary would give a universal definition that “_en mi vida”_ means “_never,”_ unless it was an idiomatic expression (modismo) of _en mi vida_ rather than a literal meaning.  Can you quote the full definition from any of the dictionaries you mentioned?
> 
> Cheers


Click here, http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/vida, and check the example expressions for en mi vida

This first set of entries is from Webster's New World Concise Spanish Dictionary and the second set is from the Velazquez Spanish and English Dictionary.


----------



## NewdestinyX

AntsMarching said:


> Which is why it surprises me that any dictionary would give a universal definition that “_en mi vida”_ means “_never,”_ unless it was an idiomatic expression (modismo) of _en mi vida_ rather than a literal meaning.  Can you quote the full definition from any of the dictionaries you mentioned?


Here is the listing from Espasa's Dictionary -- from right here at WordReference.com--


> *vida* _f_
> *1* _(existencia)_ life: *no hay vida en Marte,* there is no life on Mars
> *estar con vida,* to be alive
> *quitarse la vida,* to take one's own life
> *2* _(periodo vital)_ life: *toda la vida ha sido socialista,* he's been a socialist all his life
> *de corta vida,* short-lived
> *toda una vida,* a lifetime
> *3* _(modo de vida)_ *¿cómo te va la vida?,* how's life?
> *la literatura es su vida,* he lives for literature _o_ literature is his life
> *lleva una vida muy desordenada,* she lives _o_ leads a very chaotic life
> ♦ LOC: _familiar_ *¡esto es vida!,* this is the life _(situación muy agradable, placentera)_ *¡esto es vida!, todo el día tumbado sin tener que trabajar,* this is the life! lazing around all day without having to work
> _fam (resolver un asunto, problema)_ *buscarse la vida: no tengo dinero, - me da igual, ¡búscate la vida!,* I haven't got any money, - I couldn't care less, go and sort your own problems out
> _figurado_ _Lit Cine Teat (representar un personaje)_ *dar vida: en esa película el actor* *da vida a Napoleón,* in that film the actor plays the part of Napoleon
> *dar la vida,* to sacrifice _o_ give one's life
> *ganarse la vida,* to earn one's living
> _fig fam (morir)_ *pasar a mejor vida,* to pass away
> _(independencia)_ *tener/vivir su (propia) vida alguien: ya no está con sus padres, tiene su propia vida,* he isn't with his parents anymore, he's living his own life
> *a vida o muerte,* _(situación de alto riesgo)_ *le tuvieron que operar a vida o muerte,* it was a life or death operation
> *de mi/tu/su... vida: el amor de mi vida,* the love of my life
> *de por vida,* for life
> *de toda la vida,* lifelong
> *en la vida,* *never* in one's life
> _Rel_ *la otra vida,* the next life


----------



## dropofrain

AntsMarching said:


> “En mi vida” simply means what it means in English – “in my life.” It is a prepositional phrase, and therefore neutral as to whether something happens “always” or “never.” The noun “life’ is the object of the preposition “in.” If you want to communicate “never” or “always,” then you need to provide the appropriate adverb (_always_ and _never_ are adverbs) to modify the verb in question. That’s true in English and in Spanish.
> 
> About your second example:
> _en su vida había visto.../never in his life had he seen….._
> 
> Your translation is not accurate, and therefore, confusing to you.
> 
> _En su vida había visto_ means _in his life had he seen_. You added the adverb “*never”* in English but omitted it in Spanish.
> 
> In other words, consider this:
> 
> *Siempre* en su vida había visto……..*always* in his life had he seen.
> *Nunca* en su vida había visto............_.*never*_ in his life had he seen.
> 
> In both examples, the prepositional phrase _en su vida_ says nothing about “_always_” or “_never.”_ In each case, the adverb *“siempre” (always)* or *“nunca” (never*_)_ communicates the intended meaning by modifying the verb _“*had seen.”*_
> 
> I’m puzzled that any dictionary would translate “en mi vida” simply as “never.” There has to be some missing context.
> 
> (I should add that, in this example, _in his life_ functions as an adverbial prepositional phrase that also modifies the verb “had seen.” But even as such, it doesn’t imply anything about “always” or “never.”)
> 
> Hope this helps….


 Sorry I disadree with you.
There are many times in which the context is the only one that provides the negative or positive meaning.
*En mi vida he visto algo parecido (*nunca he visto nada parecido*)*
(there is not any negative adverb indicating the negative character of this sentence. However, its meaning is negative.
*Por desgracia he visto muchos de estos en mi vida* (efectivamente, los he visto)
(again, this is an affirmative sentence, as the one above) However, its meaning is affirmative in this case.
Therefore I think that it´s not absolutely necessary to provide the sentence with an adverb.
The justification may be very simple: sometimes the final meaning is provided by the paralinguistic phenomena: the tone of the voice, the gestures, the context.
This is just my opinion.


----------



## AntsMarching

dropofrain said:


> Sorry I disadree with you.
> There are many times in which the context is the only one that provides the negative or positive meaning.
> *En mi vida he visto algo parecido (*nunca he visto nada parecido*)*
> (there is not any negative adverb indicating the negative character of this sentence. However, its meaning is negative.
> *Por desgracia he visto muchos de estos en mi vida* (efectivamente, los he visto)
> (again, this is an affirmative sentence, as the one above) However, its meaning is affirmative in this case.
> Therefore I think that it´s not absolutely necessary to provide the sentence with an adverb.
> The justification may be very simple: sometimes the final meaning is provided by the paralinguistic phenomena: the tone of the voice, the gestures, the context.
> This is just my opinion.


 
Hello,

If all I had ever said on this topic was what I said in my first post, then, yes, you disagree with me. But much has been said since then.

I say: When not used as an expression meaning “never”, _en mi vida_ means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. In other words, it depends on context. 

You say: There are many times in which the context is the only one that provides the negative or positive meaning.

We are in agreement. Or, we are not in disagreement.

I think you provide a great insight, and I hope it clarifies matters to those brave souls who’ve managed somehow to stay awake during this entire thread.

Cheers


----------



## Salsamore

_"En mi vida"_ means "never (in my life)" when used as an expression. At the beginning of a sentence, it is always seen as an expression. Problem solved.


----------



## dropofrain

Thanks God


----------



## goodoldave

Hola a todos,

I have been following this thread with interest as this is something that I think is not intuitive to a native English speaker.  I think I understand everyone's position but there is something that doesn't quite click in my mind. 

Here is my question.   Given all that has been said, is it possible to construct sentences like: 

"En mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes."

or

"En mi vida ha sido cinco Presidentes"

Are these sentences ungrammatical and if not, how do they translate? 

Thanks in advance for any insight anyone can provide on this. 

Dave


----------



## NewdestinyX

goodoldave said:


> Hola a todos,
> 
> I have been following this thread with interest as this is something that I think is not intuitive to a native English speaker.  I think I understand everyone's position but there is something that doesn't quite click in my mind.
> 
> Here is my question.   Given all that has been said, is it possible to construct sentences like:
> 
> "En mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes." =
> *I'll bet that one means -- "Never in my life are there 3 important women." (not much 'semantic sense on this one')
> *
> *Hay tres mujeres importantes en mi vida. = There are 3 important women in my life. *
> 
> *It seems position in the sentence makes all the difference with this expression. Let's see what the the 'natives' say. *


----------



## AntsMarching

goodoldave said:


> Hola a todos,
> 
> I have been following this thread with interest as this is something that I think is not intuitive to a native English speaker. I think I understand everyone's position but there is something that doesn't quite click in my mind.
> 
> Here is my question. Given all that has been said, is it possible to construct sentences like:
> 
> "En mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes."
> 
> or
> 
> "En mi vida ha sido cinco Presidentes"
> 
> Are these sentences ungrammatical and if not, how do they translate?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any insight anyone can provide on this.
> 
> Dave


 
Hello Dave,
 
En mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes
Tres mujeres importantes hay en mi vida
Hay, en mi vida, tres mujeres importantes
Hay tres mujeres importantes en mi vida
 
They are all grammatically and syntactically correct, and they all mean precisely what they say: that there are three important women in my life.  Shifting _en mi vida_ to the front, back, or middle of the sentence makes no difference at all in terms of grammar, syntax, or meaning.  Which one you choose is simply that – a choice.
 
To claim that “en mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes” means “never in my life are three important women” (which is obviously contrary to the intended meaning) shows the harm and confusion we create when we tell people to “*always”* think “*never*_”_ when they see *en mi vida* at the front of a sentence.  Language is not rigid.  If it were, we wouldn’t have literature.  
 
As for your second example, there is a problem, but it isn’t with _en mi vida._  The problem is with the verb structure, which should be “han habido” (if what you mean to say is that “in my life there have been five presidents”).
 
Great question, and great examples
Cheers


----------



## dropofrain

AntsMarching said:


> Hello Dave,
> 
> 
> To claim that “en mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes” means “never in my life are three important women” (which is obviously contrary to the intended meaning) shows the harm and confusion we create when we tell people to “*always”* think “*never*_”_ when they see *en mi vida* at the front of a sentence. Language is not rigid. If it were, we wouldn’t have literature.
> 
> As for your second example, there is a problem, but it isn’t with _en mi vida._ The problem is with the verb structure, which should be “*ha* habido” (if what you mean to say is that “in my life there have been five presidents”).
> 
> I concur with you *antsmarching *in these both remarks.
> Anyway, foreros, I reiterate my position when I said that most of the times meaning is just a toy of the context and paralinguistic aspects.
> En mi vida he visto un hilo como este. (never)
> En vida he pasado por situaciones muy desagradables (I have gone through indeed)
> But pay attention: If we change the position of the expression *en mi vida* in the second sentence:
> 
> He pasado por situaciones muy desagradables *en mi vida *(the meaning remains the same) HOwever:
> He visto un hilo como este *en mi vida* ( it isn't natural-sounding and the meaning is quite ambiguous)
> Therefore, it seems certain that the expression "*en mi vida*" at the beginning of a sentence adopts the meaning of "nunca", fact that doesn´t seem to occur at the end of the sentence.
> I don´t want to conclude this post giving the impression of having the absolute true (mainly because I don´t have it) but it seem´s to me that both Antsmarching, Grant and me are right in some aspects of our arguments.
> What it´s really true to me is that:
> *En mi vida he visto un hilo tan caliente como este*


----------



## NewdestinyX

What I'm open to explore here is, as dropfran has said, there are certain structures that 'draw out' the expression use of 'en mi/la vida' or the actual use. Even using an almost exact syntax to Dave's second example the only possible conclusion would be the 'never use'.

En mi vida ha habido tanta confusión sobre el futuro. 

--there 'en mi vida' has to have the negative understanding expression usage.

Yet in Dave's president example -- the 'never' meaning wouldn't make sense.

I'm ready to change my axiom about how students should 'discern' the meaning of this expression. Here goes:

When 'en mi vida' is positioned at the beginning of the sentence -- if 'only' a positive semantic can be semantically understood then it does not carry the 'never usage'. If it could mean 'either' semantic then it means 'never'.

Read that again -- as it will confuse you upon a first reading.  It did me. The point is -- there is never ambiguity and that's what Basil's original question was trying to get at. If there 'is' ambiguity (from a non-native speakers point of reference) then 'the expression' use of 'never' has to be the meaning. If there's no ambiguity and it only makes sense 'without' the never, as in Dave's examples -- then it's the positive affirmation. I think if we test that it will work.

In Dave's 2 examples -- it would be impossible to accept the 'never' aspect.

In my example above - it 'could mean' both. It's ambiguous. So -- the 'never' usage is how the Spanish speaker will interpret it.

En mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes. - (no ambiguity)
ahora existen estas mujeres
Nunca ha habido tales mujeres 
---Affirmative semantic is only conclusion

En mi vida ha habido tanta confusión sobre el futuro. (ambiguity)
el problema ha existido hasta este punto
nunca ha existido tal problema
-----Negaitve semantic in only conclusion

There is my modified axiom. What do we think?

Grant


----------



## zelan

Ya lo habéis dicho todo , pero por si esto aclara algo:

"He visto una ballena en (toda) mi vida": quiere decir que solamente he visto una ballena desde que nací. I've seen only a whale ( in my whole lifetime)
Pero:
"En mi vida he visto una ballena": quiere decir que nunca he visto una ballena:
I've never seen a whale ( in  my whole lifetime)
Depende de si se pone delante o detrás como bien han dicho antes.
"En mi vida" en este caso ( cuando va delante de la frase) es una abreviatura de "nunca en mi vida" pero a veces omitimos la palabra "nunca".


When we say "en mi vida" at the beginning of the sentence it implies that we are saying "nunca en mi vida" ( never in my lifetime) . Only in this case "en mi vida" means "nunca".
but it is  spoken language and very casual, if not it's better to say: "nunca en mi vida"

Nunca en mi vida no es una doble negación, de hecho es la frase completa y correcta.
In fact when you say : "En mi vida he visto una ballena", can also mean that you actually have seen a whale ( just one). It depends on the intonation .

Basil, "en mi vida" doesn't mean "never" unless the context prohibits that sense, of course not. It's just we are omitting the word never in this sentence.


----------



## aleCcowaN

"En mi vida he visto una ballena" puede significar que vi una o que no vi ninguna. Todo depende del contexto y de la entonación, especialmente del hecho de que aparezca una pausa, representada generalmente por medio de coma: "En mi vida, he visto una ballena", en cuyo caso se refiere a haber visto sólo una.

La frase es ambigua de por sí, por eso los hablantes le agregamos lo necesario para expresarnos con precisión:

Nunca en la/mi vida vi/he visto una ballena.
En mi vida vi/he visto sólo una ballena.

Sólo el contexto puede aclarar la frase original:

-¡Cuántas ballenas habrás matado!
-¡Qué ridículo! ¡En la vida he visto una ballena!

Si quisiera, podría encontrar ejemplos de diálogos para sustentar una u otra interpretación, pero la realidad es que la frase contiene la semilla de la ambigüedad que sólo otros elementos de la comunicación -inflexiones, gestos, entonaciones- podrán aclarar. Además, desde mi cultura, la frase "en mi vida he visto una ballena" supone presunción de no haber visto nunca una, pero otras culturas pueden tener otra presunción ¿Acaso no es que en México y otras regiones las fiestas "empiezan hasta las diez"?

Al evitar los ejemplos, evitamos los casos de _choice supporting bias_, casi lo único que he detectado al leer muy por encima, lo confieso, los mensajes de este largo hilo.


----------



## Romdezal

¡Hola a todos!
Es una conversación muy interesante y me gustaría participar dando mi modesta opinión al respecto. 
Creo que la controversia acerca del significado de la frase puede deberse a la utilización de la locución "a su manera" en sus distintas acepciones de tiempo/lugar o negación-negativa.
Intentaré explicarlo con un ejemplo como los que se han sugerido:
En mi vida he visto una ballena -  locución tiempo (durante mi vida/ a lo largo de mi vida...)
En mi vida he visto una ballena -  locución negativa (nunca/ jamás/ en mi vida...)
En lenguaje hablado a fin de evitar la ambigüedad tendemos a enfatizar,mediante la entonación, la segunda parte de la frase (una ballena) lo que le da sentido de tiempo: si entonamos con más fuerza la primera parte (en mi vida) le da sentido de negación,es decir, nunca.
 En el lenguaje escrito tendemos a (creo que como siempre que pueda haber ambigüedad) a, o bien intercambiar el lugar (He visto una ballena en mi vida- sí la he visto) o a complementarlo con otro adverbio que refuerce el sentido que queremos dar (En mi vida sólo he visto una ballena). No obstante si aparecen las dos así bien me guiaría por el contexto si me ayuda y si no me decantaría por la acepción de la locución negativa (nunca) en el caso del lenguaje escrito y en la expresión oral sí atendería a la entonación. En todo caso me parece que esto no obvia el hecho de que lo que queramos expresar venga determinado por un adverbio/locución de tiempo/lugar o negación.
Espero haber podido expresar más o menos (¡dichosas locuciones!) lo que pienso. 
¡Muchas gracias a todos!  Excelente foro, nos hace pensar.


----------



## NewdestinyX

aleCcowaN said:


> "En mi vida he visto una ballena" puede significar que vi una o que no vi ninguna. Todo depende del contexto y de la entonación, especialmente del hecho de que aparezca una pausa, representada generalmente por medio de coma: "En mi vida, he visto una ballena", en cuyo caso se refiere a haber visto sólo una.
> 
> La frase es ambigua de por sí, por eso los hablantes le agregamos lo necesario para expresarnos con precisión:
> 
> Nunca en la/mi vida vi/he visto una ballena.
> En mi vida vi/he visto sólo una ballena.
> 
> Sólo el contexto puede aclarar la frase original:
> 
> -¡Cuántas ballenas habrás matado!
> -¡Qué ridículo! ¡En la vida he visto una ballena!
> 
> Si quisiera, podría encontrar ejemplos de diálogos para sustentar una u otra interpretación, pero la realidad es que la frase contiene la semilla de la ambigüedad que sólo otros elementos de la comunicación -inflexiones, gestos, entonaciones- podrán aclarar. Además, desde mi cultura, la frase "en mi vida he visto una ballena" supone presunción de no haber visto nunca una, pero otras culturas pueden tener otra presunción ¿Acaso no es que en México y otras regiones las fiestas "empiezan hasta las diez"?
> 
> Al evitar los ejemplos, evitamos los casos de _choice supporting bias_, casi lo único que he detectado al leer muy por encima, lo confieso, los mensajes de este largo hilo.


Pero los diccionarios, escrito por hispanohablantes dicen que 'en mi/la vida + verbo = 'nunca en mi vida' + verbo. De ahí que haya habido la confusión. Están declarando que no es una cuestión de 'enotonaciones'. Interesante.


----------



## AntsMarching

dropofrain said:


> AntsMarching said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Dave,
> 
> 
> To claim that “en mi vida hay tres mujeres importantes” means “never in my life are three important women” (which is obviously contrary to the intended meaning) shows the harm and confusion we create when we tell people to “*always”* think “*never*_”_ when they see *en mi vida* at the front of a sentence. Language is not rigid. If it were, we wouldn’t have literature.
> 
> As for your second example, there is a problem, but it isn’t with _en mi vida._ The problem is with the verb structure, which should be “*ha* habido” (if what you mean to say is that “in my life there have been five presidents”).
> 
> I concur with you *antsmarching *in these both remarks.
> Anyway, foreros, I reiterate my position when I said that most of the times meaning is just a toy of the context and paralinguistic aspects.
> En mi vida he visto un hilo como este. (never)
> En vida he pasado por situaciones muy desagradables (I have gone through indeed)
> But pay attention: If we change the position of the expression *en mi vida* in the second sentence:
> 
> He pasado por situaciones muy desagradables *en mi vida *(the meaning remains the same) HOwever:
> He visto un hilo como este *en mi vida* ( it isn't natural-sounding and the meaning is quite ambiguous)
> Therefore, it seems certain that the expression "*en mi vida*" at the beginning of a sentence adopts the meaning of "nunca", fact that doesn´t seem to occur at the end of the sentence.
> I don´t want to conclude this post giving the impression of having the absolute true (mainly because I don´t have it) but it seem´s to me that both Antsmarching, Grant and me are right in some aspects of our arguments.
> What it´s really true to me is that:
> *En mi vida he visto un hilo tan caliente como este*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, zelan, aleccowan, and romdezal have provided a much needed fresh insight into our discussion, and it has greatly aided our quest to find common ground.  I have benefited tremendously from your comments, and I hope everyone else feels the same way too.   Además, gracias por corregir mi error.  No me había dado cuenta, y ahora que lo veo, claro, se require el use del “ha”.
> Gracias
Click to expand...


----------



## aleCcowaN

NewdestinyX said:


> Pero los diccionarios, escrito por hispanohablantes dicen que 'en mi/la vida + verbo = 'nunca en mi vida' + verbo. De ahí que haya habido la confusión. Están declarando que no es una cuestión de 'enotonaciones'. Interesante.


Yo opino que los diccionarios y los libros de gramática son como la goma de mascar: hay que masticarlos y mucho, pero nunca tragarlos. Hay cosas de las que uno puede estar seguro: nunca puede ser intensificativo de jamás ("nunca jamás") pero no a la inversa cross:jamás nunca). Sin embargo es más común que las cosas tengan límites flexibles y en ciertos casos sean decididamente ambiguas. También hay que recordar que siendo el lenguaje materia "viva" muchas veces somos testigos directos del proceso de evolución del mismo. Como ya dije, a mí "en mi vida he visto una ballena" me sugiere que el hablante no la ha visto, pero no por la lógica de la frase sino por la frecuencia de expresiones como esta:

-¡Me has traicionado!
-¡En la vida te traicionaría!

que significa "nunca te he traicionado ni te traicionaría en el futuro: no están en mi naturaleza tales intenciones". Esa clase de frases se refiere indirectamente al pasado mediante una promesa de futuro con límites en la eternidad -la que, como se sabe, tiene dos extremos- y su valor expresivo y emotivo es tan fuerte que queda asociado de alguna forma a su estructura. Luego "en la vida", "en mi vida", "nunca" y muchas otras devienen en un mazacote de los que surge que "en la vida" supone ser "nunca en la vida" aunque los diccionarios no escriben "pero por las dudas preste atención al contexto porque no siempre es así", supongo que para ahorrar papel o para ahorrarse mayores explicaciones.

Si algo me han enseñado discusiones tan acaloradas como esta(o temas tan candentes; permítanme rechazar cortésmente el término "caliente" que hace aparecer la discusión como el número de apertura del musical Chicago) es que la limitación de las gramáticas y de los diccionarios, cuando no su propia incorrección, no le van a la zaga a las limitaciones de quienes escribimos estas líneas. Sólo dos casos a modo de ejemplo:

(EDICIÓN DEL MODERADOR: Comentarios de temas no relacionados con el tema del hilo retirados)


----------



## aleCcowaN

(EDICIÓN DEL MODERADOR: Retirada respuesta a comentario fuera del tema del hilo)

Con respecto al tema de este hilo, aparentemente has leído algo y lo has dado por verdadero y por expresión cabal y final del tema que discutimos. En este caso no creo que el texto sea incorrecto sino que no miraste el texto adecuado o entendiste los límites de su aplicación. Lo primero que hay que entender es qué significa "en mi vida". Esta expresión puede significar "entre la colección de momentos que constituyen mi vida" o por el contrario "a lo largo de mi vida, vista como totalidad como una acumulación". Se interpreta así como una colección de eventos o como una totalidad. "En mi (su/nuestra/la) vida + pretérito perfecto" tiende a comportarse como una expresión fija que hace referencia a que en esa colección de eventos de la que está hecha "la vida" no existe ningún evento que coincida con la acción o realidad expresada por el verbo. Pero la interpretación cambia apenas aparece algo que identifica el resto de la frase como evento real:

En mi vida he visto ballena alguna (nunca las he visto)
En mi vida he visto dos ballenas (vi dos)
En mi vida he visto una ballena (ambiguo, en general se presume que no las he visto)
En mi vida he tenido un momento de verdadera y profunda paz ... fue hace dos años cuando ... (y todavía hay quien habla de la "excusa del contexto" ¡pfst!)

A todo esto vos te mandás en un mensaje


> Pero los diccionarios, escrito por hispanohablantes dicen que 'en mi/la vida + verbo = 'nunca en mi vida' + verbo.


En ese caso nombrá uno por uno esos diccionarios y los hispanohablantes que los escribieron -o alguno-, para ver si los has interpretado mal o si tales libros son poco recomendables ¿Dicen "+ verbo"? ¿cualquier verbo? ¿cualquier tiempo? ¿en infinitivo también? Porque

En mi vida iré a ese lugar alguna vez (no iré nunca)
En mi vida iré a ese lugar (es muy difícil justificar otra cosa que la negativa ...)
En mi vida iré a ese lugar, muerto me han de llevar (... pero como ayuda el contexto)

Bueno, esperamos los nombres de los diccionarios, de los hispanoparlantes y las citas exactas. 

(EDICIÓN DEL MODERADOR: Retirados comentarios de tono personal)


----------



## NewdestinyX

aleCcowaN said:


> Bueno, esperamos los nombres de los diccionarios, de los hispanoparlantes y las citas exactas.


¿Has leído el hilo entero? Ya se han dado, Alec. Diccionario Espasa, Oxford, y otros. Y la citación de Espasa está colgada. Leé el hilo de nuevo, por fa. Es una locución fija que al anteponer al verbo (en el pasado, evidentemente,) siempre transmite 'nunca'.


----------



## goodoldave

Interesting discussion.

Does "en mi vida" as a fixed phase meaning "never" only work in the first person or does it translate to other persons?

For example, does "En su vida, ha visto una ballena' mean "He has never seen a whale"?

Dave


----------



## zelan

goodoldave said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> Does "en mi vida" as a fixed phase meaning "never" only work in the first person or does it translate to other persons?
> 
> For example, does "En su vida, ha visto una ballena' mean "He has never seen a whale"?
> 
> Dave



Yes, you can use it with all persons:
En su vida ha visto una ballena.
En su vida han visto una ballena.
En tu vida has visto una ballena.
...

Even in future tense:
En su vida verá una ballena.
En su vida encontrará trabajo.

....


----------



## SevenDays

goodoldave said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> Does "en mi vida" as a fixed phase meaning "never" only work in the first person or does it translate to other persons?
> 
> For example, does "En su vida, ha visto una ballena' mean "He has never seen a whale"?
> 
> Dave


 
To me, punctuation makes all the difference in the world.

En su vida, ha visto una ballena (Comma. In his life, he has seen one whale)
¡En su vida ha visto una bellena! (Exclamations. He’s never seen a whale in his life)

En mi vida, he visto una ballena (Comma. In my life,….)
¡En mi vida he visto una ballena! (never!)

En su vida ha visto una ballena (I need context to know what it really means)
En mi vida he visto una ballena (I need context to know what it really means)

¡No me tiren tomates!
No soy experto ni de tomates, ni de ballenas, ni de la vida, ni de nada……


----------



## VVoody

For me the question of whether "*en mi vida*" means _"never" _or _"always" _is similar to whether "*en absoluto*" means _"absolutely" _or _"absolutely not". _At times I tend to have difficulties using both phrases properly in Spanish.

Woody


----------



## duvija

OK, both 'en mi vida' and 'en absoluto' are Negative Polarity Items (NPI), meaning they occur in negative contexts. That said, the problem with 'en mi vida' is that in speech, there is a special intonation added to those words, which disambiguate any possible positive meaning. If you are reading, then you need context to make sure which 'en mi vida' the author is using.
"En absoluto" is not that tied to intonation. It simply means 'no/never'.

If you really want to know stuff written about this, try finding it in here. It's probably too much for this group, but ...


----------



## Sendro Páez

VVoody, I absolutely agree with duvija.

I'd like to add something, though. Right after she said,


duvija said:


> "En absoluto" is not that tied to intonation. It simply means 'no/never'.


I would have put, "And '_en mi vida_' never means _always_."


----------



## duvija

Sendro Páez said:


> VVoody, I absolutely agree with duvija.
> 
> I'd like to add something, though. Right after she said,
> 
> I would have put, "And '_en mi vida_' never means _always_."



I wouldn't go that far. 

_"En mi vida siempre trabajé muchísimo. En cambio, mi vecino, en su vida movió un dedo"
_
(Sorry, I have a paper published about negation without negative words, but we are not supposed to add links to stuff that are still under publisher's rights. Still, McCawley and Horn were my professors)


----------



## Sendro Páez

Perdóname, duvija, pero no veo en qué contradice tu ejemplo (que me suena estupendo, aunque escribiría una coma ante «siempre») a lo que yo añadí.

Yo considero _siempre_ una mención absoluta a los tiempos pasados y por venir. Sin embargo, _en mi vida_ está restringido a una porción pequeña y personalísima de ese _siempre_ absoluto, dado que los hispanohablantes no tenemos vida eterna.

No son cosas intercambiables en significado per se, aunque se puedan emplear conversacionalmente una por la otra y conducir, relajadamente, a una interpretación parecida. Estas tres significan más o menos lo mismo, no lo discuto:

─ _En mi vida, siempre he trabajado muchísimo_.
─ _En mi vida, he trabajado muchísimo_.
─ _Siempre he trabajado  muchísimo_.​
Es decir, mi interpretación general es que este hablante es inmodesto, exagerado y autocomplaciente, con los matices de que en la primera frase es retórico, en la tercera grandilocuente y en la segunda menos inmodesto, pero más ambiguo si no escribe la coma (porque entraríamos en las negaciones, de las que no estamos hablando).

¿Por qué dije pues que «_En mi vida_ nunca significa _siempre_» si admito que, a veces, pueden dar lugar a una interpretación similar? Bueno, pues porque el análisis y la síntesis son dos cosas diferentes: si una persona que está aprendiendo español necesita aludir el concepto al que alude la palabra _siempre_, me parece lo mejor y lo más práctico hacer que parta de la idea de que el sintagma _en mi vida_ no cumple lo que necesita. En el post 53, VVoody me dio la impresión de tratar en pie de igualdad las posibilidades de _nunca_ y _siempre_, y eso es inconcebible para mí.

So, since you wrote, "I wouldn't go that far," would you go as far as "'_En mi vida_' never means exactly _always_" goes?


----------

