# pero todavía no la vi / he visto



## loritaa

In the sentence:
"La semana pasada mi novia vio_(ver)_ la última película de Penélope Cruz, pero yo todavía no la ________(ver)._"

Do I use the _preterito indefinido form_  "vi" or the _preterito perfecto form _"he visto" ?

THANK YOU!


----------



## Dudu678

_...pero yo todavía no la *he visto*_.

Why? Rough explanation: the effects of not having seen it yet are still present at the moment the spaker is saying this.


----------



## Cracker Jack

I agree with Dudu.  When the speaker said these words, his statement was related to something that happened in the past.  Your clue here is the adverb todavía.  But the most logical explanation is the relation of the matter (the movie) to the present to something that happened in the past.


----------



## slishnevsky

IMHO, same as in English:

"Last week my fiancee saw the last film of Penélope Cruz, but I haven't seen it yet."

"La semana pasada mi novia vio la película pasada de Penélope Cruz, pero yo no la ha visto todavía."


----------



## zpoludnia swiata

There´s a tendency for New World Spanish and English to prefer the simple past - preterite (vi, saw) in general.  Whereas Old World Spanish and English often seem to prefer the present perfect-- a kind of dialect difference, even when they mean virtually the same things.


----------



## Dudu678

From my own observations, I would say that tendency is more noticeable in big areas in America and some here in Spain. 

They're not virtually the same. I'd say this:

_Hoy he ido al médico. (The day isn't finished).
Ayer fui al médico. (The day is already finished).
_


----------



## zpoludnia swiata

Where I live everyone would say "Hoy fui al médico."  "He ido..." sounds a bit "rebuscado" or foreign.


----------



## gangstapolitica

In latin america we say "yo vi" more than "yo he visto", "yo he visto" is almost never heard jaja


----------



## duvija

Agreed. For me -"... pero yo todavía no la ví."


----------



## Aviador

duvija said:


> Agreed. For me -"... pero yo todavía no la ví."


That is usual in the Río de la Plata area but sounds odd elsewhere. Here in Chile we would say "... pero yo todavía no la he visto."


----------



## obz

gangstapolitica said:


> In latin america we say "yo vi" more than "yo he visto", "yo he visto" is almost never heard jajajajajaja



I've certainly observed this in Argentina, but elsewhere, Colombia, Perú, Chile, and Mexico for example, one is just as likely as the other, it really depends on the temporal space desired relative to the events, and the customs of the area. To say it's almost never heard is a bit of a radical generalization.


----------



## duvija

obz said:


> I've certainly observed this in Argentina, but elsewhere, Colombia, Perú, Chile, and Mexico for example, one is just as likely as the other, it really depends on the temporal space desired relative to the events, and the customs of the area. To say it's almost never heard is a bit of a radical generalization.



Trust me, for the Río de la Plata, it's almost never heard... (and yes, there are usage statistics, but mostly for the written language, which may use a perfect tense everyonce in a while - and normally, in the wrong places, no matter how good the journalist is.) If you listen to talk shows (the only place where you find the language that's actually in use), there is seldom a perfect tense.


----------



## obz

duvija said:


> Trust me, for the Río de la Plata, it's almost never heard...



Em.. perhaps I don't understand correctly your post, or you mine, but I needn't trust anyone. As I said I've heard it with my own ears (or rather, heard that it isn't employed), spoken with people while there. I have emperical evidence.  It's totally true. No doubt.
I said I have observed it, meaning I have observed it's absence. There is no refuting its nonexistence in Rioplatenese Spanish.

But Latin America is *much* bigger than the Río de la Plata. 

The compound tenses are not rare in Latin America as a whole.


----------



## gangstapolitica

ok thanks for your opinions

but all i know is that the preterito almost the same thing as the present perfect

therefore i just use the preterito and completely ignore the present perfect, it is also much more faster to type in "vi" instead of "he visto" on the keyboard


----------



## obz

I have no doubt that that is what you do.


----------



## duvija

gangstapolitica said:


> ok thanks for your opinions
> 
> but all i know is that the preterito almost the same thing as the present perfect
> 
> therefore i just use the preterito and completely ignore the present perfect, it is also much more faster to type in "vi" instead of "he visto" on the keyboard



It would help if you tell us what's your native language, and if possible, from which area of the world. Makes life easier


----------



## gringuitoloco

To me, "todavía no la ví" sounds like a refusal to see it. As in "even though she saw it, I still didn't see it." (Becasue I don't want to.)
Whereas "todavía no la he visto" sounds like the speaker wants to see it, but hasn't had the chance to yet. 

I would always use "he visto" in this situation though, because words like "ya/todavía/etc" just sound better (and make more sense IMO) in the present perfect tense....


----------



## obz

> just sound better (and make more sense IMO) in the present perfect tense....



*....in English.
*
It is not true for all Spanish dialects. We have to remember, that even where the prefect tenses are used, prevalently, they are still not prefect reflections of their English counterparts.


----------



## SevenDays

..."_pero todavía no *la*_ _*veo *_sounds," to me, as a logical alternative to *la he visto*; "veo" looks from the present to the future, "he visto" looks from the present to the past. I wouldn't have thought of "_*la vi*_," but it is an interesting choice. 
Cheers


----------



## duvija

SevenDays;11566015
 I wouldn't have thought of "[I said:
			
		

> *la vi*[/I]," but it is an interesting choice.
> Cheers



 It's my ONLY choice... 
(therefore, not a choice, I know. I say this before some bubblehead corrects me... )


----------



## gangstapolitica

SevenDays said:


> ..."_pero todavía no *la*_ _*veo *_sounds," to me, as a logical alternative to *la he visto*; "veo" looks from the present to the future, "he visto" looks from the present to the past. I wouldn't have thought of "_*la vi*_," but it is an interesting choice.
> Cheers



i agree with you man...

it makes alot of sense in this conext like when you want to say if something is not done as yet


----------



## _SantiWR_

SevenDays said:


> ..."_pero todavía no *la*_ _*veo *_sounds," to me, as a logical alternative to *la he visto*; "veo" looks from the present to the future, "he visto" looks from the present to the past. I wouldn't have thought of "_*la vi*_," but it is an interesting choice.
> Cheers



Are you talking seriously? You mean like in _Todavía no veo la película, a ver si puedo la semana que viene_? If "todavía no la vi" wasn't weird enough, we've got just another one


----------



## SevenDays

Yes, I'm talking, and don't call me _seriously_. (Actually, that would've been the joke with a comma: _are you talking*,* seriously?_)
Is it really odd to say:
_todavía no *veo* la película, a ver si *puedo* (verla) la semana que viene
_where "veo" and "puedo" are imperfective in nature and suggest temporal direction (present-future)?
But, weird it may be...
Cheers


----------



## Peterdg

At first I thought "todavía no la veo" was strange but thinking about it, I actually see me saying it too.

Suppose a party is waiting for someone (a woman in this case, because of the "la") at the airport and they are staring to see if they can see her somewhere. 

A: ¿Ya la ves?
B: No, todavía no la veo.

B's answer is more or less equivalent to "No, sigo sin verla".

Does this make sense?


----------



## _SantiWR_

Peterdg said:


> At first I thought "todavía no la veo" was strange but thinking about it, I actually see me saying it too.
> 
> Suppose a party is waiting for someone (a woman in this case, because of the "la") at the airport and they are staring to see if they can see her somewhere.
> 
> A: ¿Ya la ves?
> B: No, todavía no la veo.
> 
> B's answer is more or less equivalent to "No, sigo sin verla".
> 
> Does this make sense?



It does, but it is plainly wrong within the context in hand, which is:

_"La semana pasada mi novia vio(ver) la última película de Penélope Cruz, pero yo todavía no la _______(ver)."

_
Santiago.


----------



## Istriano

obz said:


> But Latin America is *much* bigger than the Río de la Plata.
> 
> The compound tenses are not rare in Latin America as a whole.



Present perfect is used in Northwestern provinces of Argentina and in Bolivia, but not necessarily in a canonical way:

_No la he visto todavía.
La he visto ayer.
La he visto el año pasado.

More on this here: _*Estudio sobre el uso del pretérito perfecto prehodiernal en el  español peninsular y en comparación con la variedad del español  argentino hablada en Santiago del Estero.*
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/romaa/vk/kempas/estudios.pdf 

_Present perfect subjunctive _is conserved normally in Latin American speech, even in Buenos Aires: _Espero que no la haya visto todavía/ayer/el año pasado._
For rules of subjunctive with present tense in the main clause see here:http://www.elcastellano.org/consultas.php?Op=ver&Id=30594


As for_ presente perfecto prehodiernal _in Spain, see here:



> Desearía saber si la frase "El día que he pasado ayer no se lo aconsejo a  nadie" es correcta o sería mejor "El día que pasé ayer no se lo  aconsejo a nadie".


http://www.elcastellano.org/consultas.php?Op=ver&Id=18398 

I've seen seen madrileños use presente perfecto with _ayer _and indefinido with _hoy, ya_ so these rules are not strict, they're more like recommendations. 
When confronted, they would swear they never break the canonical grammar rules, but the real language (in movies, blogs, even literature) proves us it's not always like that. 

Pablo Neruda used_ presente perfecto_ with past adverbials (''Ayer he ido por primera vez a ver a uno de los más nuevos ''). So did Miguel Hernández (_''Anteayer he recibido una carta de un amigo de la huerta'')_ ,
Leopoldo Alas (*''No creo que esa señora haya ido ayer al teatro.''* ).  I've been collecting literary examples of this usage and I have more than 500 examples from the finest writers (found mostly on Google books).  

At times, I think these tenses are like _going _to and _will _future in English. We learn 100 rules when to use going to (and not will) and 100 rules when to use _will _(and not _going to),_
but in American English, in 90% of cases both are possible and interchangeable (and the difference in meaning varies depending on a speaker, from inexistent to subtle to some).

Presente perfecto ~ Indefinido merger started in Northern Spain (Basque country, Asturias) and it is spreading southward, with already 50% of people in Madrid, València and Cataluña being okay with _Espero que lo hayas hecho ayer._ (which in this case, with subjunctive, is a revival of the classical form, omnipresent in Latin America).


----------



## Istriano

gringuitoloco said:


> To me, "todavía no la ví" sounds like a refusal to see it.



You may be right. Some linguists have seen this tendency in Madrid Spanish:

_Ya me lo dijiste._ (You already told me that, but I don't want to discuss it). This would be more like ''Would you stop reminding me!''  {unconnecting}
_Ya me lo has dicho._ (You have already told me that, and I would like to hear more about it). {connecting}

other nuances:

_Mi padre murió hace tres meses. _(My father died 3 months ago, I got over it). {unconnecting}
_Mi padre ha muerto hace tres meses._  (My father died 3 months ago, I'm still experiencing a great loss in my life, I'm still in shock). {connecting}



> _Ayer y anteayer he estado en la cama de achaque de una rascadura y un poco de gota, que no me parece que entra con furia, y hoy me he levantado…_


 *Cartas de Felipe II a sus hijas*

Filipe II has been in bed for three days (_anteayer, ayer, hoy_), so this is a continual state to the present, even though ayer and anteayer are used.


----------



## edw

Istriano said:


> _Ayer y anteayer he estado en la cama de achaque de una rascadura y un  poco de gota, que no me parece que entra con furia, y hoy me he  levantado…_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cartas de Felipe II a sus hijas*
> 
> Filipe II has been in bed for three days (_anteayer, ayer, hoy_), so this is a continual state to the present, even though ayer and anteayer are used.
Click to expand...


In this case, I would use simple past in the first phrase _

Ayer y anteayer *estuve *en la cama de achaque de una rascadura y un  poco de gota
_
The action of this part of the phrase is completely past. He is not on bed anymore,  the action of being on bed is not continuing in the present, because he says:_

que no me parece que entra con furia*, y hoy me he  levantado…

*_And *today* is the present. 
_

_


----------



## Istriano

The magic of the Spanish language: you can't find two people who use the language in the same way. 
And RAE in the newest grammar does not condemn any different usage in this case (accepting both_ ya estuve _and _ayer he estado_).
It's not only a mere grammar ''problem'', but one of stylistics and even psychology (_presente perfecto psicológico)_.



> Ningún pueblo, ninguna sociedad, puede progresar si no se siente orgulloso de pertenecer al País en el que ha nacido.


(Cristina F. Kirchner en su campaña electoral)

It's obvious that by using present perfect (_ha nacido_) [has been born] instead of past simple (_nació_) [was born] she is
giving present importance to the action (of being born) that occurred in distant past.

By using a narrow approach* ha nacido *would be interpreted ''she is giving a speech to newborns'', but it's not like that.


----------



## duvija

Istriano said:


> The magic of the Spanish language: you can't find two people who use the language in the same way.
> And RAE in the newest grammar does not condemn any different usage in this case (accepting both_ ya estuve _and _ayer he estado_).
> It's not only a mere grammar ''problem'', but one of stylistics and even psychology (_presente perfecto psicológico)_.
> 
> 
> (Cristina F. Kirchner en su campaña electoral)
> 
> It's obvious that by using present perfect (_ha nacido_) [has been born] instead of past simple (_nació_) [was born] she is
> giving present importance to the action (of being born) that occurred in distant past.
> 
> By using a narrow approach* ha nacido *would be interpreted ''she is giving a speech to newborns'', but it's not like that.



I believe Cristina was just trying to sound more polished. There is no real notion of 'how long ago' when we use the perfect. It feels more uppity, though.


----------



## _SantiWR_

Coming back to the topic, the problem I see with '_todavía no la vi_' if we accept that contradiction in terms into the language, and we can't do otherwise given the number of people actually using it, is what does actually mean? _Todavía no la he visto_ or _todavía no la había visto_? The only time frame mentioned in the sentence is "la semana pasada", and given that _todavía_ can mean up to some point in the past, where the heck does the reference to the present come from? Where are the grounds to read it as "_todavía no la he visto_" instead of _todavía no la había visto_?


----------



## obz

> Where are the grounds to read it as "_todavía no la he visto_" instead of _todavía no la había visto_?



For me it's as simple as being the past of the _present _(la he visto), or the past of the _past _(la había visto).
The pretérito simple and pretérito imperfecto being simply _"the past"_, neither with relevance or relation to the present, or other pasts.
It depends non on the distance in time of the even from the present, but it's relevance in temporal space, dictated by the sentence, not reality.

That's just my $0.02


----------



## _SantiWR_

obz said:


> For me it's as simple as being the past of the _present _(la he visto), or the past of the _past _(la había visto).
> The pretérito simple and pretérito imperfecto being simply _"the past"_, neither with relevance or relation to the present, or other pasts.
> It depends non on the distance in time of the even from the present, but it's relevance in temporal space, dictated by the sentence, not reality.
> 
> That's just my $0.02



Exactly. That's why if someone tells me "_esa película no la vi_" then I ask: when were you supposed to see it? But if they say "e_sa película todavía no la ví_", then I start racking my brains because the adverb todavía does include this relation to a point in time, be it past, present of future.


----------



## Istriano

But, in theory ''esa película no la vi'' is fine, because with undefined past we are supposed to use the indefinido.
(But in real life,  many Spaniards use presente perfecto with undefined past: _He estado en Brasil = I've been to Brazil _(It's not important when)).

This is the main confusion point, what is the ''neutral past''?, for most people in Latin America, the indefinido is the neutral past.
For most people in Spain, _presente perfecto _is the neutral past.

But even in Spain, people are divided: 





> _Nada más falso, sin embargo, que la afirmación de que Freud ha descubierto la sexualidad infantil del mismo modo que Cristóbal Colón ha descubierto __América_.


For many Spaniards this would be agrammatical (discovery of America was a long time ago), while for many of them it is perfectly fine (if you don't mention the date, it's irrelevant when he did it), in line with _He estado en Brasil. He estado en Brasil _ itself has two interpretations 1. the one of recency_ (=I've just come back from Brazil)_; 2. the one of past experience_ (I was in Brazil once in my life, it does not matter when)._


----------



## gengo

obz said:


> *....in English.*



Actually, exactly the same thing happens in English.

Last week my girlfriend saw Penelope Cruz's new movie, but I haven't seen it yet. (grammatically correct)
Last week my girlfriend saw Penelope Cruz's new movie, but I didn't see it yet. (very common)

I think people (humans in general, regardless of language) are basically lazy, so we look for ways to shorten our speech, and I think that is why this particular change happens in both Spanish and English.


----------



## _SantiWR_

Istriano said:


> But, in theory ''esa película no la vi'' is fine, because with undefined past we are supposed to use the indefinido.
> (But in real life,  many Spaniards use presente perfecto with undefined past: _He estado en Brasil = I've been to Brazil _(It's not important when)).
> 
> This is the main confusion point, what is the ''neutral past''?, for most people in Latin America, the indefinido is the neutral past.
> For most people in Spain, _presente perfecto _is the neutral past.
> 
> But even in Spain, people are divided:
> For many Spaniards this would be agrammatical (discovery of America was a long time ago), while for many of them it is perfectly fine (if you don't mention the date, it's irrelevant when he did it), in line with _He estado en Brasil. He estado en Brasil _ itself has two interpretations 1. the one of recency_ (=I've just come back from Brazil)_; 2. the one of past experience_ (I was in Brazil once in my life, it does not matter when)._



For me the perfect is the undefined one (except when it's being used for recent past, as you said). On the other hand, I can't hear a simple past without assuming that the speaker has a date in their mind, even if they don't make it explicit. That's why the sentence of this thread is so puzzling. I would also say that this is the theory, apart from being the practise in real life for many Spaniards.


----------



## Istriano

*_SantiWR_*
I've noticed this thing in British English. Many British people say - ''I saw a film'' is agrammatical because it does not contain the temporal information, it's incomplete, it requires the question: when did you see it?- (''I saw a film last year/yesterday'').


----------



## Flic

I would use the past simple in English to refer to a film that was available to see for a certain period of time but which it is no longer possible to see (with ease). So, I might say: 'I have seen Star Wars' because it is still in our consciousness as a popular film and easy to get on DVD, but if there had been a specific showing of a film for a week in an arts cinema which it would be very difficult to see now, I would say 'Yes, I saw that!' because the seeing of it was only possible within a defined time in the past. A typical conversation might be: 'One time when I went to the Watershed cinema, I saw a weird film about dolphins that turned into people.' 'Yes, I saw that! Bizarre, wasn't it?'. 'Did you see that film about X?' would similarly refer to a film that was available for a limited period.


----------



## More od Solzi

Since I'm learning Rioplatense Spanish I don't use present perfect in indicative,
only in subjunctive: _Espero que la hayas visto hoy/ayer/la semana pasada.

_I've heard people from Madrid say:_ Ya te lo dije_
(although according to Peninsular Spanish grammar books you should say: _Ya te lo he dicho_)


----------



## jmx

More od Solzi said:


> I've heard people from Madrid say:_ Ya te lo dije_
> (although according to Peninsular Spanish grammar books you should say: _Ya te lo he dicho_)


In Peninsular Spanish, both sentences are possible; only the context, especially the time frame, would favor one tense over the other.


----------

