# encontrar(se) (reflexive)



## Pitt

Hola a todos:

Tengo una una duda sobre la función de SE en esta oración:

A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.

No estoy seguro, pero a mi entender ese se es un componente del verbo pronominal *encontrarse*: no tiene ninguna función sintátctica.

¿Qué opináis?

Un saludo,
Pitt


----------



## hosec

Yo que sí (y mi mujer, también)


----------



## Cristina Moreno

Lee esta lección http://spanish.about.com/cs/verbs/a/passive_se.htm que explica todo sobre este uso de "se"


----------



## Jellby

Pitt said:


> A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.
> 
> No estoy seguro, pero a mi entender ese se es un componente del verbo pronominal *encontrarse*: no tiene ninguna función sintátctica.



Yo estoy de acuerdo. El verbo "encontrarse", al menos en este caso, es puramente pronominal y el "se" no cumple ninguna otra función que la de distinguir entre "encontrar" y "encontrarse".

Siempre hablamos del "se", pero podría ser otro pronombre: "me encuentro entre Pinto y Valdemoro", etc.


----------



## Pitt

¡Muchas gracias por todas las respuestas!

Pitt


----------



## virgilio

Pitt,
     Mamma mía, eccoci quà ancora una volta!  Oh dear, here we go again!

El pronombre acusativo "se" en la frase " A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo"  es objeto directo del verbo "encuentra". Hay quien lo niegue pero yo prefiero la explicación más sencilla, no solo del punto de vista castellano sino también porque expresiones análogas se ven en francés, en italiano, en alemán y de vez en cuando hasta en inglés.
 "A few kilometres from Madrid the city of Toledo finds itself " (literally).
For those sophisticates who have lost the capacity to think in such 'fairy-tale' language I suppose one would have to put it in more grown-up terms:
e.g.
A few miles from Madrid is the city of Toledo
or
A few miles from Madrid we find the city of Toledo
or 
A few miles from Madrid is to be found the city of Toledo

and half a dozen other PC paraphrases.

I personally prefer the simpler literal meanings of the words.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pitt

virgilio said:


> El pronombre acusativo "se" en la frase " A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo" es objeto directo del verbo encuentra". /quote]
> 
> A mi entender SE no es un complemento directo.  SE es simplemente un componente del verbo *encontrarse* que no tiene ninguna función sintáctia. Que yo sepa no se dice: La ciudad de Toledo es encontrada a pocos kilómetros de Madrid.
> 
> Ese SE convierte el verbo transitivo *encontrar* en el verbo intransitivo *encontrarse.* Además ese SE cambia el significado: *encontrar *= encontrar algo que estaba perdido, *encontrarse* = estar / lolalizarse.
> 
> ¿Qué piensan los hispanohablantes?
> 
> Pitt


----------



## Jellby

Yo estoy de acuerdo contigo, Pitt.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Pitt said:


> Hola a todos:
> 
> Tengo una una duda sobre la función de SE en esta oración:
> 
> A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.
> 
> No estoy seguro, pero a mi entender ese se es un componente del verbo pronominal *encontrarse*: no tiene ninguna función sintátctica.
> 
> ¿Qué opináis?
> 
> Un saludo,
> Pitt


 
Es simplemente un verbo pronominal. El "se" es un parte integrante de la conjugación de _encontrarse. _Nada más.


----------



## virgilio

Bilbo,
       I don't want to run this old thing on too long but may I ask just one quick question? Please don't bother answering, if you find it boring.
(1) "encontrar" = "to find" or "to meet"
(2) would your own view of "se" allow you to treat it _at least some of the time_ as a reflexive pronoun meaning one of the following five things: "himself, herself, itself, themselves, oneself"?)

If your answers to (1) and (2) are "yes", what objection is there to translating "se encuentra" in the sentence given as "finds itself"? I've read what you say about it above, so there's no need to restate that. What I'd like to know, if you'd care to tell me, is *what precisely is the* *objection* to my literal translation. Thanks.

Anyway, whatever you choose,
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

virgilio said:


> Bilbo,
> I don't want to run this old thing on too long but may I ask just one quick question? Please don't bother answering, if you find it boring.
> (1) "encontrar" = "to find" or "to meet"
> (2) would your own view of "se" allow you to treat it _at least some of the time_ as a reflexive pronoun meaning one of the following five things: "himself, herself, itself, themselves, oneself"?)
> 
> If your answers to (1) and (2) are "yes", what objection is there to translating "se encuentra" in the sentence given as "finds itself"? I've read what you say about it above, so there's no need to restate that. What I'd like to know, if you'd care to tell me, is *what precisely is the* *objection* to my literal translation. Thanks.
> 
> Anyway, whatever you choose,
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Come now, Virgilio.....I never find your topics boring!
Virgilio, in "flowery", poetic, or perhaps literary contexts, yes...your translation is fine. _Great_ even, if I may be so bold. It´s just that in everyday speech.....it would be a bit much. It would sound dated to me. I picture a character in a movie set in the 13th century wearing armor and speaking with the obligatory English accent. That´s my opinion anyway......


----------



## virgilio

Bilbo,
       Thank you both for your very prompt and promising reply and also for your kind words. You have - if I've understood you aright - solved the whole controversy - for which you deserve, I think, some sort of Nobel prize.
We are now, I think, in total agreement. My translation is fine  but -as you say - not in the idiom of present day English. I agree 100%. My "translation" is, of course, intended as a primary means of mentally understanding the original; whether the *idiom* in which it is expressed is suitable for this or that context is for the translator. once he or she has understood the original, to adapt, as he or she sees fit.
I suggest that my method of literal translation may, if assiduously practised, have also  another incidental benefit for language students.
I hold the view that studying a foreign language - like studying anything worth learning - should ideally be an exercise in intellectual humility and that therefore an English student should be trying not to make the other language in his mind as much like English as possible but rather should be trying to enable himself to *think* as much like the speakers of the foreign language as possible. I suggest that the more literal a primary translation is, the better this end is served.
Once this primary understanding of a foreign sentence is grasped, any reasonably intelligent person can subsequently express its meaning in whichever of the several idioms he chooses from those offered him by his native tongue.

Glad we agree.

All the very best
Virgilio


----------



## Jeromed

Pitt,

I like Virgilio's approach, and agree with what he says.

However, the DPD agrees with you in that _se_ in pronominal constructions has no syntactic value:

*Se*
*d)*Componente de las formas de tercera persona de los verbos pronominales. Hay verbos (_arrepentirse, quejarse, _etc.) que se construyen en todas sus formas con un pronombre átono reflexivo, que no desempeña ninguna función sintáctica en la oración; la forma que corresponde a las terceras personas es _se: El moribundo se arrepintió de sus pecados; Los clientes se quejaron del trato recibido_. Algunos verbos son exclusivamente pronominales, como _arrepentirse, adueñarse, resentirse,_ etc., y otros adoptan determinados matices significativos o expresivos en los usos pronominales, como _ir(se), dormir(se),_ _salir(se),_ etc.: _Juan (se) salió de la reunión. _También se construyen necesariamente con el pronombre átono las acepciones pronominales que corresponden a la llamada «voz media», con la que se expresa que al sujeto le ocurre lo denotado por el verbo, sin que haya causa conocida o sin que esta importe, a veces por tratarse de una acción inherente a la naturaleza del sujeto: _El barco se hundió; En primavera los campos se llenan de flores._


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

virgilio said:


> Bilbo,
> Thank you both for your very prompt and promising reply and also for your kind words. You have - if I've understood you aright - solved the whole controversy - for which you deserve, I think, some sort of Nobel prize.
> We are now, I think, in total agreement. My translation is fine but -as you say - not in the idiom of present day English. I agree 100%. My "translation" is, of course, intended as a primary means of mentally understanding the original; whether the *idiom* in which it is expressed is suitable for this or that context is for the translator. once he or she has understood the original, to adapt, as he or she sees fit.
> I suggest that my method of literal translation may, if assiduously practised, have also another incidental benefit for language students.
> I hold the view that studying a foreign language - like studying anything worth learning - should ideally be an exercise in intellectual humility and that therefore an English student should be trying not to make the other language in his mind as much like English as possible but rather should be trying to enable himself to *think* as much like the speakers of the foreign language as possible. I suggest that the more literal a primary translation is, the better this end is served.
> Once this primary understanding of a foreign sentence is grasped, any reasonably intelligent person can subsequently express its meaning in whichever of the several idioms he chooses from those offered him by his native tongue.
> 
> Glad we agree.
> 
> All the very best
> Virgilio


 
Good points! Language is interesting, no? So many ways to arrive at the same mental picture. That's what this is all about essentially.....the association of vocalizations with concepts. I've always felt that translation is an art built upon a science. The science, of course, is the syntax of the language at hand. The "system". The art is choosing the best "path" in putting your mental picture into your listener's or reader's mind.


----------



## roanheads

Virgilio,
In this one, I am with you 100 %. Treating the " se " as DO, brings to me an instant correct mental translation, which is surely the most important point of the excercise.
Looks like it is a case of " to each his own " and " if it works why fix it  ?

Chao.


----------



## Pitt

Jeromed said:


> Pitt,
> 
> I like Virgilio's approach, and agree with what he says.
> 
> However, the DPD agrees with you in that _se_ in pronominal constructions has no syntactic value:
> 
> *Se*
> *d)*Componente de las formas de tercera persona de los verbos pronominales. Hay verbos (_arrepentirse, quejarse, _etc.) que se construyen en todas sus formas con un pronombre átono reflexivo, que no desempeña ninguna función sintáctica en la oración; la forma que corresponde a las terceras personas es _se: El moribundo se arrepintió de sus pecados; Los clientes se quejaron del trato recibido_. Algunos verbos son exclusivamente pronominales, como _arrepentirse, adueñarse, resentirse,_ etc., y otros adoptan determinados matices significativos o expresivos en los usos pronominales, como _ir(se), dormir(se),_ _salir(se),_ etc.: _Juan (se) salió de la reunión. _También se construyen necesariamente con el pronombre átono las acepciones pronominales que corresponden a la llamada «voz media», con la que se expresa que al sujeto le ocurre lo denotado por el verbo, sin que haya causa conocida o sin que esta importe, a veces por tratarse de una acción inherente a la naturaleza del sujeto: _El barco se hundió; En primavera los campos se llenan de flores._


 
En este contexto tengo otro ejemplo:

Cuando estaba en el supermercado me encontré a Juan [por casualidad]. 

A mi entender también en este caso me es un componente del verbo encontrarse, que no tiene ninguna función sintáctica. 

Pitt


----------



## virgilio

Pitt,
      I'm not sure whether your post was addressed only to Jeromed but may I offer my own response, for what it's worth.
It seems to me absurd to suggest that any word in any sentence is without any syntax function and surely that idea presupposes some pre-conceived notion of the meaning of the other words in the sentence, in the present case especially - I imagine - of the verb "encontré".
 I suggest instead that words are essentially social entities and that the meaning and function of any word must to some extent depend on the meaning and function of other words in the same sentence.
In English, for example, a decade or so ago people used to say things like:
"I am on my way to London to meet my brother."
Today you are more likely to hear:
"I am on my way to London to meet up with my brother

The meaning of "to meet" in today's version has atered slightly from its earlier meaning. The alteration is hardly worth analysing (though no doubt some intense linguistician is at this moment doing just that somewhere). English people just accept  the change and mentally adapt to it.
It is perfectly good English to say (in the right context) "Sit down!". My grandmother's generation, however, often used to make the verb reflexive:"Sit you down!"
The modern verb is intransitive whereas my grandmother preferred to use it transitively and she was a shrewd lady who didn't waste anything, least of all her breath. Try telling her that a word she was using "had no syntax function" and her reply might well have been rather more eloquent than mine has been.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pitt

Pitt said:


> En este contexto tengo otro ejemplo:
> 
> Cuando estaba en el supermercado me encontré a Juan [por casualidad].
> 
> A mi entender también en este caso me es un componente del verbo encontrarse, que no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.


 
¿Qué piensan los nativos?

Un saludo,
Pitt


----------



## Jeromed

No, para mí en esa oración el verbo es _encontrar,_ no _encontrarse_. _Me_ en esa oración es simplemente un dativo de interés.  La prueba es que el significado del verbo no cambia para nada al agregarle el pronombre.  

_Me encontré a Juan=Encontré a Juan_

_Me_ sólo sirve para hacer énfasis en el interés del sujeto por lo acontecido.


----------



## Magmod

virgilio said:


> Bilbo,
> I suggest that my method of literal translation may, if assiduously practised, have also another incidental benefit for language students.


 
I like your method of literal translation if correctly used 

 So in that case you should have used:

to encounter = encontrar
to encounter onself = encontrarse
A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.

 It helps if you look at the dictionary WR *3 *so that you don't confuse yourself and some of us:

*encontrarse* _verbo reflexivo_ 
*1* _(tropezarse) (con alguien)_ to meet: *me encontré con María en la parada del autobús,* I met María at the bus stop
_(con una oposición)_ to come up against 
*2* _(sentirse)_ to feel, be: *se encuentra muy sola,* she feels very lonely 
*3* _(hallarse)_ to be: *se encuentra en la cima del monte,* it's at the top of the mountain 

Note: Every verb in Spanish is reflexive > tropezarse, sentirse, hallarse

There are tens of Spanish reflexive verbs like hallarse, encontrarse that simply mean *to be *


----------



## Jeromed

> Note: Every verb in Spanish is reflexive > tropezarse, sentirse, hallarse


 
You probably mean '_pronominal'_. There's nothing '_reflexive'_ about _tropezarse_, for example, unless people truly _trip themselves._

But not all verbs can be pronominal. _Yacer_, for example cannot. I recall that Lazarus recently gave a percentage for the ones that can be, but I don't remember what that number was.


----------



## Outsider

About 25%.


----------



## Magmod

Jeromed said:


> You probably mean '_pronominal'_. ..


 
 Reflexive verbs refer ot just one of the meanings that a pronomial verb can have - see Butt & Benjamin Ch 26.

In the Spanish dictionaries *encontrarse* is entered under encontrar ( prnl ) as follows 3 & 6 :

*encontrar :*

1. tr. Dar con una persona o cosa que se busca:
por fin encontré la llave perdida. 
2. Dar con una persona o cosa sin buscarla. También prnl.:
el otro día me encontré con tu padre. 
3. *prnl*. Hallarse en cierto estado:
encontrarse a gusto, cansado.

*From the RAE *
*6.prnl.* Hallarse en cierto estado. _Encontrarse enfermo._

 All that I wanted to say is Encontrarse in Post#1 means to be = estar = hallarse, localizarse etc.


----------



## Jeromed

_Me encontré con María_ is not the same construction as _Me encontré a María._

IMO, the first one is pronominal, the second not.


----------



## Jeromed

Magmod said:


> Reflexive verbs refer ot just one of the meanings that a pronomial verb can have - see Butt & Benjamin Ch 26.


 
I agree with what they, and you, are saying. My point is that if the reflexive verbs are a subset of the pronominal ones, and these are only 25% of Spanish verbs, how is it possible that all Spanish verbs can be reflexive? The math just doesn't square.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> You probably mean '_pronominal'_. There's nothing '_reflexive'_ about _tropezarse_, for example, unless people truly _trip themselves._
> 
> But not all verbs can be pronominal. _Yacer_, for example cannot. I recall that Lazarus recently gave a percentage for the ones that can be, but I don't remember what that number was.



That source uses the term 'refelxivo' to mean pronominal -- it keeps tripping us up in these discussions. The terminology is still too loose these days. ;-)

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Pitt,
> It seems to me absurd to suggest that any word in any sentence is without any syntax function and surely that idea presupposes some pre-conceived notion of the meaning of the other words in the sentence, in the present case especially - I imagine - of the verb "encontré".
> I suggest instead that words are essentially social entities and that the meaning and function of any word must to some extent depend on the meaning and function of other words in the same sentence.



Hmm. I never thought about it before -- but it makes sense to me that it would make a 'syntax guru' as yourself a little nervous at the notion that in Spanish theres a 'word' that has no syntactic function. And yet 'se' is exactly that -- without syntactic function. -- only when it's part of a pronominal verb. Kind of a marker. I wonder what part of speech you would classify 'se' in this function. Fascinating to think about.. Let me guess: ____ adverb!. ;-) (All in fun, my good colleague..)

Warmly, Grant


----------



## virgilio

Jeromed,
            I believe you are right, when you say "para mí en esa oración el verbo es _encontrar,_ no _encontrarse_. _Me_ en esa oración es simplemente un dativo de interés".
 Every word in a sentence has *some* syntax function, just as "me" has in this sentence that of a dative case, as you say.
Those who allege that some words have no syntactic function seem to me tho be either suggesting that the speaker/writer is of confused mentality (alleging that their mental confusion prevents them from forming sentences correctly) or saying more about their own understanding than about the words they are judging as superfluous.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## organist

_A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo._

Sorry to come to this discussion late, but surely in the above phrase it's easy to translate "se encuentra". In this case it replaces the English passive.

La city of Toledo* is found *a few kilometres from Madrid.


----------



## Outsider

I agree. That's what kept coming to my mind. The _se_ can be interpreted as a passive voice (or middle voice?) marker.


----------



## virgilio

Organist,
            Your translation "La city of Toledo* is found *a few kilometres from Madrid" sounds odd to my ears. It almost sounds as if someone had lost it.
How about "The city of Toledo is to be found a few kilometres from Madrid"   or
               "The city of Toledo is situated a few kilometres from Madrid.

All the best,
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            I keep seeing this word "marker", seemingly used as a technical term of grammar.
Could you please tell me what it means? What does such a word mark?

Thank you
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Jeromed,
> I believe you are right, when you say "para mí en esa oración el verbo es _encontrar,_ no _encontrarse_. _Me_ en esa oración es simplemente un dativo de interés".
> Every word in a sentence has *some* syntax function, just as "me" has in this sentence that of a dative case, as you say.
> Those who allege that some words have no syntactic function seem to me tho be either suggesting that the speaker/writer is of confused mentality (alleging that their mental confusion prevents them from forming sentences correctly) or saying more about their own understanding than about the words they are judging as superfluous.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Surely you're not suggesting that people think about 'syntax' when they speak? 

And how do you respond to the fact that it is the RAE, the highest grammar authority in the Spanish language, that claims that 'se' in pronominal verbs has no syntactic function? I guess you just disagree philosophically with them? And if it has a syntactic function. What is it as I asked in my other post to you?

Grant





virgilio said:


> Outsider,
> I keep seeing this word "marker", seemingly used as a technical term of grammar.
> Could you please tell me what it means? What does such a word mark?
> 
> Thank you
> Virgilio



In English too we have words that play no syntactic roll and are markers of emphasis only..

Eg. "I myself work very hard to make sure....." That 'myself' is a very common 'emphasizer' we use. Completely superfluous syntactically speaking but changes the 'feel' of the sentence. In Spanish the atonic pronoun that agrees with the subject is referred to by many grammarians at the 'SE' de Matización'.  It's job is to add 'matiz' to the base verb and add its effect is from subtle to gross. But without it the verb is completely different. So its function is to complete the verbid only. It's part of the verb. By itself it has no syntactic function. 

In SE Passive and Impersonal the 'se' is a marker of the syntactic structure. It signals a 'change' in the syntax. It provides not syntactic roll and is not a part of speech. This is uniquely Spanish thing. Is there no such role in Latin? as Spanish is also a descendant from Latin.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> I keep seeing this word "marker", seemingly used as a technical term of grammar.


Sigh... That's because it is one.

And you could have researched this before asking.



NewdestinyX said:


> Is there no such role in Latin? as Spanish is also a descendant from Latin.


Yes, many Spanish pronominal verbs are derived from similarly "passive-like" structures in Latin (example). But Virgilio seems oblivious of this.


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Hello, again. You ask "Surely you're not suggesting that people think about 'syntax' when they speak?" Not necessarily. I wouldn't rule it out. I doubt whether many people think about their gastric juices, when they eat either but so what?  It is precisely the unconscious, spontaneous element in most speech that makes it so authoritative and gives a glimpse into the underlying structures.
If, as you say the RAE "claims that 'se' in pronominal verbs has no syntactic function", my thought would be - not that so excellent a grammar authority needs to heed my thoughts at all - either that in that claim it was regrettably mistaken. or that I don't know what the RAE means by "pronominal verb. I would guess the latter.
Thank you for your comments on "markers", only the plot, so to speak, thickens, for now I have to try and work out what the heck a "verbid" might be, when - as we say over here - it's at home.

All the best,
Virg


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            OK, very funny, Outsider! I really fell for that one!
I've consulted the research link. Now can I have the translation, please?
 I'm really sorry that I am so simple-minded but I simply do not know what the heck they are talking about.
A "marker" - it tells me - is "a lexical item (OK so far) that signals a morphosyntactic operation". So what's a "morphosyntactic operation"?
Apparently "A morphosyntactic operation is an ordered, dynamic relation between one linguistic form and another". "     A morphosyntactic operation is often manifested (or coded) by a formal operator, such as a prefix, a suffix, a stress shift or a combination of two or more of these. However, some operations are not overtly coded. One method of noting the existence of a morphosyntactic operation that has no overt realization is to posit a zero morpheme."
 All very true, no doubt, but what the h-ll does it mean?

Can anyone please define "marker" in terms which are not straight from the padded cell?  I would be grateful. Thank you.

Virgilio


----------



## Pitt

Jeromed said:


> _Me encontré con María_ is not the same construction as _Me encontré a María._
> 
> IMO, the first one is pronominal, the second not.


 
Aquí mi análisis:

*Me encontré con María*.
ME es un componente del verbo pronominal _encontrarse_: no tiene ninguna función sintáctica (según el DPD).

*Me encontré a María*.
ME es un dativo de interés (variante del complemento indirecto)
En este caso se trata del verbo transitivo _encontrar _(C.D. = a María).

Pitt


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> Aquí mi análisis:
> 
> *Me encontré con María*.
> ME es un componente del verbo pronominal _encontrarse_: no tiene ninguna función sintáctica (según el DPD).
> 
> *Me encontré a María*.
> ME es un dativo de interés (variante del complemento indirecto)
> En este caso se trata del verbo transitivo _encontrar _(C.D. = a María).
> 
> Pitt



Pitt sería de ayuda si citases la definición específica del DRAE que ofrece la prueba que el verbo en cuestión sí se marca como "prnl" o U.t.c.prnl. Como hemos descubierto durante 10-12 hilos aquí sobre este tema -- el papel que desempeña el 'se' en estas oraciones depende del contexto. Debemos entender el sentido de cada una antes de que podamos descubrir y analizar el papel de 'se'. En estos momentos tengo por imposible evaluar tu análisis sin que  yo sepa de cuál 'encontrar' tratamos en cada oración. 

¿De cuál definición de 'entender' tratamos en ejemplo 1 & 2? 

*encontrar**.* (Del lat. _in contra_).
* 1.     * tr. Dar con alguien o algo que se busca.
* 2.* tr. Dar con alguien o algo sin buscarlo. U. t. c. prnl.
* 3.     * intr. Dicho de una persona: Tropezar con otra. U. t. c. prnl.
* 4.     * prnl. Oponerse a alguien, enemistarse con él.
* 5.     * prnl. Dicho de dos o más personas o cosas: Hallarse y concurrir juntas a un mismo lugar.
* 6.     * prnl. Hallarse en cierto estado. _Encontrarse enfermo._
* 7.     * prnl. Opinar diferentemente, discordar de otros.
* 8.     * prnl. Conformar, convenir, coincidir.
* 9.     * prnl. Hallar algo que causa sorpresa. _Se encontró __CON__ aquella catástrofe._


Grant


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> ¿De cuál definición de 'entender' tratamos en ejemplo 1 & 2?
> 
> *encontrar**.* (Del lat. _in contra_).
> *1. *tr. Dar con alguien o algo que se busca.
> *2.* tr. Dar con alguien o algo sin buscarlo. U. t. c. prnl.
> *3. *intr. Dicho de una persona: Tropezar con otra. U. t. c. prnl.
> *4. *prnl. Oponerse a alguien, enemistarse con él.
> *5. *prnl. Dicho de dos o más personas o cosas: Hallarse y concurrir juntas a un mismo lugar.
> *6. *prnl. Hallarse en cierto estado. _Encontrarse enfermo._
> *7. *prnl. Opinar diferentemente, discordar de otros.
> *8. *prnl. Conformar, convenir, coincidir.
> *9. *prnl. Hallar algo que causa sorpresa. _Se encontró __CON__ aquella catástrofe._
> 
> 
> Grant


 
Los ejemplos tienen este sentido: encontrar(se) a alguien de casualidad (to run into somebody by chance).

*Me encontré a María.*
Acepción 2 del DRAE:
tr. Dar con alguien o algo sin buscarlo. U.t.c.prnl.
ME: dativo de interés (Me encontré a María > Encontré a María)
a María: complemento directo del verbo _encontrar_

*Me encontré con María.*
Acepción 3 del DRAE:
intr. Dicho de una persona: Tropezar con otra. U.t.c.prnl.
ME: componente del verbo _encontrarse_: no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.

Pitt


----------



## Ivy29

Pitt said:


> Hola a todos:
> 
> Tengo una una duda sobre la función de SE en esta oración:
> 
> A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.
> 
> No estoy seguro, pero a mi entender ese se es un componente del verbo pronominal *encontrarse*: no tiene ninguna función sintátctica.
> 
> ¿Qué opináis?
> 
> Un saludo,
> Pitt


 

*Encontrarse* es un verbo reflexivo, sin función nominal (desfuncionalizado) componente o morfema de un verbo pronominal. Aquí el pronombre átono 'SE' intransitiviza el verbo transitivo ENCONTRAR.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> Los ejemplos tienen este sentido: encontrar(se) a alguien de casualidad (to run into somebody by chance).
> 
> *Me encontré a María.*
> Acepción 2 del DRAE:
> tr. Dar con alguien o algo sin buscarlo. U.t.c.prnl.
> ME: dativo de interés (Me encontré a María > Encontré a María)
> a María: complemento directo del verbo _encontrar_
> 
> *Me encontré con María.*
> Acepción 3 del DRAE:
> intr. Dicho de una persona: Tropezar con otra. U.t.c.prnl.
> ME: componente del verbo _encontrarse_: no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.
> 
> Pitt



Tu análisis solo tiene un problema. Aunque no esté incorrecto -- hay tantas usos de 'encontrarse' con el mismo sentido -- que se entendería el 'me' en ambas oraciones ahí como componente del verbo pronominal o un verbo transitivo que es U.t.c.prnl. Hay que entender que un verbo que marque la RAE con "U.t.c.prnl." sigue siendo 'transitivo' o 'intransitivo'. Verbos designados como prnl. son intranstivos.

Así que el problema es esto: Cuando un verbo se designa como U.t.c.prnl -- el pronombre átono que concuerda con el sujeto -- no tiene ninguna función sintáctica como bien conoces. Un nativo vería ese 'me' como siendo usado como 't.c.prnl'.. Por lo tanto en "Me encontré a Mariá", con acepción 2 -- el 'me' no es Dativo de Interés, sino componente de un verbo que es U.t.c.prnl.

Es más: En mis entrevistas con nativos -- el sentido de 'me encontré', casi siempre se entiende con acepción 2 ó 3 ó 5 como contiene tu análisis -- pero la entrada en el DRAE, para definición #2 realmente (que opino yo) debería haberse designado - U.*m*.c.prnl. "Encontré a María"(incluso con un dativo de interés 'me') -- siempre se entiende con acepción #1 y no #2.

De ahí mi análisis:

*Me encontré a María.*
Acepción 2 del DRAE:
tr. Dar con alguien o algo sin buscarlo. U.t.c.prnl.
ME: componente del uso de 'encontrar' - transitivo, cuando siendo usado pronominalmente: cuando usarse así - no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.
a María: complemento directo del verbo _encontrar, transitivo, _siendo usado pronominalmente

*Me encontré con María.*
Acepción 3 del DRAE:
intr. Dicho de una persona: Tropezar con otra. U.t.c.prnl.
ME: componente del uso de 'encontrar' - intransitivo, cuando siendo usado pronominalmente: cuando usarse así - no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.
con María: complemento de régimen del verbo _encontrar, intransitivo, _siendo usado pronominalmente

Y creo fuertemente que, en ninguno de los dos casos es el verbo '_encontrarse_' -- porque U.t.c.prnl no significa 'verbo pronominal' en que hemos coincidido en el pasado. ¿Verdad? Verbos solo se pueden escribir con el 'se' adjunto cuando la definición en el DRAE es prnl.

*PERO------->*

Creo que éste es un nuevo aspecto de este tema que estamos descubriendo en este hilo. Mi premisa es así:

Cuando un verbo se use 'pronominalmente' (U.t.c.prnl.), el pronombre puede adoptar *cualquiera *de los aspectos sintácticos de *usos pronominales* (marcados U.t.c.prnl.): *CD, CI, o sin función sintáctica*. En verbos que nosotros (no la RAE) nombramos como 'reflexivo' (verbos donde algo se (le) hace inherentemente a la persona sí misma y los marcan con U.t.c.prnl en el DRAE) las posibilidades para el análisis del pronombre son: CD o CI. En verbos con acepciones no enfocadas en una acción a una persona sí misma (pero _también_ designados con U.t.c.prnl en el DRAE) la sola posibilidad para el análisis del pronombre es: componente de un verbo siendo usado pronominalmente -- donde el pronombre no tiene función sintáctica. Hay muchos verbos, Pitt, que usan el pronombre átono que concuerda con el sujeto cuyas acepciones no tienen nada que ver con una acción hecha a sí misma y *tampoco* son 'prnl.' en el DRAE. Parecería que, en tales casos, vas a analizar que aquellos pronombres tendrían que ser 'dativos de interés'. ¿Verdad?

Mi premisa es que: aquellos pronombres átonos (que concerdan con el sujeto) en verbos transitivos e intransitivos que se listan como _U.t.c.prnl._ - el análisis del pronombre, cuando el verbo es siendo U.t.c.prnl., es que no desempeña función sintáctica.

¿Que te parece de mi premisa?
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *Encontrarse* es un verbo reflexivo, sin función nominal (desfuncionalizado) componente o morfema de un verbo pronominal. Aquí el pronombre átono 'SE' intransitiviza el verbo transitivo ENCONTRAR.
> 
> Ivy29



I'm sorry to disagree -- verbs that can be intransitivized are verbs of motion and state. Encontrar is neither.

" A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra *la ciudad de Toledo*."

This sentence is a clear case of Pasiva Refleja "..la ciudad de Toledo" = the grammatical subject.

This in definitely *not* a case of SE Intransitivador.

Grant


----------



## Jeromed

> And in this sentence there is a clear *direct complement*.
> 
> " A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra *la ciudad de Toledo*."


 
_La ciudad de Toledo _is the subject, not the DO, IMO. This is not an impersonal construction.

If you want to make _La ciudad de Toledo_ the DO of an impersonal sentence, you need to add the _personal 'a',_ or use _Uno _as the subject.

_1. A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra *a* la ciudad de Toledo ('One encounters the city of Toledo)._ Although correct, that construction would hardly ever be used by a native speaker, probably because of a possible confusion with _[Él] se encuentra a la ciudad de Madrid._

2. _A pocos kilómetros de Madrid uno encuentra la ciudad de Toledo._


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> _La ciudad de Toledo _is the subject, not the DO, IMO. This is not an impersonal construction.
> 
> If you want to make _La ciudad de Toledo_ the DO of an impersonal sentence, you need to add the _personal 'a',_ or use _Uno _as the subject.
> 
> _1. A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra *a* la ciudad de Toledo ('One encounters the city of Toledo)._ Although correct, that construction would hardly ever be used by a native speaker, probably because of a possible confusion with _[Él] se encuentra a la ciudad de Madrid._
> 
> 2. _A pocos kilómetros de Madrid uno encuentra la ciudad de Toledo._



Yes -- I often forget that in the Impersonal SE the 'a' is required to mark the DO. I will correct my assertion.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm sorry to disagree -- verbs that can be intransitivized are verbs of motion and state. Encontrar is neither.
> 
> " A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra *la ciudad de Toledo*."
> 
> This sentence is a clear case of Pasiva Refleja "..la ciudad de Toledo" = the grammatical subject.
> 
> This in definitely *not* a case of SE Intransitivador.
> 
> Grant


 
*ENCONTRAR is a TRANSITIVE* verb, and the 'se'  es intransitivador, since la ciudad de TOLEDO is the subject. It is a notional object but a syntactic subject. The grammar has referred the unaccusative with 'se' as PRONOMINAL. You should read Leonardo Gómez Torrego, page 12 , numeral 3.1.2, and the volume 2, page 1580, top paragraph of Nebrija-Bello.

Ivy29


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm sorry to disagree -- verbs that can be intransitivized are verbs of motion and state. Encontrar is neither.
> 
> " A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra *la ciudad de Toledo*."
> 
> This sentence is a clear case of Pasiva Refleja "..la ciudad de Toledo" = the grammatical subject.
> 
> This in definitely *not* a case of SE Intransitivador.
> 
> Grant


 
A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.

A mi entender SE ni es una marca de la Pasiva refleja ni un SE impersonal.
SE es simplemente una marca del verbo _encontrarse_: no tiene ninguna función sintáctica [-]

A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se [-] encuentra la ciudad de Toledo [Sujeto].

Pitt


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *ENCONTRAR is a TRANSITIVE* verb, and the 'se'  es intransitivador, since la ciudad de TOLEDO is the subject. It is a notional object but a syntactic subject. The grammar has referred the unaccusative with 'se' as PRONOMINAL. You should read Leonardo Gómez Torrego, page 12 , numeral 3.1.2, and the volume 2, page 1580, top paragraph of Nebrija-Bello.
> 
> Ivy29



All verbs that can be used as Pasiva Refleja are transitive. That's not the issue at all. You must be saying that in Pasiva Refleja -- the 'SE' is an intransitivator. But it clearly a Pasiva refleja syntax.

You should read the DPD on 'SE' numeral 4

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.
> 
> A mi entender SE ni es una marca de la Pasiva refleja ni un SE impersonal.
> Como ya he dicho SE es simplemente una marca del verbo _encontrarse_: no tiene ninguna función sintáctica [-]
> 
> A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se [-] encuentra la ciudad de Toledo [Sujeto].
> 
> Pitt



No, Pitt. Creo que no lo es. Ninguna de las definiciones designadas prnl. o U.t.c.prnl., en el DRAE, explican el sentido de esa oración. El sentido, en español de ésa es: A pocos kilómetros de Madrid, la ciudad de Toledo (_si la buscas, definición #1 DRAE_) es vista/encontrada [por cualquiera que viaje] -o- Uno da con(happens upon/comes accross) (_cuando buscando lugares de interés_) la ciudad de Toledo a pocos kilómetros de Madrid.

Todas las definiciones 'prnl' o 'U.t.c.prnl' para 'encontrar', en el DRAE, se refieren al "dar con algo-alguien por casualidad/sin querer -o- tropezar algo/a alguien". En ésa oración no hay nada de sorpresa ni sin querer ni absencia de buscar algo. Es sencillamente una declaración de lo que sucede cuando se viaja fuera de Madrid unos pocos kilómetros y uno 'busca' cualquier cosa que se pueda observar. Ese sentido no cabe nada de las definiciones pronominales de 'encontrar'. Es simplemente - acepción #1 - encontrar. Y el 'se' es marca de pasiva refleja. Lee las definiciones nuevamente y dime si puedes ver lo que veo. 

¿Qué te parece de mi premisa en el otro mensaje?

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> All verbs that can be used as Pasiva Refleja are transitive. That's not the issue at all. You must be saying that in Pasiva Refleja -- the 'SE' is an intransitivator. But it clearly a Pasiva refleja syntax.
> 
> You should read the DPD on 'SE' numeral 4
> 
> Grant


 
Your statement about the sentence is *wrong*, you are confusing 'Se' reflexive with not nominal function and 'se' as intransitivator with the reflexive passive. It is a PRONOMINAL. Many students confuse the unaccusative with the pasive. It is a plain PRONOMINAL. ENCONTRARSE is INTRANSITIVE, *it is not transitive*.
Read my sources and you will learn.

Ivy29


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> El sentido, en español de ésa es: A pocos kilómetros de Madrid, la ciudad de Toledo (_si la buscas, definición #1 DRAE_) es vista/encontrada [por cualquiera que viaje] -o- Uno da con(happens upon/comes accross) (_cuando buscando lugares de interés_) la ciudad de Toledo a pocos kilómetros de Madrid.


O más simplemente, que a pocos kilómetros de Madrid está la ciudad de Toledo.

encontrarse = estar

Por cierto, esto muestra claramente que el "se" no tiene aquí valor semántico, sino (tal vez) sintáctico.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> O más simplemente, que a pocos kilómetros de Madrid está la ciudad de Toledo.
> 
> encontrarse = estar
> 
> Por cierto, esto muestra claramente que el "se" no tiene aquí valor semántico, sino (tal vez) sintáctico.



Bueno -- pero la RAE realmente dice que en verbos pronominales - el se 'no' tiene valor sintáctico.

Pero creo que coincidiríamos en que el sentido ahí es como has dicho -- encontrar + se ('no' el verbo pronominal) = ser encontrado = estar

¿O crees que se trata de una de las definiciones pronominales #2-#9 del DRAE?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Your statement about the sentence is *wrong*, you are confusing 'Se' reflexive with not nominal function and 'se' as intransitivator with the reflexive passive. It is a PRONOMINAL. Many students confuse the unaccusative with the pasive. It is a plain PRONOMINAL.



Can you provide a paragraph that teaches us students the difference between 'unaccusative' and 'pasiva refleja'? You know I am always willing to learn. Please distinguish the difference between the constructions syntactically -- not semantically. I have a feeling that '_unaccusative_' is a semantic distinction and not a syntactic one.



> ENCONTRARSE is INTRANSITIVE, *it is not transitive*.
> 
> 
> Ivy29


Who has said otherwise? But we're not dealing with a pronominal use of 'encontrar' in this sentence.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Can you provide a paragraph that teaches us students the difference between 'unaccusative' and 'pasiva refleja'? You know I am always willing to learn. Please distinguish the difference between the constructions syntactically -- not semantically. I have a feeling that '_unaccusative_' is a semantic distinction and not a syntactic one.
> 
> 
> Who has said otherwise? But we're not dealing with a pronominal use of 'encontrar' in this sentence.
> 
> Grant


READ this  :

Oraciones INTRANSITIVAS *pronominales*. Son oraciones en que aparece un verbo que se conjugan con un incremento pronominal formalmente reflexivo que alude a la misma persona propia del sujeto gramatical, *pero que no tiene significado reflexivo y pasa a ser un morfema del verbo (*marca de verbo pronominal*)*. Podemos distinguir varios casos:
a) Verbos que exigen obligatoriamente un incremento personal (ME, TE, SE, NOS, OS):*’dignarse, quejarse, jactarse, arrepentirse, portarse, atreverse, apropiarse, fugarse’..* (Cuando estos verbos precisan de un adyacente este funciona como suplemento o complemento preposicional: “_Juan se ha arrepentido de su mala acción_”)

b) Verbos en los que la presencia del pronombre impide la aparición de CD: convierte en intransitivos a verbos transitivos (‘se’ intransitivador): *‘sentar/sentarse; secar/secarse; posar/posarse, levantarse, apoyarse, retirarse, tirarse, acostarse’; *también* ‘enfriarse, abrirse, romperse, cortarse, torcerse’; *o que indican estados anímicos como*’alegrarse, asustarse, avergonzarse, cansarse’*

c) Verbos que presentan la *doble posibilidad* de aparecer con o sin pronombre, con variación del significado del verbo (‘se’ modificador léxico): *‘ocupar/ocuparse, acordar/acordarse, poner/ponerse; volver/volverse; encontrar/encontrarse; hallar/hallarse; considerar/considerarse; sentir/sentirse; convertir/convertirse’*.

d) Construcciones pronominales con verbos intransitivos como:’ *ir, venir, marchar, subir, bajar, caer, salir; o verbos como morir, dormir, quedar, estar’ (*_“Se fue a casa”, “se durmió”, “no se está quieto”, “todos se morían de hambre”, “se salieron del teatro”, “se volvieron temprano”)._


*Ivy29*


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Sorry to interrupt this fascinating tête-à-tête  but you ask "Can you provide a paragraph that teaches us students the difference between 'unaccusative' and 'pasiva refleja'?"
May I ask a subsidiary question? Can you provide *in your own words (no second-hand quotations nor 'links', please) *a paragraph - though a sentence would be much better -that defines for us students  either or both of the terms 'unaccusative' and 'pasiva refleja'?
The second one I may just have the ghost of a 'handle' on. If it's supposed to mean that people of a certain way of thinking will feel that, when a verb is used reflexively, the same meaning might equally well have been transmitted by using instead the passive voice of the verb, OK; I follow that but, well, I mean - it's hardly rocket-science and scarcely worth elevating to the dignity of a title, don't you think?
As for "unaccusative", the mind -as they say - boggles!
But most important of all,  *please no links*. I can never understand what the heck they're talking about.

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> Bueno -- pero la RAE realmente dice que en verbos pronominales - el se 'no' tiene valor sintáctico.
> 
> Pero creo que coincidiríamos en que el sentido ahí es como has dicho -- encontrar + se ('no' el verbo pronominal) = ser encontrado = estar
> 
> ¿O crees que se trata de una de las definiciones pronominales #2-#9 del DRAE?


Creo que no se trata de una verdadera pasiva, sino de una voz media ("la plaza se llena de gente"...), o algo de parecido. La clasificación de la RAE no distingue estas construcciones de las que son puramente convencionales. A unas y otras las clasifica todas como "pronominales". Pero, dentro de las "pronominales" hay divisiones más finas, diferentes formas de ser pronominal. Es cierto que para muchos estudiantes de español estas análisis más detalladas pueden ser dispensables.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> READ this  :
> Oraciones INTRANSITIVAS *pronominales*. Son oraciones en que aparece un verbo que se conjugan con un incremento pronominal formalmente reflexivo que alude a la misma persona propia del sujeto gramatical, *pero que no tiene significado reflexivo y pasa a ser un morfema del verbo (*marca de verbo pronominal*)*. Podemos distinguir varios casos:
> a) Verbos que exigen obligatoriamente un incremento personal (ME, TE, SE, NOS, OS):*’dignarse, quejarse, jactarse, arrepentirse, portarse, atreverse, apropiarse, fugarse’..* (Cuando estos verbos precisan de un adyacente este funciona como suplemento o complemento preposicional: “_Juan se ha arrepentido de su mala acción_”)
> 
> b) Verbos en los que la presencia del pronombre impide la aparición de CD: convierte en intransitivos a verbos transitivos (‘se’ intransitivador): *‘sentar/sentarse; secar/secarse; posar/posarse, levantarse, apoyarse, retirarse, tirarse, acostarse’; *también* ‘enfriarse, abrirse, romperse, cortarse, torcerse’; *o que indican estados anímicos como*’alegrarse, asustarse, avergonzarse, cansarse’*
> 
> c) Verbos que presentan la  *doble posibilidad* de aparecer con o sin pronombre, con variación del significado del verbo (‘se’ modificador léxico): *‘ocupar/ocuparse, acordar/acordarse, poner/ponerse; volver/volverse; encontrar/encontrarse; hallar/hallarse; considerar/considerarse; sentir/sentirse; convertir/convertirse’*.
> 
> d) Construcciones pronominales con verbos intransitivos como:’ *ir, venir, marchar, subir, bajar, caer, salir; o verbos como morir, dormir, quedar, estar’ (*_“Se fue a casa”, “se durmió”, “no se está quieto”, “todos se morían de hambre”, “se salieron del teatro”, “se volvieron temprano”)._


Thank you.
I don't believe that our sentence with 'encontrar' is using the 'modificador léxica o de matización'  - depending on the grammarian you read. Because it's context doesn't fit any of the DRAE definitions. Lexical means it simply "takes on an entirely different meaning in the vocabulary of the given language" (=lexical). That's not the version of 'encontrar' we're dealing with here -- since none of the definitions in the DRAE marked 'prnl' - describe what's happening in our sentence. It must be something other than 'lexical se'.

One could consider, as I have up 'til now, that the 'se' is 'marca' de pasiva refleja if read literally -- but as I read my grammars and your source more I think I am agreeing with 'Outsider' on this one. In this sentence 'se encuentra' has more the properties of a 'middle voice'.

The context in the given sentence makes 'encontrar' refer to an action 'inherent to traveling outside Madrid' -- therefore -- 'middle voice'.

So I may have to agree with your original assertion. Se Intransitivador and thereby 'pronominal' using definition #2 of 'encontrar' in the DRAE. YOu have convinced my of your original analysis on Pitt's original sentence. Thanks.

But you haven't written the paragraph I asked you for. I need to know what  the distinctions are between 'unaccusative' and 'pasive refleja', etc. That was the help I asked for -- since you say many students confuse them?

Is there a grammatical distinction or only a semantic one?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> Creo que no se trata de una verdadera pasiva, sino de una voz media ("la plaza se llena de gente"...), o algo de parecido. La clasificación de la RAE no distingue estas construcciones de las que son puramente convencionales. A unas y otras las clasifica todas como "pronominales". Pero, dentro de las "pronominales" hay divisiones más finas, diferentes formas de ser pronominal. Es cierto que para muchos estudiantes de español estas análisis más detalladas pueden ser dispensables.



I agree, now that I think it thru more. The Passive Reflexive would be too literal a translation. When travels outside of a city they invariably encounter other cities -- it's inherent to the action of traveling. That is a quality of the middle voice as you've said. The middle voice is syntactically created by using an intransitivizing SE. This matches Ivy's original input. So the answer to Pitt's original sentence example in that the verb is 'encontrarse', employing the pronominal grouping - Se Intransitivador and using Definition #2 of the DRAE.

But I stand by my original assertion about Pitt's sentences with 'a/con María'.

Thanks for the input,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Thank you.
> I don't believe that our sentence with 'encontrar' is using the 'modificador léxica o de matización' - depending on the grammarian you read. Because it's context doesn't fit any of the DRAE definitions. Lexical means it simply "takes on an entirely different meaning in the vocabulary of the given language" (=lexical). That's not the version of 'encontrar' we're dealing with here -- since none of the definitions in the DRAE marked 'prnl' - describe what's happening in our sentence. It must be something other than 'lexical se'.
> 
> One could consider, as I have up 'til now, that the 'se' is 'marca' de pasiva refleja if read literally -- but as I read my grammars and your source more I think I am agreeing with 'Outsider' on this one. In this sentence 'se encuentra' has more the properties of a 'middle voice'.
> 
> 
> *Encontrarse* Toledo, is not a *middle* voice.
> 
> 
> The context in the given sentence makes 'encontrar' refer to an action 'inherent to traveling outside Madrid' -- therefore -- 'middle voice'.
> 
> *That's not true*, *travelling* has not any inherent action to encontrarse, you can travel for sighseeing, pleasure, visiting palces, it just tells  the geographical situation travelling or not to another city. *I do not believe you need to travel to find the geographical location of TOLEDO.*
> 
> So I may have to agree with your original assertion. Se Intransitivador and thereby 'pronominal' using definition #2 of 'encontrar' in the DRAE. YOu have convinced my of your original analysis on Pitt's original sentence. Thanks.
> 
> But you haven't written the paragraph I asked you for. I need to know what the distinctions are between 'unaccusative' and 'pasive refleja', etc. That was the help I asked for -- since you say many students confuse them?
> Unacussative the'se' is an intransitivator because they have a transitive verb: encontrar/encontrarse. *Many unaccussative verbs* can be passive but not *all passive can be unaccusative*.
> The main point of difference is that verbs in the *unacussative* are *INTRANSITIVE* or *intransitivised* and in the *passive* should be *transitive*. Of course, the transitive verbs of the counterpart ones of the *intransitivised unaccusative* can be reflexive passive with (SE).
> Is there a grammatical distinction or only a semantic one?
> 
> Grant


 
Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Thank you.
> I don't believe that our sentence with 'encontrar' is using the 'modificador léxica o de matización' - depending on the grammarian you read. Because it's context doesn't fit any of the DRAE definitions. Lexical means it simply "takes on an entirely different meaning in the vocabulary of the given language" (=lexical). That's not the version of 'encontrar' we're dealing with here -- since none of the definitions in the DRAE marked 'prnl' - describe what's happening in our sentence. It must be something other than 'lexical se'.
> 
> 
> Lexical means also that the 'se' changes the meaning of the verb without 'se', starting with *encontrarse* that is *INTRANSITIVE* and *encontrar* is *TRANSITIVE*.
> 
> One could consider, as I have up 'til now, that the 'se' is 'marca' de pasiva refleja if read literally -- but as I read my grammars and your source more I think I am agreeing with 'Outsider' on this one. In this sentence 'se encuentra' has more the properties of a 'middle voice'.
> 
> The context in the given sentence makes 'encontrar' refer to an action 'inherent to traveling outside Madrid' -- therefore -- 'middle voice'.
> 
> So I may have to agree with your original assertion. Se Intransitivador and thereby 'pronominal' using definition #2 of 'encontrar' in the DRAE. YOu have convinced my of your original analysis on Pitt's original sentence. Thanks.
> 
> But you haven't written the paragraph I asked you for. I need to know what the distinctions are between 'unaccusative' and 'pasive refleja', etc. That was the help I asked for -- since you say many students confuse them?
> 
> Is there a grammatical distinction or only a semantic one?
> 
> Grant


 

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *Encontrarse* Toledo, is not a *middle* voice.


Tendrás una fuente para apoyar tal declaración. ¿Verdad?



> *NewdestinyX:* The context in the given sentence makes 'encontrar' refer to an action 'inherent to traveling outside Madrid' -- therefore -- 'middle voice'.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ivy29:** That's not true*, *travelling* has not any inherent action to encontrarse, you can travel for sightseeing, pleasure, visiting places, it just tells the geographical situation traveling or not to another city. *I do not believe you need to travel to find the geographical location of TOLEDO.*
Click to expand...

The issue is 'not' *why* you travel. The issue is what's 'inherent' *when* you travel. Middle Voice simply expresses that the action of the verb falls on the subject. When one travels the 'finding' is not an intentional action. The 'finding' happens upon the traveler without the traveler actually doing any 'looking'. It's all a matter of perspective and most grammarians write that the use of 'encontrarse' for 'dar con algo sin buscarlo' is 'modismático'.


> *NewdestinyX:* But you haven't written the paragraph I asked you for. I need to know what the distinctions are between 'unaccusative' and 'pasive refleja', etc. That was the help I asked for -- since you say many students confuse them?
> 
> 
> 
> *Ivy29:* Unacussative the 'se' is an intransitivator because they have a transitive verb: encontrar/encontrarse. *Many unaccussative verbs* can be passive but not *all passive can be unaccusative*.
> The main point of difference is that verbs in the *unacussative* are *INTRANSITIVE* or *intransitivised* and in the *passive* should be *transitive*. Of course, the transitive verbs of the counterpart ones of the *intransitivised unaccusative* can be reflexive passive with (SE).
Click to expand...

 --- ese párrafo no tiene nada de sentido para mí. Preferiría algo de un gramático. ¿Podrías copiar un párrafo de NebBello que explique esto?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *Encontrarse* Toledo, is not a *middle* voice.



This source shows that 'unaccusative' is simply a more modern syntactic term for explaining what happens in the 'middle voice' -- as I suspected. The Middle Voice uses 'ergative verbs' primarily but not exclusively. This source even contrasts 'unaccusative and unergative' -- lending credence to the notion that ergative verbs are the building blocks of the unaccusative syntax which builds the Middle Voice.

In layman's terms when a verb has doesn't imply a 'doer' of the action -- but the action seems to 'just happen' TO the only thing in the sentence that could be construed as a 'subject' - then we're dealing with an 'unaccusative' syntax (aka the Middle Voice).

Ivy, you are correct to say that students often get the passive voice mixed up with the unaccusative (middle voice). 

You are also right to say that the unaccusative is intransitive always.

Passive voice: The window was broken = La ventana la rompieron. = La ventana fue rota. (Implies an Agent)
Unaccusative: The window broke/got broken. = Se rompió la ventana./La ventana se rompió. (Non-agentive -- breaking happens to the window unknown cause- nonergative verb)

Passive voice: El hielo lo derritió el calor. = El hielo fue derretido por el calor. (Agent mentioned)
Unaccusative: El hielo se derritió./Se derritió el hielo. (Non-agentive -- melting 'happens to' the ice- ergative verb)

Grant


----------



## jabora

Pitt said:


> Hola a todos:
> 
> Tengo una una duda sobre la función de SE en esta oración:
> 
> A pocos kilómetros de Madrid se encuentra la ciudad de Toledo.
> 
> No estoy seguro, pero a mi entender ese se es un componente del verbo pronominal *encontrarse*: no tiene ninguna función sintátctica.
> 
> ¿Qué opináis?
> 
> Un saludo,
> Pitt



Efectivamente, el pronombre "se" es necesario usarlo en este caso (es un verbo pronominal). No tiene mucho sentido que hables de "la función sintáctica", precisamente la sintaxis es correcta, es decir, has usado el verbo correctamente y la frase es correcta. Es todo.
jabora


----------



## Pitt

jabora said:


> Efectivamente, el pronombre "se" es necesario usarlo en este caso (es un verbo pronominal). No tiene mucho sentido que hables de "la función sintáctica", precisamente la sintaxis es correcta, es decir, has usado el verbo correctamente y la frase es correcta. Es todo.
> jabora


 
¡Gracias por tu aclaración! Con la expresión "SE no tiene ninguna función sintáctica" quería decir que esta partícula no funciona como complemento directo o indirecto. SE es un componente del verbo pronominal _encontrarse_. 

Saludos


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Pitt said:


> ¡Gracias por tu aclaración! Con la expresión "SE no tiene ninguna función sintáctica" quería decir que esta partícula no funciona como complemento directo o indirecto. SE es un componente del verbo pronominal _encontrarse_.
> 
> Saludos



Perlmutter (1978)
Clasifica  los verbos intransitivos 
a) Unergative
b) Unaccusative ( ergative) verbs.
They have in common, both, one only argument whose syntactic achievement is the *subject*, but they differ in its semantic relations that is established between the verb and the argument /SUBJECT).
The unergative verbs denote 'activities' or processes that depends on the will of an agent.
The unaccussative verbs denote 'states' or events non-agentive and achievements (logros), existir, florecer, etc). In the unaccusative the subject is interpreted as the one who receives the action or the manifestation or accomplisment denoted by the verbs ( in this case Toledo) the verb 'encontrarse ( pronominal) indicates the 'state of the sitting of Toledo being a patient-theme. (logical/semantic or notional object (syntactically the true subject).In other words this verb shares both the inergative and unaccussative overtones of a iNTRANSITIVE and a TRANSITIVE verb.
a simple example is :
*Juan rompió el vaso *( transitive)  Agent= Juan and the final event, the glass is broken, its object, change of state.
*se rompió el vaso* it is an unaccusative form, the subject is el vaso, the eventuality happened to the glass (subject), it is  the patient-theme or notional object. The grammar has referred to this unaccusative verbs as pronominals since 'se' is just a marker without nominal function ( romperse, secarse, agrietarse).


----------



## jabora

Pitt said:


> ¡Gracias por tu aclaración! Con la expresión "SE no tiene ninguna función sintáctica" quería decir que esta partícula no funciona como complemento directo o indirecto. SE es un componente del verbo pronominal _encontrarse_.
> 
> Saludos




Exactamente, lo has explicado perfectamente. Muy bien.
jabora


----------



## NewdestinyX

jabora said:


> Efectivamente, el pronombre "se" es necesario usarlo en este caso (es un verbo pronominal). No tiene mucho sentido que hables de "la función sintáctica", precisamente la sintaxis es correcta, es decir, has usado el verbo correctamente y la frase es correcta. Es todo.
> jabora


Bienvenido al foro, Jabora.. Es importante que entiendas que en este foro -- el papel sintáctico de una palabra -- siempre nos importa. A los estudiantes no les es suficiente sencillamente cómo se dice algo -- sino por qué también. Cuando uno aprende su idioma segundo -- le importa la razón y papel por cada palabra.

Así que gracias por tu aclaración sobre la duda original.

Muchas gracias,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Perlmutter (1978)
> Clasifica  los verbos intransitivos
> a) Unergative
> b) Unaccusative ( ergative) verbs.
> They have in common, both, one only argument whose syntactic achievement is the *subject*, but they differ in its semantic relations that is established between the verb and the argument /SUBJECT).
> The unergative verbs denote 'activities' or processes that depends on the will of an agent.
> The unaccussative verbs denote 'states' or events non-agentive and achievements (logros), existir, florecer, etc). In the unaccusative the subject is interpreted as the one who receives the action or the manifestation or accomplisment denoted by the verbs ( in this case Toledo) the verb 'encontrarse ( pronominal) indicates the 'state of the sitting of Toledo being a patient-theme. (logical/semantic or notional object (syntactically the true subject).In other words this verb shares both the inergative and unaccussative overtones of a iNTRANSITIVE and a TRANSITIVE verb.
> a simple example is :
> *Juan rompió el vaso *( transitive)  Agent= Juan and the final event, the glass is broken, its object, change of state.
> *se rompió el vaso* it is an unaccusative form, the subject is el vaso, the eventuality happened to the glass (subject), it is  the patient-theme or notional object. The grammar has referred to this unaccusative verbs as pronominals since 'se' is just a marker without nominal function ( romperse, secarse, agrietarse).


¡¡Un artículo maravilloso!! Gracias por escribirlo por nosotros.

Chao,
Grant.


----------



## Pitt

Peterrobertini7 said:


> *Juan rompió el vaso *( transitive) Agent= Juan and the final event, the glass is broken, its object, change of state.
> *se rompió el vaso* it is an unaccusative form, the subject is el vaso, the eventuality happened to the glass (subject), it is the patient-theme or notional object. The grammar has referred to this unaccusative verbs as pronominals since 'se' is just a marker without nominal function ( romperse, secarse, agrietarse).


 
¡Muchas gracias! En este contexto quisiera saber si también es posible:
Juan se [C.I.] rompió la pierna [C.D.]: acción involuntaria.

Saludos


----------



## kronte

para mi ese se corresponde a un sujeto indefinido parecido a se siente frio


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> ¡Muchas gracias! En este contexto quisiera saber si también es posible:
> Juan se [C.I.] rompió la pierna [C.D.]: acción involuntaria.
> 
> Saludos


Creo que no, Pitt. Come te he dicho tantas veces en el pasado -- *Ojalá* que usaras ejemplos no en la 3ra persona. Porque hay ambigüedades potenciales. 

Esa forma es 'no fault se'. Sí expresa una acción involuntaria pero el SE no es CI. Es una marca de 'no fault' (sin función sintáctica). En 'non fault SE' el pronombre reflexivo tiene calidades semejante a un dativo de posesión puesto que es 'su' pierna que Juan rompió sin querer. Pero tal entendimiento confunde la cuestión. Todos los CI's 'verdaderos' deben poder escribirse así:
Juan *se* rompió la pierna. --> Juan se rompió la pierna* a él*.
--Creo que eso no funciona.---pero-
Juan *se* rompió la pierna. = Juan rompió *su propia* pierna (sin querer).
--that shows a 'possessive' quality.

Sin el SE el significado cambia. -
Juan rompió la pierna. --- ¿¿¿La pierna de qué o de quién....???

Pero a ver qué otros dicen.

Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Pitt said:


> ¡Muchas gracias! En este contexto quisiera saber si también es posible:
> Juan se [C.I.] rompió la pierna [C.D.]: acción involuntaria.
> 
> Saludos



*No, It is not possible*. Here Juan is the patient (his leg) Not the agent.
That 'se' is pronominal without nominal function:
La pierna de Juan se fracturó
Se fracturó la pierna de Juan ( the agent o cause is external ).Though it is the  notional object semantically, syntactcally is the subject. It is an unaccusative structure


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> Todos los CI's 'verdaderos' deben poder escribirse así:
> Juan *se* rompió la pierna. --> Juan se rompió la pierna* a él*.
> --Creo que eso no funciona.---pero-
> Juan *se* rompió la pierna. = Juan rompió *su propia* pierna (sin querer).
> --that shows a 'possessive' quality.
> 
> Sin el SE el significado cambia. -
> Juan rompió la pierna. --- ¿¿¿La pierna de qué o de quién....???
> 
> Pero a ver qué otros dicen.
> 
> Grant


 
Acerca de la frase _Juan se rompió la pierna_ _(sin querer) _he abierto un nuevo hilo.

Saludos


----------

