# La invitan a que cene con ellos (subjuntivo)



## Golfmaster65

I am having trouble understanding how the subjunctive is triggered in sentences like these

La invitan a que cene con ellos

Or
Sus padres no la dejan que salga con sus amigos



I guess it is because both of these sentences have a sentence that can match up and say te same thing. The only difference would be that these would be in the indicative......

No la invitan a cenar con ellos

Or 

Sus padres no la dejan salir con sus amigos.

So basically how can these sentence have subjunctive and indicative equivalents?

Because a sentence such as.... I want you to come to my house..... Can only be written in the subjunctive ( quiero que vengas a mi casa) NOT ( te quiero venir a mi casa)


----------



## mhjames12

The subjunctive is a verb form widely used in many foreign languages outside English. It is equivalent to saying "I recommend you be prepared," which is highly formal, but in romance languages (as far as I know), it is used to express doubt or possibility. Present indicative and present subjunctive differ in this manner.

For example:
"Yo dudo que ya lo sepas." I doubt you already know
"Yo no dudo que ya lo sabes." I don't doubt you already know.

The first example indicates the speaker is unsure to an extent. He/she doubted that you knew, however, there was a possibility of you still knowing. On the other hand, the second example states with absolute certainty that whether you already know is factually doubted, and thus it requires no further debate. In a nutshell: the subjunctive expresses a level of doubt.

It's sort of akin to estar and ser in terms of the message being conveyed and how it's manipulated when used incorrectly.


----------



## Golfmaster65

Yeah, I know what the subjunctive is, but I just don't know how in these sentances both the subjunctive and indicative can be used to convey the same message.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

With a few verbs, one can use a clitic pronoun (such as _te_) with a conjugated verb followed by an infinitive in place of the subjunctive. Whether that applies to your examples, I don't know. To get more specific, I would have to dig out a book, and I'd rather wait for someone more knowledgeable than I to either add to or correct my contribution.


----------



## Wandering JJ

I recommend you don't try to understand all the logic behind the subjunctive - better just to learn what triggers it. After 110 years studying the language, I still marvel at the following 'illogical' pair:

-Do you want to go and see a film with me?
-Si quieres.
-Como quieras.

Essentially both mean the same thing, i.e. if that's what the questionner would like to do, but one in the indic. mood and the other in the subj.


----------



## juan082937

Wandering JJ said:


> I recommend you don't try to understand all the logic behind the subjunctive - better just to learn what triggers it. After 110 years studying the language, I still marvel at the following 'illogical' pair:
> 
> -Do you want to go and see a film with me?
> -Si quieres.
> -Como quieras.
> 
> Essentially both mean the same thing, i.e. if that's what the questionner would like to do, but one in the indic. mood and the other in the subj.



with *si quieres *you put the condition to your listener
*como quieras *you let your listener to decide it, and you don't know what will be the outcome in that moment.


----------



## juan082937

Golfmaster65 said:


> I am having trouble understanding how the subjunctive is triggered in sentences like these
> 
> La invitan a que cene con ellos
> Or
> Sus padres no la dejan que salga con sus amigos
> I guess it is because both of these sentences have a sentence that can match up and say te same thing. The only difference would be that these would be in the indicative......
> No la invitan a cenar con ellos
> Or
> Sus padres no la dejan salir con sus amigos.
> So basically how can these sentence have subjunctive and indicative equivalents?
> Because a sentence such as.... I want you to come to my house..... Can only be written in the subjunctive ( quiero que vengas a mi casa) NOT ( te quiero venir a mi casa)



*Invitar a* It is a verb of 'influence' and you can use the subjunctive  because the 'action to have dinner' is not accomplished yet.
la invitan a cenar con ellos.(infinitive)

Sus padres no la dejan que salga sola ( It is like an order) subjunctive
Sus padres no la dejan salir sola ( infinitive)


----------



## Wandering JJ

juan082937 said:


> with *si quieres *you put the condition to your listener
> *como quieras *you let your listener to decide it, and you don't know what will be the outcome in that moment.


Nice explanation, Juan. Thanks.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

I'd be interested if someone addressed the issue of why you can get away with using an infinitive instead of the subjunctive in the examples given. 

If my suggestion in post #4 is correct, what verbs allow you to do that?


----------



## Golfmaster65

Could you elaborate in what you are trying to say with this? 

Sus padres no la dejan que salga sola ( It is like an order) subjunctive


----------



## juan082937

RicardoElAbogado said:


> I'd be interested if someone addressed the issue of why you can get away with using an infinitive instead of the subjunctive in the examples given.
> 
> If my suggestion in post #4 is correct, what verbs allow you to do that?



Would you write down *the sentence* you are worry about?


----------



## Peterdg

I guess much of the confusion comes from the term "indicative" that was mentioned in the first post instead of the "infinitive".

It is basically two ways of saying the same thing. Compare it with English: _Her father doesn't allow her to go out _(infinitive) and _Her father does not allow that she goes out_. (conjugated verb).

The more technical explanation: in "dejar salir", "dejar" is used as a modal verb while with the subjunctive, it is used an an independent verb with a noun subordinate.


----------



## juan082937

Peterdg said:


> I guess much of the confusion comes from the term "indicative" that was mentioned in the first post instead of the "infinitive".
> It is basically two ways of saying the same thing. Compare it with English: _Her father doesn't allow her to go out _(infinitive) and _Her father does not allow that she goes out_. (conjugated verb).
> The more technical explanation: in "dejar salir", "dejar" is used as a modal verb while with the subjunctive, it is used an an independent verb with a noun subordinate.



Thanks for your clarification. I am afraid that dejar salir is not a *verbal periphrasis* or a modal, dejar, mandar, hacer are *causative verbs* with DEJAR SALIR the subject of salir is the accusative 'LA? direct object that serves as the subject of salir.

*No LA dejan salir con sus amigos*= sus padres no _*la dejan*_ *a ella salir*, when the infinitive has a subject cannot be a *verbal periphrasis*. AS a subjunctive *the subordinate is a noun clause*
        Pronombre  de *complemento direct*o + verbos dejar, hacer, invitar a, obligar a + *infinitivo*


The subjunctive with dejar is as follow:

        No la dejan que salga con sus amigos    =   a noun subordinate clause, a kind of order or permission.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

juan082937 said:


> Would you write down *the sentence* you are worry about?



The example Golfmaster gave is that "Sus padres no la dejan salir con sus amigos." Normally (according to what learners are taught), the thought (Her parents don't let her go out with her friends) would have to be expressed with the subjunctive. The question is why, in this case, do you not have to use the subjunctive?

Thus, what I am looking for is clarification that what I said in post # 4 is right (or not). What I said in that post is "With a few verbs, one can use a clitic pronoun (such as _te) _with a conjugated verb followed by an infinitive in place of the subjunctive."

If that is correct, which are the verbs that you can do this with?

If further clarification is needed, please feel free to ask.


----------



## Golfmaster65

If by chance nobody knows the answer to the last post by RicardoElAbogado could someone recommend a book that might have answers to very difficult grammar questions? Or maybe something online that is  in depth enough to answer questions like this?


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Benjamin and Butt, _A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_. A standard reference source. Under $40 at Amazon. I would look it up in my copy, but I have it packed away for the moment.

The online source is WordReference! We just have to wait for a _forero_ to respond.


----------



## James2000

Wandering JJ said:


> I recommend you don't try to understand all the logic behind the subjunctive - better just to learn what triggers it.



 I couldn't agree more.



Wandering JJ said:


> I still marvel at the  following 'illogical' pair:



There many so many of these illogical pairs (or triplets) that I think the trigger-method works much better than the logic-method.


----------



## SevenDays

RicardoElAbogado said:


> The example Golfmaster gave is that "Sus padres no la dejan salir con sus amigos." Normally (according to what learners are taught), the thought (Her parents don't let her go out with her friends) would have to be expressed with the subjunctive. The question is why, in this case, do you not have to use the subjunctive?
> 
> Thus, what I am looking for is clarification that what I said in post # 4 is right (or not). What I said in that post is "With a few verbs, one can use a clitic pronoun (such as _te) _with a conjugated verb followed by an infinitive in place of the subjunctive."
> 
> If that is correct, which are the verbs that you can do this with?
> 
> If further clarification is needed, please feel free to ask.



_Sus padres no la dejan salir con sus amigos
Sus padres no la dejan que salga con sus amigos_

The infinitive and the subjunctive have much in common, and it is not surprising that where one fits, the other likely fits as well. The infinitive is *abstract* in nature, and therefore "not real," and as such it has great affinity with the *irreality* expressed by the subjunctive. _El infinitivo y el subjunctive expresan irrealidad y virtualidad_, and so they stand in contrast to the *reality* and *concreteness* of the indicative. What that means, in terms of grammatical time, is that the infinitive and the subjunctive are not *actualized*, which is why they are subordinated to a verb in the indicative that defines the time frame. Now, we are talking syntax; let's not get sidetracked by semantics. True, there's nothing "unreal" in _sus padres no la dejan salir/que salga con sus amigos_; it is a *factual* statement. What I mean is that, in terms of linguistics, _inside_ the direct object (expressed by the infinitive or by a _que-clause_ that includes the subjunctive), "time" is not _actualized_, not _defined_. What defines the "present time" inside the direct object is an external element: the indicative verb "dejan." The syntactic requirement for this infinitive-subjunctive alternation is the presence of a transitive verb that has an explicit direct object: _te aconsejo fumar_/_te aconsejo que fumes_; _mis padres no me permiten fumar_/_no (me) permite que fume_; _sus padres le recomiendan estudiar medicina_/_que estudie medicina_. I don't think that clitic pronouns play a particular part in this (clitics are often used simply for emphasis); that is, I don't think that certain clitics require the infinitive or the subjunctive (if I understand what you are saying), but I could be wrong. The use of the infinitive tends to be descriptive: it adds no special nuances: _no la dejan salir_. The subjunctive, being conjugated, it's descriptive _and more_; the subjunctive adds _emphasis_, _weight_, etc.: _no la dejan que salga_. The infinitive acting as direct object plays a nominal syntactic function (like any other noun phrase), but it does retain its verbal semantic meaning. The subjunctive retains its verbal nature, syntactic and semantic, because what functions as the direct object is the entire _que-clause_. Often, such difference is minimal and it makes no difference the use of one or another (_salir_/_que salga_). At times, given the semantic nature of the governing indicative verb, the subjunctive, full-fledged syntactically and semantically, has _more force_ and ends up displacing the infinitive. It's what happens with _rogar, _where, to me, _mis padres me ruegan *que coma*, pero no quiero _sounds more natural and expressive than _mis padres me ruegan *comer*, pero no quiero_.    
Cheers


----------



## Lurrezko

What a beautiful explanation. Congratulations.

Un saludo


----------



## James2000

SevenDays said:


> _Sus padres no *la* dejan [salir con sus amigos]
> Sus padres no *la* dejan [que salga con sus amigos]_
> 
> syntactic and semantic, because what functions as the direct object is the entire _que-clause_. Often, such difference is minimal and it makes no difference the use



Seven,

Sorry to ask for more detail on this, and I know it came up in another thread (which I can't find) that you commented on. If the entire 'que' clause functions as the DO, what does the 'la' in bold above count as?  I seem to recall that you explained that it is the subject of 'salir' or 'salga', that becomes a direct object.  Should I stop thinking too hard and just accept both 'la' and the 'que' clause as DOs?  Could _[que salga con sus amigos]_ be replaced by a pronoun, and if so, how would you do it?


----------



## SevenDays

James2000 said:


> Seven,
> 
> Sorry to ask for more detail on this, and I know it came up in another thread (which I can't find) that you commented on. If the entire 'que' clause functions as the DO, what does the 'la' in bold above count as?  I seem to recall that you explained that it is the subject of 'salir' or 'salga', that becomes a direct object.  Should I stop thinking too hard and just accept both 'la' and the 'que' clause as DOs?  Could _[que salga con sus amigos]_ be replaced by a pronoun, and if so, how would you do it?



That "la" plays an important semantic role; it makes clear the meaning of the sentence. Without "la," we wouldn't know exactly *who* is not allowed to go out. It is in that sense that "la" is the subject of the infinitive. Syntactically, the subject of the infinitive takes the accusative form "la." You can analyze the syntactic structure of the sentence in two ways: (1) "dejan" has *two* direct objects: one in the form of "la" referring to a person; the other, referring to a non-person, in the form of an infinitive construction (_salir con sus amigos_) or a subjunctive construction in a _que-clause_ (_que salga con sus amigos_). The non-person DO can't be replaced by a pronoun. This concept of "double direct object" has its roots in Latin, and it remains alive in Spanish, Spanish being a romance language derived from Latin. (2), the second syntactic approach, equally valid, does away with "double direct object" and argues that "la" *is* the direct object, and the infinitive or subjunctive construction function as *predicative* of the direct object; that is, an element that modifies and thus completes the meaning of "la." According to this view, "la" is the syntactic direct object of "dejan" and at the same time it is the semantic subject of "salir." Some prefer (1), others (2); I see it as (2) rather than (1), but that's of little importance.
Cheers


----------



## Peterdg

First of all, I agree with sevendays' earlier post with regards to the use of an infinitive or a subordinate conjugated clause: there is little difference. I just don't agree completely with the parallel of the subjunctive and the infinitive. You can also say: "La veo cantar" or "Veo que (ella) canta", so the replacement of the conjugated verb with the infinitive is also possible with the indicative. 

There is still another theory (which I like): you should consider "dejar+infinitive" as a transitive unit that has a subject, a DO and possibly an IO. (that is why I called it a modal use in my previous post).

This view seems to be consistent with the DPD's remark about the use of "dejar + infinitive" where it says that if the subordinate verb is transitive, then the tendency is for the clitic to be an IO, while with intransitive verbs, the tendency is to use a DO clitic.

No la deja salir (salir is intransitive, so the DO is "la")
No le deja comer patatas fritas (a ella) (the DO is "patatas fritas" and the IO is "le") (and this is NOT leísmo).

This avoids the awkward double DO consequence.

Another hot issue is: with which verbs can this replacement of the subordinate with an infinitive occur? (I think that is the main question of Ricardo and Golfmaster) That is a far more difficult question to answer (at least for me; I don't know the (complete) answer).

However, if you are happy with an incomplete answer, here we go.

In noun subordinates that depend of a verb that requires the subjunctive, the use of the infinitive is mandatory if the subject (or psychological subject) of the principal verb and the subordinate verb coincide (but only possible when they coincide): 

Quiero descansar <---> *quiero que (yo) descanse <---> quiero que (ella) descanse <---> *La quiero descansar
Me gusta descansar <---> *me gusta que (yo) descanse (this is an example of a "psychological subject: the real subject of "me gusta" is the subordinate clause).

With verbs that express influence, the conjugated subordinate can (but does not have to) be replaced by the infinitive if the person on which the influence is exerted coincides with the subject of the subordinate verb. But, and here the trouble starts, this does not seem to be possible for all verbs: (following examples come from "El subjuntivo, valores y usos", J. Borrego, J.G. Asencio and E. Prieto)

_Mandó a Antonio que (Antonio) saliera _or _Mandó a Antonio salir.
Permitió a su madre que (su madre) fuera a visitarlo_ or_ Permitió a su madre ir a visitarlo.

_But, they mark as questionable:

Le rogó perdonarlo (??)
Le pidio perdonarlo (??)

and as "possibly correct" (only one ?)

Le suplicó perdonarlo (?)
Le aconsejó perdonarlo (?)

That's about all I can say about it (I think). I hope that, at least, it clears up some doubts.


----------



## James2000

SevenDays said:


> (1) "dejan" has *two* direct objects: one in the form of "la" referring to a person; the other, _que-clause_ (_que salga con sus amigos_). The non-person DO can't be replaced by a pronoun. This concept of "double direct object" has its roots in Latin, and it remains alive in Spanish, Spanish being a romance language derived from Latin.
> 
> (2), the second syntactic approach, equally valid, does away with "double direct object" and argues that "la" *is* the direct object, and the infinitive or subjunctive construction function as *predicative* of the direct object; that is, an element that modifies and thus completes the meaning of "la." According to this view, "la" is the syntactic direct object of "dejan" and at the same time it is the semantic subject of "salir."
> 
> Some prefer (1), others (2); I see it as (2) rather than (1), but that's of little importance.



Thanks Seven.  (1) seems a little bit more logical to me once the the possibility of two DOs is accepted.  Peterdg also has a good argument, but see my questions below. 



Peterdg said:


> There is still another theory (which I like): you should consider "dejar+infinitive" as a transitive unit that has a subject, a DO and possibly an IO. (that is why I called it a modal use in my previous post).
> 
> This view seems to be consistent with the DPD's remark about the use of "dejar + infinitive" where it says that if the subordinate verb is transitive, then the tendency is for the clitic to be an IO, while with intransitive verbs, the tendency is to use a DO clitic.
> 
> A. No la deja salir (salir is intransitive, so the DO is "la")
> B. No le deja comer patatas fritas (a ella) (the DO is "patatas fritas" and the IO is "le") (and this is NOT leísmo).
> 
> This avoids the awkward double DO consequence.



Peter,

Perhaps this is a bit unlikely and obscure, but what happens if the second verb is transitive and has both a DO and IO?

He (somebody other than her father) doesn't allow her to give X to her father.

C. No le deja dar X a su padre. (_le_ and _su padre_ are different people)
D. No le deja darle X.              (Is this correct or possible?)

I suspect that since the non-person DO that Seven describes above can't be changed into a pronoun, D isn't even possible?

It seems to me that if the two verbs form a transitive unit, you trade your double DO problem for a double IO problem?


----------



## Peterdg

James2000 said:


> Peter,
> 
> Perhaps this is a bit unlikely and obscure, but what happens if the second verb is transitive and has both a DO and IO?
> 
> He (somebody other than her father) doesn't allow her to give X to her father.
> 
> C. No le deja dar X a su padre. (_le_ and _su padre_ are different people)
> D. No le deja darle X. (Is this correct or possible?)
> 
> I suspect that since the non-person DO that Seven describes above can't be changed into a pronoun, D isn't even possible?
> 
> It seems to me that if the two verbs form a transitive unit, you trade your double DO problem for a double IO problem?


That's a good one.

But I'm aware it is not fool proof. Also, the DPD speaks about the "tendency", which means also the other option is used. (_No *le* dejo salir _or _No *lo* dejo comer patatas fritas_)

Also, this theory only works for "hacer + infinitive" and "dejar + infinitive"; "ver + infinitive" and "oír + infinitive" always have a DO pronoun (_*La*  veo comer patatas fritas_)


----------



## James2000

Peterdg said:


> That's a good one.
> 
> I do my best to break the rules.
> 
> But I'm aware it is not fool proof. Also, the DPD speaks about the "tendency", which means also the other option is used. (_No *le* dejo salir _or _No *lo* dejo comer patatas fritas_)
> 
> Also, this theory only works for "hacer + infinitive" and "dejar + infinitive"; "ver + infinitive" and "oír + infinitive" always have a DO pronoun (_*La*  veo comer patatas fritas_)



Thanks.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Peterdg said:


> Another hot issue is: with which verbs can this replacement of the subordinate with an infinitive occur? (I think that is the main question of Ricardo and Golfmaster) That is a far more difficult question to answer (at least for me; I don't know the (complete) answer).
> 
> However, if you are happy with an incomplete answer, here we go.



I would gladly settle for five or ten common verbs for which use of the infinitive in lieu of the subjunctive would not be considered a mistake.

I'd also like to know if there are a just a handful of such verbs or whether there is a large (but undefined) number of such verbs.  Thanks.


----------



## Peterdg

No la veo comer <---> No veo que (ella) coma.
No la oigo cantar <---> No oigo que ella cante.
La dejo salir <---> Dejo que (ella) salga.
La hago comer <---> Hago que (ella) coma.
Quiero descansar <---> Quiero que (él) descanse.
Agradezco haber sido invitado <---> Agradezco que lo hayan invitado.
Me gustaría comer <---> Me gustaría que (él) comiera.
No creo haber visto un milagro <---> No creo que haya visto un milagro.
Espero tener suerte <---> Espero que tenga suerte.
Me molesta tener que ir a trabajar mañana <---> Me molesta que (él) tenga que ir a trabajar mañana.

In principle, the number of verbs is (almost) infinite.

EDIT: I didn't notice Ricardo wanted examples with subjunctive: I have adapted the examples.


----------



## juan082937

RicardoElAbogado said:


> The example Golfmaster gave is that "Sus padres no la dejan salir con sus amigos." Normally (according to what learners are taught), the thought (Her parents don't let her go out with her friends) would have to be expressed with the subjunctive. The question is why, in this case, do you not have to use the subjunctive?
> 
> Thus, what I am looking for is clarification that what I said in post # 4 is right (or not). What I said in that post is "With a few verbs, one can use a clitic pronoun (such as _te) _with a conjugated verb followed by an infinitive in place of the subjunctive."
> 
> If that is correct, which are the verbs that you can do this with?
> 
> If further clarification is needed, please feel free to ask.



With the causative verbs, dejar, hacer, mandar and the perception verbs oir, ver, mirar etc. USING the clitic la[le


----------



## juan082937

SevenDays said:


> That "la" plays an important semantic role; it makes clear the meaning of the sentence. Without "la," we wouldn't know exactly *who* is not allowed to go out. It is in that sense that "la" is the subject of the infinitive. Syntactically, the subject of the infinitive takes the accusative form "la." You can analyze the syntactic structure of the sentence in two ways: (1) "dejan" has *two* direct objects: one in the form of "la" referring to a person; the other, referring to a non-person, in the form of an infinitive construction (_salir con sus amigos_) or a subjunctive construction in a _que-clause_ (_que salga con sus amigos_). The non-person DO can't be replaced by a pronoun. This concept of "double direct object" has its roots in Latin, and it remains alive in Spanish, Spanish being a romance language derived from Latin. (2), the second syntactic approach, equally valid, does away with "double direct object" and argues that "la" *is* the direct object, and the infinitive or subjunctive construction function as *predicative* of the direct object; that is, an element that modifies and thus completes the meaning of "la." According to this view, "la" is the syntactic direct object of "dejan" and at the same time it is the semantic subject of "salir." Some prefer (1), others (2); I see it as (2) rather than (1), but that's of little importance.
> Cheers


  CAUSATIVE verbs  hacer, dejar, mandar alternate the infinitive with a  a completive nominal subordinate clause SUBJUNCTIVE, and the subject of the infinitive is realized through the accusative. The nominaliztion of the infinitive with ‘La’ differentiate the noun function from the verbal action of the infinitive and to diffrentiate as well the abstract meaning with the nominal  function. With the causative verbs the subject of the infinitive is not co-referential with the main clause, they are different subjects. The perception verbs demands a co-referential subjects to accept the infinitive. The verbs that select completive noun subordinates  in SUBJUNCTIVE  are compatible using the infinitive as a general rule.
  The accusative in these verbs requires that the clictic element is placed *before* the main verb, not after.
  No *L**a dejan salir* *con sus amigos alternates with No la dejan que salga con sus amigos, The infinitive alternates with the subjunctive completive  nominal subordinates.*

*The verb  SALIR is an intransitive verb that explains clearly the referential complement of the verb salir is with the preposition ‘CON sus amigos’*
*As rule of thumb the infinitive alternates with a nouncompletive subordinate subjunctive mostly, and rarely with the indicative.*
  This ‘climbing’ of the DO ‘LA’ in front of the main verb is clear in these verbs (causative) 
  WE have to remember that the clictic is in DATIVE when the infinitive verb  is  TRANSITIVE, in our example SALIR intransitive so the direct clictic is relevant in DO.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

I found this passage in a book on Spanish grammar that explains the issue in simple terms (for those of us who are not knowledgeable about linguistics). In discussing an alternative to the standard construction of using the subjunctive in a subordinate clause, it says:


> The pure infinitive construction may be used also with verbs of ordering, preventing, permitting and forbidding (but not of requesting or telling) even where the influence is on _another_ person's actions. This other person is then expressed as the indirect object of the first verb.




Is the foregoing quote correct in what it says (leaving aside verbs of perception such as _oir_, _ver_, _mirar,_ etc., which it does not address)?

And juan082937, are the "causative verbs" the verbs of ordering, preventing, permitting and forbidding?


----------

