# menos mal está/esté



## Perrito

After "menos mal" do I use the subjunctive or indicative?  Or can one use either, like with: quizá etc...

Ex: Quizá esté aquí/Quizá está aquí.  (Both are correct)

Ex: Menos mal esté mejor/menos mal está mejor.  Both or just one?

Gregorio


----------



## aceituna

Cuando dices menos mal te estás alegrando por algo que ha sucedido (o que sabes que va a suceder con seguridad), así que se usa el indicativo, porque no hay ninguna duda aquí.

Menos mal que *está *mejor.

Un saludo,


----------



## Perrito

Gracias, entonces, indicative.  

Greg


----------



## Búkarus

Hi!
If you need to say "menos mal [que]" it's because you have realized an actual thing, so no subjunctive should follow it. And I need to use the conjunction "que":

Menos mal _que_ llegaste = It's a good job you arrived.
Menos mal para él _que_ eres una persona tranquila = Luckily for him, you are a calm person
Menos _mal_ no piensas volver = Thank goodness you're not considering to come back.

Well, those are not very literal translations.

BYe.


----------



## Dot

i think the most literal translation for "menos mal" into english is "just as well".

e.g. menos mal que llegaste a tiempo = its just as well that you arrived on time.


----------



## miklo3600

Hola:

I am checking my use of subjuntive and preterite in the following sentences.

Menos mal que te quedes para terminar el trabajo para no dejarlo para después.

It's just as well that you stay to finish the work so you don't have to do it later.

Menos mal que te quedaste para terminar el trabajo ayer.
It's just as well that you stayed and finish the work yesterday.


Gracias por comprobar mi castellano.


----------



## kreiner

I'd never use "menos mal que" in a hypothetical period. In the first sentence I'd say: "menos mal que te qued*a*s" (I'm sure you stay).


----------



## blasita

miklo3600 said:


> Hola:
> 
> I am checking my use of subjuntive and preterite in the following sentences.
> 
> Menos mal que te quedas para terminar el trabajo para no dejarlo para después.
> 
> It's just as well that you stay to finish the work so you don't have to do it later.
> 
> Menos mal que te quedaste para terminar el trabajo ayer.
> It's just as well that you stayed and finish the work yesterday.
> 
> 
> Gracias por comprobar mi castellano.



I agree with Kreiner.

And, in my opinion, there may be too many "para" in the first sentence (though they´re not wrong, I think you could say, _e.g. ... para terminar el trabajo, y así no tenerlo que hacer/tienes que hacerlo después/más tarde_).

Saludos.


----------



## kreiner

blasita said:


> I agree with Kreiner.
> 
> And, in my opinion, there may be too many "para" in the first sentence (_e.g. ... para terminar el trabajo, y así no tienes/tenerlo que hacer después/más tarde_).
> 
> Saludos.


 
Good point


----------



## srb62

Hi,
this 'feels' as if it should take the subjunctive - it sounds like a value judgment statement, which often takes the subjunctive.
However, according to my grammar, it should take the indicative (however strange this might feel).
That's my tuppenceworth at any rate.  (I'm not sure that whether or not there is 'doubt' about something will always determine whether or not the subjunctive should be employed)


----------



## Quique Alfaro

Hola:

That's my tuppenceworth at any rate.

*Es* mi modesto aporte para lo que pueda servir.

Necesariamente indicativo. Establecés un hecho.

_Es la casa donde vivo.
Es lo que piensan todos.
Es la opinión que puedo darte.
Es lo que ella me sugirió.
_


----------



## srb62

Quique Alfaro said:


> Hola:
> 
> That's my tuppenceworth at any rate.
> 
> *Es* mi modesto aporte para lo que pueda servir.
> 
> Necesariamente indicativo. Establecés un hecho.
> 
> _Es la casa donde vivo.
> Es lo que piensan todos.
> Es la opinión que puedo darte.
> Es lo que ella me sugirió.
> _



I take your point about establishing a fact, but do you not think there's often more to the subjunctive than this?


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Menos mal que*, se refiere siempre a _algo ya conocido_ que se valora positivamente, por ello _se debe usar el indicativo._


----------



## horsewishr

Dot said:


> i think the most literal translation for "menos mal" into english is "just as well".
> 
> e.g. menos mal que llegaste a tiempo = its just as well that you arrived on time.



I don't agree--at least not in this case.  To me "it's just as well that you arrived on time" means it wouldn't really have mattered whether you arrived on time or not.  In other words, it's not important that you arrived on time, or it would have been equally good NOT to have arrived on time.  

I would translate the phrase as "It's a good thing you got here on time."


----------



## blasita

XiaoRoel said:


> Menos mal que, se refiere siempre a _algo ya conocido_ que se valora positivamente, por ello _se debe usar el indicativo._


 Agreed. _Menos mal que_ is always followed by the indicative.


----------



## Christopher No Lee

miklo3600 said:


> Hola:
> 
> I am checking my use of subjuntive and preterite in the following sentences.
> 
> Menos mal que te quedes para terminar el trabajo para no dejarlo para después.
> 
> It's just as well that you stay to finish the work so you don't have to do it later.
> 
> Menos mal que te quedaste para terminar el trabajo ayer.
> It's just as well that you stayed and finish the work yesterday.
> 
> 
> Gracias por comprobar mi castellano.



"Menos mal que te *quedas* para terminar el trabajo* y no lo dejas para después*" 
(It's just as well that you stay to finish the work so you don't have to do it later.)


Menos mal que te quedaste para terminar el trabajo ayer.---> It's ok, but in my opinion it would be better like this: "Menos mal que te quedaste *a* terminar el trabajo ayer"
It's just as well that you stayed and finish the work yesterday.


----------



## srb62

XiaoRoel said:


> *Menos mal que*, se refiere siempre a _algo ya conocido_ que se valora positivamente, por ello _se debe usar el indicativo._



For me, I'm not sure this is the best way to look at it.
There are many instances, I think, in Spanish, where you refer to something that has already taken place with a positive statement but would use the subjunctive:

I'm thinking of emotional responses to something/value judgements and the like
Would we not say "Que bueno que lo hayas hecho" rather than "que bueno que lo has hecho"   ?  

"menos mal que" (just as well/thanks heavens that - surely these are value judgments or emotional responses?) has , for me, the 'feel' of something that might take the subjunctive but doesn't.  For this reason, I don't think it's helpful to think of 'rules' to explain why menos mal que takes the indicative, but to learn it (and perhaps, learn it as an exception?)


----------



## XiaoRoel

No hay excepción ninguna. Precisamente tú apuntas al porqué del subjuntivo con "_emotional_ responses".


----------



## srb62

XiaoRoel said:


> No hay excepción ninguna. Precisamente tú apuntas al porqué del subjuntivo con "_emotional_ responses".



Well, I wouldn't claim to know an awful lot about this and hesitate to get into a debate with a native speaker.  However..............

The first thing is that I'm no one hundred percent sure what you're trying to tell me - part of what I was trying to express was what worked for me as a 'learning tool/aid', so anything that anyone else can do to help me with this is welcome.

For me  "menos mal que" would translate as "just as well/thank heavens" and therefore an emotional reaction.


----------



## blasita

Hello Srb.

I understand that sometimes you may need a mnemonic device or a 'learning tool/aid' to remember a particular structure and it can be very handy, but in this case, I'd personally just learn it: _menos mal que + indicative _and then try to practise it_._


----------



## srb62

blasita said:


> Hello Srb.
> 
> I understand that sometimes you may need a mnemonic device or a 'learning tool/aid' to remember a particular structure and it can be very handy, but in this case, I'd personally just learn it: _menos mal que + indicative _and then try to practise it_._



Blasita, Oh dear, I mustn't have explained myself very clearly as you seem to be making exactly the point I was trying to make!

What I intended to say was that:

Most of the time in Spanish, an emotional response/value judgment will need the subjunctive.  However, there are exceptions to this and it is best simply to learn these.  If I understand you correctly, this is what you too are saying?

I don't really understand the idea of a mnemonic here - what I really meant was that there are ways one has to think about the subjunctive, try to understand the 'logic' behind it,  so that one can try to get a 'feel' for when it is used  and, at the same time, remember exceptions to this.

Nobody's really responded to my point (question?) regarding whether an emotional response in Spanish does 'usually' (as a rule of thumb) take the subjunctive.  I'd also be interested to know if others felt that 'menos mal que' was, indeed, an emotional response/value judgement to something.


----------



## SevenDays

_Menos mal_ is an emotional response, yes, but it refers to something that's already happened (or that won't happen); it's an emotional response to a _factual _event. The same happens in English. WR translates it to "it's a good thing," and we don't use that phrase with elements that convey the subjunctive meaning, for example "were" (_It's a good thing she *is* here,_ and not _it's a good thing she were here_) and the simple past indicative (_it's a good thing she *came*_; the simple past "came" is factual and not subjunctive in meaning (because _she *did* come)_. And with _if she came_, the indicative "it's a good thing" would have to change to "it *would be* a good thing"" to be subjunctive in meaning: _It *would be* a good thing if she *came *_(similarly,_ it *would be* a good thing if she *were* here_). "It is a good thing" is an emotional response to factual events, just like "menos mal." 
Cheers


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> _Menos mal_ is an emotional response, yes, but it refers to something that's already happened (or that won't happen); it's an emotional response to a _factual _event. The same happens in English. WR translates it to "it's a good thing," and we don't use that phrase with elements that convey the subjunctive meaning, for example "were" (_It's a good thing she *is* here,_ and not _it's a good thing she were here_) and the simple past indicative (_it's a good thing she *came*_; the simple past "came" is factual and not subjunctive in meaning (because _she *did* come)_. And with _if she came_, the indicative "it's a good thing" would have to change to "it *would be* a good thing"" to be subjunctive in meaning: _It *would be* a good thing if she *came *_(similarly,_ it *would be* a good thing if she *were* here_). "It is a good thing" is an emotional response to factual events, just like "menos mal."
> Cheers



Seven Days, thanks for the input (though I think that to compare present indicative/subjunctive it should probably be 'be' - e.g. "It's essential that you be here by ten o'clock).
What about something like: "Me alegro que hayas venido" - to me this seems like an emotional reaction to a factual event.  What is the logic/distinction between the two phrases?


----------



## SevenDays

srb62 said:


> Seven Days, thanks for the input (though I think that to compare present indicative/subjunctive it should probably be 'be' - e.g. "It's essential that you be here by ten o'clock).
> What about something like: "Me alegro que hayas venido" - to me this seems like an emotional reaction to a factual event.  What is the logic/distinction between the two phrases?



I suspect by now you know that the subjunctive is quite slippery. "Essential" is the so-called mandative subjunctive, which, due to its own inherent meaning (an "order," a "mandate") requires the subjunctive in the "that" clause. But this "essential" is not the same as "menos mal" or "it's a good thing," after all I don't think you'd say "_it's a good thing you *be* here_." So, let's keep these structures separate, or you'll end up confused. If you can see how "it's a good thing" works in English (how the verb tenses match up in the indicative: _it *is *a good thing you *are* here_), then I think you'll see how "menos mal" works in Spanish. The subjunctive has many uses, one of them (_pretérito perfecto)_ emphasizes the _completion _of an action, which is simply another way of saying that it represents an emotional reaction to the completion of that factual event: *Me alegro que hayas venido*. The act of "venir" is completed, and the subjunctive emphasizes my emotional reaction to it. Keep in mind that the emotional reaction is _mine (_it comes from _within_ myself) and not _of _the finished act.
Cheers


----------



## Peterdg

I understand srb's reaction very well. That's the entire tragedy of trying to explain the subjunctive by purely semantic criteria without involving the syntax in the picture.

When I say: "me alegro de que estés aquí con nosotros", it is also a fact that the person I'm talking about is here with us. Still, it requires the subjunctive (in Spain, at least).

The key issue here is that "menos mal que" does not introduce subordination. You should compare it with "afortunadamente".  "Afortunadamente estás aquí". Nobody would use a subjunctive here: there is no subordination. The same is true with "menos mal que". The presence of the "que" makes you think there is subordinbation, but there isn't. It's just an expression like "afortunadamente".


----------



## SevenDays

_Subordination _refers to the linking of two grammatical elements so that they have different syntactic standing, one element being _subordinated _(dependent) on the other, the subordinator, which can stand by itself. In *menos mal que*, "menos mal" is the subordinator and "que" the subordinating conjunction that introduces the subordinated element. "Menos mal," being the subordinator, can stand by itself; it has syntactic _independence,_ just like an independent clause:
_Ana ya está aquí_
_Menos mal_
_Menos mal que ha llegado
_Pero no:
_Ana ya está aquí_
_que ha llegado
_
In "menos mal que," there is subordination, and the choice of mood (indicative) is related to the *meaning *of the expression.
Cheers


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> I suspect by now you know that the subjunctive is quite slippery. "Essential" is the so-called mandative subjunctive, which, due to its own inherent meaning (an "order," a "mandate") requires the subjunctive in the "that" clause. But this "essential" is not the same as "menos mal" or "it's a good thing," after all I don't think you'd say "_it's a good thing you *be* here_." So, let's keep these structures separate, or you'll end up confused. If you can see how "it's a good thing" works in English (how the verb tenses match up in the indicative: _it *is *a good thing you *are* here_), then I think you'll see how "menos mal" works in Spanish.
> Cheers



Seven Days,
I'll have a think about what you say in the rest of your posts later.  However, in reference to the part above, I'm not sure how on earth this is meant to be helpful to me or anyone else?  I don't understand why you've brought  in the idea of a 'mandative subjunctive', nor why you've linked it to the idea of menos mal.  The example of "it's essential that you be here" was just to mention that there is a present subjunctive in English, nothing more, - nothing to do with anything else.  The example with "it's a good thing you *be *there" is pointless simply because I don't think you'd use the subjuntive now in English with this phrase (just like you say "it's a good thing he was there and not "It's a good thing he were there")


----------



## Christopher No Lee

We use the tenses of subjunctive with potential actions. Something that will probably happen, but not definitively.
E.g.
Cuando + Presente/Pret.Perf. Subj. + Futuro Indicativo
Cuando *vuelva/haya vuelto*, *visitaré* el museo
In english you use future tense for this kind of sentences, though.

And of course, the structure of conditional, like the song... If I was a carpenter and you were my lady. With Pret. Imp. or Pluscuamperfecto (Si yo *fuera* carpintero y tú *fueses* mi chica...) (-era & -eses are the same tense).

Ah, you did a common mistake, the phrase is "Me alegro DE que"


----------



## Christopher No Lee

other examples:

I want you to know ----------->Quiero que *sepas* (presente subjuntivo)
It caused my hand to itch------>Eso provocó que me *picara/picase* la mano (Pret. Imperfecto Subj.)


----------



## srb62

Christopher No Lee said:


> We use the tenses of subjunctive with potential actions. Something that will probably happen, but not definitively.
> E.g.
> Cuando + Presente/Pret.Perf. Subj. + Futuro Indicativo
> Cuando *vuelva/haya vuelto*, *visitaré* el museo
> In english you use future tense for this kind of sentences, though.
> 
> And of course, the structure of conditional, like the song... If I was a carpenter and you were my lady. With Pret. Imp. or Pluscuamperfecto (Si yo *fuera* carpintero y tú *fueses* mi chica...) (-era & -eses are the same tense).
> 
> Ah, you did a common mistake, the phrase is "Me alegro DE que"



Christpher No Lee
 I did make a mistake, but I think I meant to write "me alegra que hayas venido"  - would this have been ok or would it still need 'de que'?


----------



## srb62

Peterdg said:


> I understand srb's reaction very well. That's the entire tragedy of trying to explain the subjunctive by purely semantic criteria without involving the syntax in the picture.
> 
> When I say: "me alegro de que estés aquí con nosotros", it is also a fact that the person I'm talking about is here with us. Still, it requires the subjunctive (in Spain, at least).
> 
> The key issue here is that "menos mal que" does not introduce subordination. You should compare it with "afortunadamente".  "Afortunadamente estás aquí". Nobody would use a subjunctive here: there is no subordination. The same is true with "menos mal que". The presence of the "que" makes you think there is subordinbation, but there isn't. It's just an expression like "afortunadamente".



Peterdg,
thanks for the help.  However, to me it still seems that the  "que" in menos mal que does introduce a subordinate clause.  Similarly,  I'm sure there are other examples where phrases that seem to introduce a  subordinate clause could also stand on their own (thinks like - que  bueno (que) or que bien (que)) and examples where we use the subjunctive  without a que (quizas springs to mind).


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> I suspect by now you know that the subjunctive is quite slippery. "Essential" is the so-called mandative subjunctive, which, due to its own inherent meaning (an "order," a "mandate") requires the subjunctive in the "that" clause. But this "essential" is not the same as "menos mal" or "it's a good thing," after all I don't think you'd say "_it's a good thing you *be* here_." So, let's keep these structures separate, or you'll end up confused. If you can see how "it's a good thing" works in English (how the verb tenses match up in the indicative: _it *is *a good thing you *are* here_), then I think you'll see how "menos mal" works in Spanish. The subjunctive has many uses, one of them (_pretérito perfecto)_ emphasizes the _completion _of an action, which is simply another way of saying that it represents an emotional reaction to the completion of that factual event: *Me alegro que hayas venido*. The act of "venir" is completed, and the subjunctive emphasizes my emotional reaction to it. Keep in mind that the emotional reaction is _mine (_it comes from _within_ myself) and not _of _the finished act.
> Cheers



Seven Days
I don't get the difference, sorry.  if you say " Just as well you've arrived" , this to me is just as much an emotional reaction to a complete event as "I'm glad you've arrived is"

What about things like:

Que suerte ---- would you not say "Que suerte que hayas llegado"?

que bien ------would/coud you  say "que bien que hayas llegado"?
es fantástico --------would you say "es fantástico que hayas llegado or has llegado?"


----------



## Christopher No Lee

Me alegro DE que hayas venido

There's some verbs that ALWAYS need the preposition, a concrete one depending on which verb, after them.

In this case, if you use Alegrar*se*, you need DE after it----> Aquel niño *se* alegró *de* que jugaran con él


But if you use Alegrar, without the pronoun, then is transitive so it doesn't need the preposition, but OD------>Sus bromas alegraron a todos

You can use this verbs also with POR---------> *Me* alegro *por* vosotros
It would be ALEGRAR + OD
ALEGRARSE DE + Something
ALEGRARSE POR + Somebody

But normally this kind of verbs need always the same preposition, only one.


Another example with ACORDAR / ACORDARSE, it hasn't the same meaning. In the first case it means to make a deal with sb, but the second one means to remember sth and needs the preposition DE.
e.g.
Mis padres acordaron la venta de la casa 

Mis padres *se* acordaron *de* que tenían que vender la casa

I hope it'll be useful for you. If you look for "Complemento de régimen" you'll find tons of examples of this kind of structures.



And please, correct my poor english. I'm here to learn too


----------



## blasita

srb62 said:


> Blasita, Oh dear, I mustn't have explained myself very clearly as you seem to be making exactly the point I was trying to make!



I just focussed on _menos mal que_ because this thread is not about the whole subjunctive mood, and tried to say that I would just learn the syntax. Why? Because in my humble opinion, there can be several explanations for the use of the indicative after this structure. But again, I can understand your need to understand the 'logic' behind it; however, I think that sometimes this is not so clear-cut or just impossible.


----------



## srb62

blasita said:


> I just focussed on _menos mal que_ because this thread is not about the whole subjunctive mood, and tried to say that I would just learn the syntax. Why? Because in my humble opinion, there can be several explanations for the use of the indicative after this structure. But again, I can understand your need to understand the 'logic' behind it; however, I think that sometimes this is not so clear-cut or just impossible.



Blasita,
Yes, exactly: use logic or general principles where they can help, but always remember that there are times when this won't work/apply.


----------



## juandiego

SevenDays said:


> _Subordination _refers to the linking of two grammatical elements so that they have different syntactic standing, one element being _subordinated _(dependent) on the other, the subordinator, which can stand by itself. In *menos mal que*, "menos mal" is the subordinator and "que" the subordinating conjunction that introduces the subordinated element. "Menos mal," being the subordinator, can stand by itself; it has syntactic _independence,_ just like an independent clause:
> _Ana ya está aquí_
> _Menos mal_
> _Menos mal que ha llegado
> _Pero no:
> _Ana ya está aquí_
> _que ha llegado
> _
> In "menos mal que," there is subordination, and the choice of mood (indicative) is related to the *meaning *of the expression.
> Cheers


Hi SevenDays.

I see your point and I agree: in a way that _que_ introduces a subordinate part.

However, there's no main clause because it doesn't have a verb and, what's worse, cannot have an omitted one because of its nature: The DRAE says _Menos mal_ is an interjection (_locución interjectiva_), thus, that _que_ is only transmitting this interjectional character to the rest of the sentence. At least I, perceive this _transmission_, in a somehow agrammatical construction.

I'm with Peterdg here, in fact, _Menos mal que_ rather works simply as complementing the _subordinate_ clause; it doesn't stand on its own as a main clause, and this is why, it seems to me, the subjunctive is not required.

Regarding its meaning, it's basically the same to (reworded by contrast) _Está bien que / Es bueno que / Es mejor que_, which require the subjunctive in their subsequent subordinate clauses because they do have a verb and are value judgements (as _menos mal que _somehow is), however, as suggested above, completely different from the syntactic point of view.


----------



## SevenDays

_Subordination_ isn't just about clauses. The term "subordination" also applies to any two linguistic elements, one of which has higher syntactic status (can stand on its own). In *the black cat climbed to the top of the three*, the adjective *black* is subordinate to the noun *cat*; the noun phrase *the top of the tree* is subordinate to the preposition _*to*,_ and the preposition + noun phrase *to the top of the tree* is subordinate to the verb *climbed*. Subordination is about the building blocs of a sentence. You can test syntactic status by dropping elements and see what's left behind. I can drop "black" and maintain syntactic structure (*the cat climbed to the top of the tree*), but I can't drop "cat" without undermining the structure and therefore the meaning of the sentence (*the black climbed to the top of the tree ????*). "Cat" therefore has _higher _syntactic status than "black". The same thing happens in _*menos mal que ha llegado*._ "Menos mal" is not a clause, but it has higher syntactic status than "que ha llegado". You can drop "que ha llegado" and maintain structure/meaning. _"Ana ya está aquí_. _Menos mal._" There *is *subordination (of *que ha llegado *to *menos mal*), but subordination doesn't explain the choice of mood. The indicative mood is inherent in the _meaning_ of "menos mal" because it refers to "algo ya conocido".
Cheers


----------



## srb62

juandiego said:


> Hi SevenDays.
> 
> I see your point and I agree: in a way that _que_ introduces a subordinate part.
> 
> However, there's no main clause because it doesn't have a verb and, what's worse, cannot have an omitted one because of its nature: The DRAE says _Menos mal_ is an interjection (_locución interjectiva_), thus, that _que_ is only transmitting this interjectional character to the rest of the sentence. At least I, perceive this _transmission_, in a somehow agrammatical construction.
> 
> I'm with Peterdg here, in fact, _Menos mal que_ rather works simply as complementing the _subordinate_ clause; it doesn't stand on its own as a main clause, and this is why, it seems to me, the subjunctive is not required.
> 
> Regarding its meaning, it's basically the same to (reworded by contrast) _Está bien que / Es bueno que / Es mejor que_, which require the subjunctive in their subsequent subordinate clauses because they do have a verb and are value judgements (as _menos mal que _somehow is), however, as suggested above, completely different from the syntactic point of view.



What about phrases like "Que suerte que......"  or "que bueno que  ......." " que lastima que......"  - would/could these phrases not take the subjunctive?  For example,
"que suerte que hayas llegado" or "que suerte que has llegado".  I thought the former "que suerte que hayas llegado" would be fine?  If this is the case, then I don't see how they differ from "menos mal que" in terms of syntax - they could also stand on their own and seem to carry out the same function.


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> _Subordination_ isn't just about clauses. The term "subordination" also applies to any two linguistic elements, one of which has higher syntactic status (can stand on its own). In *the black cat climbed to the top of the three*, the adjective *black* is subordinate to the noun *cat*; the noun phrase *the top of the tree* is subordinate to the preposition _*to*,_ and the preposition + noun phrase *to the top of the tree* is subordinate to the verb *climbed*. Subordination is about the building blocs of a sentence. You can test syntactic status by dropping elements and see what's left behind. I can drop "black" and maintain syntactic structure (*the cat climbed to the top of the tree*), but I can't drop "cat" without undermining the structure and therefore the meaning of the sentence (*the black climbed to the top of the tree ????*). "Cat" therefore has _higher _syntactic status than "black". The same thing happens in _*menos mal que ha llegado*._ "Menos mal" is not a clause, but it has higher syntactic status than "que ha llegado". You can drop "que ha llegado" and maintain structure/meaning. _"Ana ya está aquí_. _Menos mal._" There *is *subordination (of *que ha llegado *to *menos mal*), but subordination doesn't explain the choice of mood. The indicative mood is inherent in the _meaning_ of "menos mal" because it refers to "algo ya conocido".
> Cheers



Seven Days, 
I'm still not sure about what you say.  I've mentioned already that I thought phrases like "que suerte que " and "que lástima que....." and "que bueno que......" could take the subjunctive.  Also, I asked if it was not possible to say/hear something like "que suerte que hayas llegado", which to me is very similar in meaning to "menos mal que has llegado", as it is an emotional reaction to something already known.   It would be really helpful if you could give me some pointers here, thanks.


----------



## juandiego

SevenDays said:


> [...] The indicative mood is inherent in the _meaning_ of "menos mal" because it refers to "algo ya conocido".
> Cheers


Hello, SevenDays.

I agree that the real sentence is put forward as a subordinate clause by means of the conjunction _que_, specifically as a subordinate noun clause. We also agree that its main part is not a clause. My point is (or was) that the mood in a subordinate noun clause is ruled by the meaning of the main clause, especially by its verb or combination verb plus attribute, and a phrase like _Menos mal_, an interjection without any possible explicit or implicit verb, didn't have the syntactical characteristics to transmit any mood into the subordinate clause.

I'm not sure what you mean with _"algo ya conocido"_. I really don't see any difference in comparison to the expressions Srb62 now brings up (_¡Menos mal! = ¡Qué bien!_), or even to those I did above (_Está bien que_), with respect to this known/unknown matter.



srb62 said:


> What about phrases like "Que suerte que......"  or "que bueno que  ......." " que lastima que......"  - would/could these phrases not take the subjunctive?  For example,
> "que suerte que hayas llegado" or "que suerte que has llegado".  I thought the former "que suerte que hayas llegado" would be fine?  If this is the case, then I don't see how they differ from "menos mal que" in terms of syntax - they could also stand on their own and seem to carry out the same function.



Hello, Srb62.

  Good counterargument, indeed. Yes, they could take the subjunctive in the subordinate clause and, well, despite they are not interjections but exclamations, I feel it's more or less the same. So, the explanation I put forward about that this sort of phrases standing on their own cannot convey mood to their subordinate clauses is not right or should be revised. For this latter, the only argument I can come up with is that for some reason we could perceive that the exclamtional _qué_ is easily replaceable for a copulative verb (_Es una suerte que..._) or that there's an omitted one afterwards in the clause (_¡Qué suerte es que...!_), which is not possible in the _Menos mal_ case perhaps because of its mentioned interjectional character, so we assimilate those former constructions as regular main clauses expressing value judgements but can't do the same in the latter.

 In general, I tend to think that there's always a reason by which we select a specific mood for the subordinate clause, even if it is now a far cry of what originated it, but frankly I'm starting to think that there's no a meaning-related underlying one in this case. New ideas are welcome.


----------



## blasita

juandiego said:


> In general, I tend to think that there's always a reason by which we select an specific mood for the subordinate clause, even if it is now a far cry of what originated it, but frankly I'm starting to think that there's no a meaning-related underlying one in this case. New ideas are welcome.


 Hello Juan. I agree that there's usually a reason for the choice of the mood. However, as I mentioned earlier, this may not be the case. When I was teaching at the Cervantes Institute (short time, it's not my thing), _menos mal que_ was taught just as that: _menos mal que+indicativo_, and full stop. I don't think there's _only_ _one_ explanation or reason for it.

Sorry guys, I know I'm being a spoilsport. By the way, I enjoy reading all the arguments (and I agree with most of them).


----------



## Peterdg

Juandiego and Blasita,

I'm afraid you are both right. This is one of those cases where you just have to accept it is like that because that is how it is used. Period.

There are other examples: why can you use both subjunctive and indicative after _quizás, acaso, tal vez _but only the indicative after _a lo mejor_? (although the NGLE is now less rigid about this statement)

Why does one always use a subjunctive after _después de que _in Spain, while in Latin America they use the indicative if it refers to some passed event?

Why can you use "no sé si venga" in Latin America and in Spain this would sound strange?

Why can they say "me molesta que fumas" in Latin America without any problem and in Spain you would always say "me molesta que fumes"?


----------



## SevenDays

juandiego said:


> Hello, SevenDays.
> 
> I agree that the real sentence is put forward as a subordinate clause by means of the conjunction _que_, specifically as a subordinate noun clause. We also agree that its main part is not a clause. My point is (or was) that the mood in a subordinate noun clause is ruled by the meaning of the main clause, especially by its verb or combination verb plus attribute, and a phrase like _Menos mal_, an interjection without any possible explicit or implicit verb, didn't have the syntactical characteristics to transmit any mood into the subordinate clause.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean with _"algo ya conocido"_. I really don't see any difference in comparison to the expressions Srb62 now brings up (_¡Menos mal! = ¡Qué bien!_), or even to those I did above (_Está bien que_), with respect to this known/unknown matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, Srb62.
> 
> Good counterargument, indeed. Yes, they could take the subjunctive in the subordinate clause and, well, despite they are not interjections but exclamations, I feel it's more or less the same. So, the explanation I put forward about that this sort of phrases standing on their own cannot convey mood to their subordinate clauses is not right or should be revised. For this latter, the only argument I can come up with is that for some reason we could perceive that the exclamtional _qué_ is easily replaceable for a copulative verb (_Es una suerte que..._) or that there's an omitted one afterwards in the clause (_¡Qué suerte es que...!_), which is not possible in the _Menos mal_ case perhaps because of its mentioned interjectional character, so we assimilate those former constructions as regular main clauses expressing value judgements but can't do the same in the latter.
> 
> In general, I tend to think that there's always a reason by which we select a specific mood for the subordinate clause, even if it is now a far cry of what originated it, but frankly I'm starting to think that there's no a meaning-related underlying one in this case. New ideas are welcome.



Hello Juandiego

This is how I see things: _mood _(syntax) is the grammatical representation of _modality _(meaning); or, put another way, _mood/syntax _is the grammaticalization of _modality/meaning_. Meaning comes first; meaning dictates syntax. If we ask, why does "menos mal" take the indicative mood?, the answer is that the _meaning _of "menos mal" requires the indicative and blocks the subjunctive in the subordinate clause. It's that simple. According to Maria Moliner, "menos mal" means "_Exclamación de alivio porque no ocurre o ha ocurrido algo malo_." If something has happened, then it's _factual_, _real_, which can only go with the indicative because the indicative *is *the mood of reality. Here, semantics (meaning) requires the indicative; meaning _governs_ the indicative.

The need to find a syntactic explanation inevitably leads to two misleading assumptions: [1] _there is no subordination, therefore the subjunctive can't be used_ (post #25). But we've already established that there *is *subordination; [2] _"menos mal" doesn't accept or can't be replaced by a verb, therefore there is no verb that could possible govern the subjunctive in the subordinate clause_. This is problematic, because what you are saying is that we should analyze "menos mal" in terms of what's _missing _(a governing verb) and ignore what's _there _(the exclamation "menos mal" itself). I don't think this will do. An explanation rooted in semantics (the _meaning _of "menos mal") is much simpler and doesn't face the difficulties encountered by the syntactic approach. "Menos mal" behaves like "ojalá;" the only difference is that the former requires the indicative and the latter the subjunctive because the expressions _convey _different meanings.

Cheers


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> Hello Juandiego
> 
> This is how I see things: _mood _(syntax) is the grammatical representation of _modality _(meaning); or, put another way, _mood/syntax _is the grammaticalization of _modality/meaning_. Meaning comes first; meaning dictates syntax. If we ask, why does "menos mal" take the indicative mood?, the answer is that the _meaning _of "menos mal" requires the indicative and blocks the subjunctive in the subordinate clause. It's that simple. According to Maria Moliner, "menos mal" means "_Exclamación de alivio porque no ocurre o ha ocurrido algo malo_." If something has happened, then it's _factual_, _real_, which can only go with the indicative because the indicative *is *the mood of reality. Here, semantics (meaning) requires the indicative; meaning _governs_ the indicative.
> 
> The need to find a syntactic explanation inevitably leads to two misleading assumptions: [1] _there is no subordination, therefore the subjunctive can't be used_ (post #25). But we've already established that there *is *subordination; [2] _"menos mal" doesn't accept or can't be replaced by a verb, therefore there is no verb that could possible govern the subjunctive in the subordinate clause_. This is problematic, because what you are saying is that we should analyze "menos mal" in terms of what's _missing _(a governing verb) and ignore what's _there _(the exclamation "menos mal" itself). I don't think this will do. An explanation rooted in semantics (the _meaning _of "menos mal") is much simpler and doesn't face the difficulties encountered by the syntactic approach. "Menos mal" behaves like "ojalá;" the only difference is that the former requires the indicative and the latter the subjunctive because the expressions _convey _different meanings.
> 
> Cheers



Seven Days,
Thanks for your detailed input.
To be honest, I sometimes feel your knowledge and experience is a little too advanced for me, and so I feel at times I'm missing out on something really valuable.
As a result, I'm not fully clear why we say "menos mal que has llegado" but "que suerte que hayas llegado/que lástima que hayas llegado/que bueno que hayas llegado"  - I'm sure it's there and that it's just I haven't fully got it.

One thing that you do now seem to be agreeing on is what Blasita, I and others came to conclude - there are general rules of thumb for the subjunctive, but there are exceptions/contradictions, which simply have to be learned as such.  So I'm glad we're agreed on that!
Thanks again


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

First off, thanks to one and all for contributing to this thread.



Christopher No Lee said:


> the structure of conditional, like the song... If I was a carpenter and you were my lady. With Pret. Imp. or Pluscuamperfecto (Si yo *fuera* carpintero y tú *fueses* mi chica...) (-era & -eses are the same tense).





			
				Christopher No Lee said:
			
		

> And please, correct my poor english English. I'm here to learn too



I believe the lyrics are "If I *were* a carpenter...." In this context (counterfactual situations), AmE uses the subjunctive. This usage has been lost, I am told, in BrE, which would say "was." But this is slipping away from AmE too. Even educated speakers can be heard to say "If I was" instead of "If I were."

Back to the main point of the thread, there are often exceptions to grammatical rules, and the exceptions typically can't be explained through logic. If they could be, they probably wouldn't be exceptions. 

So my take-away from this discussion is that with "menos mal que" always use the indicative. To an English-speaker it is a subjective assessment of a fact, but rather than worry about why it doesn't call for the subjunctive, I will accept it as an exception.


----------



## wanderingk

Agreed. "Good thing that" or "It's a good thing that" most accurately convey this concept. None of the other proposed translations sounded natural to me.


----------



## Mexico RV'er

I've been thinking about <strong>horsewishr's</strong> comment about "Just as well" vs. "It's a good thing" and I have to disagree.&nbsp; For me, they both mean the same thing.&nbsp; In my opinion "It's just as well" indicates a preference for whatever follows rather than indicating that the alternative would have been just as favorable.&nbsp; I think either translation of "menos mal" is acceptable.


----------



## Mexico RV'er

Mexico RV'er said:


> I've been thinking about <strong>horsewishr's</strong> comment about "Just as well" vs. "It's a good thing" and I have to disagree.&nbsp; For me, they both mean the same thing.&nbsp; In my opinion "It's just as well" indicates a preference for whatever follows rather than indicating that the alternative would have been just as favorable.&nbsp; I think either translation of "menos mal" is acceptable.



Sorry, I am having trouble posting and my answer has become jumbled. I don't know why I am experiencing these problems, but rarely do my posts go through and this one is a mess. Let's see if this will post.


----------



## srb62

Mexico RV'er said:


> I've been thinking about <strong>horsewishr's</strong> comment about "Just as well" vs. "It's a good thing" and I have to disagree.&nbsp; For me, they both mean the same thing.&nbsp; In my opinion "It's just as well" indicates a preference for whatever follows rather than indicating that the alternative would have been just as favorable.&nbsp; I think either translation of "menos mal" is acceptable.



I completely agree!!
What's more, even if there were a very slight difference, I don't think it would be too relevant, nor change the main point of the debate.
Having said that, SevenDays is quite adept at picking out subtle differences, so it might be interesting to hear his comments on this.


----------



## SevenDays

srb62 said:


> Seven Days,
> ....
> I'm not fully clear why we say "menos mal que has llegado" but "que suerte que hayas llegado/que lástima que hayas llegado/que bueno que hayas llegado"  - I'm sure it's there and that it's just I haven't fully got it.
> 
> One thing that you do now seem to be agreeing on is what Blasita, I and others came to conclude - there are general rules of thumb for the subjunctive, but there are exceptions/contradictions, which simply have to be learned as such.  So I'm glad we're agreed on that!
> Thanks again



I think we need to say something about "emotion," "judgment," etc. These are _*linguistic *_concepts related to the grammatical representation of the subjunctive, and they should not be confused with the "emotion" and the "judgment" that we  experience _cognitively _with the brain. It is a subtle but important distinction. It is not enough to say that because "menos mal" involves human emotion/judgment, it should go with the subjunctive. At the linguistic level, things work differently; words and expressions have meaning, and meaning can take you in one direction (indicative) or the other (subjunctive), even though both moods, at the cognitive level, involve human emotion. 

"Bueno" and "suerte" have meanings that are _inherently subjective _(bueno =_ a positive judgment of a person or thing_; suerte = _a reaction with surprise)_; the first "que" (un _que_ exclamativo) in "que bueno que," "que suerte que," puts more emphasis, *intensifies* that subjectivity at the lexical level, which opens the door to the use of the subjunctive. From my perspective, in this thread, the subjunctive is _entirely semantic._ Or, put another way, emotions are human; the subjunctive is _lexical._ If it's easier to think in terms of exceptions, that's fine. The only thing is that such exceptions don't come out of the blue; they are always tied to contextual meaning. 

About the English equivalent. "Just as well" means "preferable or advisable;" I'm not sure that I see it _quite _as having the meaning of "menos mal," but I wouldn't argue that too firmly; they are not that afar apart. "It's a good thing" seems closer to the mark, though I would simply say "that's good," or with "well" as intensifier: _Well, that's good._ Then again, we could _just as well _say "_what a relief_."

Cheers


----------



## blasita

SevenDays said:


> If it's easier to think in terms of exceptions, that's fine. The only thing is that such exceptions don't come out of the blue; they are always tied to contextual meaning.


 Me temo que me he perdido un poquito en tus últimos comentarios, Seven. Pero tendré que leerlos más detenidamente.

La verdad es que personalmente no lo trato solo como una excepción. Mi opinión es que la razón del uso del indicativo no es tan clara como en otros casos y que puede haber varias explicaciones posibles (como se ha venido demostrando en este hilo). Por eso creo que, en este caso, es mejor que los que estén aprendiendo el idioma simplemente lo aprendan tal cual: _menos mal que+indicativo_. Lo que no quita en ningún caso que todo esto sea de lo más interesante y útil.

Y si es que quieres decir que el matiz de 'menos mal' puede depender del contexto, estoy de acuerdo. Para mí tiene dos significados _básicos_ (puede traducirse de otras formas dependiendo de la situación en sí): _Thank goodness/It's a good thing_. Tampoco creo que _Just as well_ sea una traducción adecuada en general, pero ¿quién sabe? No tenemos ningún contexto. En fin, ya sabéis que yo soy muy simple. Un saludo.


----------



## juan082937

srb62 said:


> Well, I wouldn't claim to know an awful lot about this and hesitate to get into a debate with a native speaker.  However..............The first thing is that I'm no one hundred percent sure what you're trying to tell me - part of what I was trying to express was what worked for me as a 'learning tool/aid', so anything that anyone else can do to help me with this is welcome.For me  "menos mal que" would translate as "just as well/thank heavens" and therefore an emotional reaction.


*Verbs and words that sound like they would use the subjunctive, but they don't:*

Creer (when used positively)
Menos mal que = It's a good     thing that (this isn't a verb)
Pensar (when used     positively)
Preguntarse = to wonder e.g.     Preguntarse cuándo / si...+ future tense = to wonder when / whether...     Cuándo has an accent because it's an indirect question - Me pregunto     cuándo vendrá = I wonder when they will come, implies the question     "when will they come?" - also preguntarse por qué = to wonder     why e.g. Me pregunto por qué dijo eso
Suponer
*Menos mal que*: It is a *relief f*eeling or satisfaction of something positive  that you thought the worst but  it turned out not as  bad. Menos mal que ya estás aquí porque te hanllamado toda la tarde del hospital Thank goodness we live in Colombia, menos mal que vivimos enColombia.*menos mal* Expresa satisfacción ante el resultado positivo de algo que se esperaba fuera negativo. Menos mal que viniste. Your relief or satisfaction  is out something real that causes that relief or satisfaction


----------



## SevenDays

blasita said:


> Me temo que me he perdido un poquito en tus últimos comentarios, Seven.
> 
> La verdad es que personalmente no lo trato solo como una excepción. Mi opinión es que la razón del uso del indicativo no es tan clara como en otros casos y que puede haber varias explicaciones posibles (como se ha venido demostrando en este hilo). Por eso creo que, en este caso, es mejor que los que estén aprendiendo el idioma simplemente lo aprendan tal cual: _menos mal que+indicativo_.
> 
> Y si es que quieres decir que el matiz de 'menos mal' puede depender del contexto, estoy de acuerdo. Para mí tiene dos significados _básicos_ (puede traducirse de otras formas dependiendo de la situación en sí): _Thank goodness/It's a good thing_. Tampoco creo que _Just as well_ sea una traducción adecuada en general, pero ¿quién sabe? No tenemos ningún contexto. En fin, ya sabéis que yo soy muy simple. Un saludo.



Hola blasita

Sí, como siempre, tienes mucha razón. Solamente trataba de plantear una respuesta a la inquietud de srb62, que, sin pretenciones de ser la última palabra al respecto, quizás sirva de algo. Si lo que queda de todo esto, después de tanto detalle, es que _menos mal que va con_ _indicativo_, pues me parece que estamos bien. 
Saludos


----------



## blasita

Gracias Seven. Ah, seguro que sirve, eso te lo aseguro; un lujo contar con tus comentarios .


----------



## juandiego

Hola a todos de nuevo.

Acabo de encontrar por casualidad un texto sobre estas oraciones interjectivas que se plantean como una subordinada de un elemento no oracional. Os recomiendo que lo leáis, es corto y aborda cosas interesantes. Está aquí. Un extracto relevante:

*Todas estas oraciones presentan un verbo en forma personal y, prácticamente todas, en indicativo*, lo que las aleja de una posible interpretación como oraciones compuestas subordinadas o inordinadas: _¡Si no hay nadie!, ¡Pero si es tardísimo!, ¡Claro que tengo frío!,... _No obstante, no es rasgo obligatorio de este tipo de oraciones la presencia del verbo en indicativo; de hecho, pueden aparecer muchas de ellas en subjuntivo, y algunas con un verbo en forma no personal:​o la aparición del verbo en subjuntivo permitiría no tomar como interjectiva a la oración en cuestión, pues podría tratarse de una subordinada o inordinada encubierta, como comentaremos al hablar del siguiente rasgo: _¡Que Dios te lo pague! = ¡(Deseo) que Dios te lo pague!, ¡Lástima que no tenga más dinero! = ¡(Es una) lástima que no tenga más dinero!_ ​Saludos.


----------



## kotosquito

miklo3600 said:


> Hola:
> 
> Menos mal que te quedes para terminar el trabajo para no dejarlo para después.--*No serIa subjuntivo por lo de que queda en el futuro, el prospecto de quedarse?--Otro ejemplo: Menos mal que vengas el martes para hablar conmigo. ? O es absolutamente esto una invenciOn de mi mente gringa?
> 
> *It's just as well that you stay to finish the work so you don't have to do it later.


----------



## kotosquito

..por lo que valga, yo mismo veo esto de "Menos mal que + indicativo" como una excepciOn a la regla.  Decir que carece de un verbo no me tiene mucho sentido, pues el verbo puede quedar implicado si no dicho abiertamente: "*Es* menos mal que....", exactamente como lo hace en el caso de "QuE bueno *es* que hayas venido."  AdemAs, para mI la cuestiOn de la emociOn no es la Unica: hay opiniones impersonales que, propiamente dicho, no expresan ninguna emociOn, ya que una persona podrIa perfectamente decir "Es importante que vengas..." sin emociOn.  Asismismo, se puede decir "Es obvio que no te gusta estudiar." con mucha emociOn en la voz y en la mente.  Lo que parece importar mAs que nada es que haya alguna asignaciOn de valor mAs allA de que algo sea simplemente la verdad concreta, sin nada mAs.  A mI claramente me parece que "Menos mal que..." sI luce tal asignaciOn y lOgicamente lo deberIa seguir el subjuntivo.

Tal vez el hecho de que en un lugar se usa el subjuntivo y en otro no se pueda explicar por el Enfasis que se aplique: por ejemplo, a veces se oye "Me temo que hemos llegado tarde"--o bien se puede usar el modo subjuntivo y decir "haya".  En el primer caso, se enfatiza el hecho de haber llegado tarde, y en el segundo, la emociOn, lo desafortunado que es llegar tarde.


----------

