I’ve been watching a show on Netflix (Club de Cuervos) and there’s a scene where a character says to another “no pensé que ibas a venir”. I’ve understood that ‘no pensar que’ is one of the phrases that triggers the subjunctive mood (in this case the past subjunctive). My best guess would’ve been that the sentence should’ve been “no pensé que fueras a venir”. Can someone PLEASE explain this to me? Perhaps it’s one of those sentence structures where either works but with a nuanced meaning? Thank you! :)
Hello,
I have a questions regarding this topic, as we're studying this in my Spanish class, and I just wanted to clarify the topic.
From my understanding, for Adjectival Clauses (Adj.Cs), should I use the indicative ONLY if there is no change of subject AND if the Adj.C deals with something that is completed/habitual/factual?
My question is, whether a Adj.C has to meet BOTH criteria at the same time in order to use the indicative. So a for a sentence like:
"My friends always make me toast before they go to the beach" would this be, something like:
"Siempre mis amigos me hacen tostada antes de que van a la playa."
But if this happens:
"My friends always make me toast before I go to the beach" would this sentence then be something like:
"Siempre mis amigos me hacen tostada antes de que yo vaya a la playa"
Thank for you the help, you're doing me a big boi favor to flavor town!
Hey there /r/Latin,
I've been reading through the Vulagte for some extra reading practice (which I'd highly recommend, especially if you have any Romance langage background. It's a magnificently simple text), and I've noticed a few verb forms that seem to be subjunctive pluperfects, but I can't find them listed in any reference source.
An example is in Numbers 11:2
>Cumque clamasset populus ad Moysen
I'm guessing that clamasset is just a contraction of clamāvisset, but I haven't been able to actually find a reference to this being a thing that happens (granted I haven't looked too deeply). Further supporting this is the very obvious ressemblance to imperfect subjunctive forms in Spanish and French, but I wanted to ask just to make sure.
People commonly use phrases like "I wish I was" instead of "I wish I were" in English, does this extend to native Spanish speakers?
I've been teaching myself English for the last 4 or 5 years probably, basically just by watching and reading a lot of stuff (I already had a pretty solid foundation of English grammar that I studied mainly in middle school). Last year I spent something like 3 weeks in London and my CEFR level should be something like C1 so I feel like I'm quite advanced. Anyway, I've been learning a bit of Spanish lately (since I'm an Italian native speaker), mostly thought the LanguageTransfer course, and the teacher, Mihalis, while explaining the subjunctive mood in Spanish, made a few example about how English has a subjunctive mood as well, and I'd like to learn more about it and how to use it properly and consciounsly, thank you in advance!
I'm trying to express something like "It's interesting that although X, Y," where X and Y actually happened. Like "It's interesting that although John hated Mary, she adored him." So this is a case where aunque should itself not trigger the subjunctive.
My question is whether I need the subjunctive on either X or Y (or both) because of Es interesante que. I've been staring at this stupid sentence too long and am losing my instincts (which are not native anyway).
To make matters worse, It's interesting is in the present tense, but X and Y occurred in the past.
Wisdom welcome.
I've been trying to brush up my latin, partly by reading some of the Vulgate. In Mark 2:16, it says "Et scribæ et pharisæi videntes quia manducaret cum publicanis et peccatoribus, dicebant discipulis ejus." Why is the subjunctive "manducaret" used here? Subjunctive was always rough for me, and I'm having trouble finding a reason for it here.
Ok guys, I know you use subjunctive for something that is definitely contrary to fact. "If I were a boy, I would..." when I'm a girl.
I also know you use the regular (indicative?) for something that is definitely in line with fact. "Well, if he wasn't home, then he wouldn't have seen the note."
But what about when you're using a legal conclusion? I would hope that a defendant's lawyer could use it persuasively, like "If he were guilty..." but if it's a question that's up in the air, it's not necessarily contrary to fact, so Plaintiff's lawyer could also say "If he was guilty." Is this off base? Should we always be saying "If he was guilty"?
I think you also would maybe want to use subjunctive when arguing in the alternative "Even if he were guilty, then..." but my question is asking for a broader situation.
Thanks for any help you can provide. I'll also ask my legal writing professor but I'm wondering what you guys think.
εὰν δὲ τὸ σὸν, μὸνον οιηθης σὸν ειναι, τὸ δὲ αλλὸτριον, ωσπερ εστὶν, αλλὸτριον.
(Sorry about not including all the punctuation, I haven't figured out how to include some of it yet.)
This sentence confuses me, particularly the aorist passive subjunctive οιηθης (to think, suppose) with the infinitive ειναι. I want to translate that section as "you may be thought to be only yours" since it is passive, but the translations I have checked translate this in the active like "But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is," (Carter) or "but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another's, as it really is, belongs to another" (Long). Why don't they translate the passive as something like (if translating literally) "but if it (the concern) is yours, you may be thought to be only your own, but if it (the concern) is someone else's, just as it really is, it (the concern) belongs to someone else." What am I missing about the aorist passive subjunctive?
After reading up on the rules of the use of the subjunctive, I am confused by the use of eussiez in this sentence:
Vous eussiez dit un cheval de régiment entendant le son de la trompette.
Shouldn't this be the conditional here? What's the rule used? If I search for eussiez in Linguee there's lots of translations as "you might have" or "you would have"
Hey all, just wanted to run something quick by you: is the following sentence grammatical?
>It is important that you be working when the inspector arrives.
In other words, is a combination of the progressive aspect with the subjunctive mood acceptable in English? Even if it is a rather rare construction.
Thanks a bunch!
In Bad Bunny’s song “Si Estuviesémos Juntos,” the chorus goes:
Y me pregunto qué hubiera pasado Si estuviésemos juntos Aún enamorados
I understand this to mean: “And I ask myself what would have happened if we were still together, still in love (enamored).”
But I didn’t think you could use past subjunctive in “would have” situations. Why can you use “hubiera” in this lyric and not “habría”? Can you freely use past subjunctive with other past subjunctive words in one phrase to talk about what could’ve happened in the past?
Lo que le estoy diciendo es que puede ser que las gambas no estuvieran a su gusto, lo entiendo. Pero que me diga usted, que en restaurante, que tiene más de 120 años, me diga que yo le he servido las gambas duras. Rodrigo, yo por ahí no paso.
My best guess is that it's an omission of ''El hecho de''
Edit:
Someone in another forum managed to help me
> The use of subjunctive derives from the main clause, in your example "yo por ahí no paso". You could rewrite the sentence to something like "Yo no acepto que me diga que yo he servido gambas duras", in which case the subjunctive follows from "yo no acepto que", and "yo por ahí no paso" has more or less the same meaning as "no acepto". I guess the difficulty in your example is that the subordinate clause comes before the main clause, which makes the use of subjunctive less obvious, but the construction *"Yo por ahí no paso que me digas" is impossible. >
Me mandó un texto una amiga que dice: "Claro con gusto ya tenga la posibilidad de hacerme tiempo así charlamos ok." Lo que quiero preguntar es ¿Por qué usó tenga y no tengo? Más o menos, la usó en lugar de "cuando".
I just finished reading the tenth "Inspector Mascarell" book by Jordi Sierra i Fabra (Diez días de junio). It was excellent and topical, revolving around a case of recurrent child sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The book contained an apparently aberrant use of the subjunctive in an adverbial clause: Le detuve en 1936 después de que un niño se SUICIDARA por su culpa. I've always followed (and taught) the rule stated by Bowdoin as "Use the indicative if time conjunctions do not refer to the future (actions in the past or in progress, known facts, habits)." So why did the author here use the subjunctive here?
I’ve been learning Spanish for about 5 years and the fricking subjunctive always gets me. I know all the rules and get grammar excersises right, but whenever I speak I have natives correcting me left and right because I didn’t use the subjunctive or used it wrong. Like apparently me gusta que haces eso is wrong even though you’re stating a fact and it goes against all rules of the subjunctive and i just don’t get it. Am I just doomed or is there some way to actually learn how to use it?
Verbs expressing a wish or a desire are followed by the subjunctive:
> Je souhaite que tout aille bien.
> Il veut qu'on lui obéisse.
Nevertheless, the verb "espérer" (= to hope), which falls right into this category, is normally followed by the indicative:
> J'espère que tout va bien.
> J'espère contre tout espoir que le gouvernement finira par se rendre compte qu'il ne peut tout simplement pas se soustraire.
Why is this?
The only plausible reason I could find (if anyone knows a better reason, please let me know in the comments), is that it's a remnant from the past. In the past, so the argument goes, "espérer" was a synonym for "s'attendre" (= to expect). For verbs expressing a non-judgmental opinion, belief or expectation, such as "penser", "croire", "s'attendre", it is normal to be followed by the indicative. Despite the shift of meaning, "espérer" kept holding on to the indicative, which would have made sense in the past, but not today.
ADDENDUM
(A) A few comments below that I find helpful:
- This one shows that in some cases there is a semantic explanation for the use of the indicative after "espérer" vs the subjunctive after "souhaiter".
- This one made me wonder about other languages. In every Romance language that I've checked, the verb that is cognate to "espérer" is followed by the subjunctive: the Spanish esperar, the Protuguese espero, the Italian sperare, the Romanian spera (p. 468), and likely also the Latin spērāre (though in the latter case I wasn't able to verify this explicitly).
- Thanks to this one, I was encouraged to check in a dictionary for the historic mea
I was trying to express to a friend that i'd take the T home from their house. If I were certain, I could have said "The T will have stopped running", but as I'm unsure as to what time I'll actually be taking the T home I wanted to say that I would or may take the T home if it's still running.
So how would you correctly construct "The T (may will have stopped) running"?
Do you get what I'm trying to ask?
I am trying to understand a little more about the subjunctive. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on it, bit I just want an idea of what goes through the mind of a native speaker when they hear something grammatically incorrect such as "Estoy feliz que eres mi amigo." Yes, I know "seas" is correct, I want to know why eres "feels" wrong.
Another example I suppose would be "Espero que estés pasando un buen día." I know estás Is wrong, but how would it sound to you if I said "Espero que estás pasando un buen día?"
I feel like new Spanish learners are often taught ONLY the rules of when to use the subjunctive, and don't have a good grasp of why it exists. I want to get a better understanding of what goes through a native's mind when they use it. Are you all usually taught rules of the subjunctive, or does it give off a different feeling for you all?
Edit: I know "seas" is correct, I want to know how it sounds to a native when the indicative is used instead.
I know that subjunctive is generally used to express doubt or uncertainty in an action being completed. What I don't understand is if I should also use subjunctive to describe actions that I believed were true in the past, but that I know at present are not true (and vice versa).
For example - Imagine my boyfriend leaves the house and, at the time, I think he is going to the grocery store, but I later find out that he actually went to a doctor's appointment. Once I know where he really went, how would I say "I thought he went to the store, but he went to the doctor."
- Do I use the indicative? (Creí que él fue a la tienda pero de hecho fue al doctor.)
- Or should I use the subjunctive because I know with certainty at the time of saying this sentence that he did not really go to the doctor? (Creí que él fuera a la tienda pero de hecho fue al doctor.)
Another example- my boyfriend goes to the store, but I didn't tell him that we ran out of milk, so I don't think he will buy milk. However, when he comes home, I find out that he actually did buy milk. How can I say "I didn't think you would buy milk."
- Should I use the subjunctive, since I am saying "no creí-- , "No creí que fueras a comprar leche."
- Or, since I know that in reality he did buy milk, should I use indicative - "No creí que ibas a comprar leche" )
edit- I just asked a native speaker from Venezuela if "No creí que hacían este tipo de concursos" sounded correct (we are talking about a type of competition that I did not believe existed until I saw evidence of it just now) and he said it sounds good. Can any other native speakers please let me know if you agree?
I'm taking the French teachers' test (USA - NES from Pearson) next week and need to prioritize what to memorize.
Help me choose which verbs to memorize in subjunctive & conditional!!! Maybe 6 of each? I always relied on my 501 Verbs book for these.
Also, anyone have a resource you like for phrases that demand either verb tense? Of course I know "si" for conditional & phrases like "je souhaite que" for subjunctive, but a list would be handy.
I need help trying to understand some of the grammar techniques used in these song lyrics I am trying to translate for myself.
>Que no me quieres tu, no quierer decir,
>que no me quiera yo, que no crea en mi,
>siempre queda por dar, preparada estoy,
>invencible soy, invencible soy!
>Si te sientes mejor deseandome,
>que me vaya peor, que cuando te ame
>adelante al rencor, preparada estoy,
>invencible soy, invencible soy!
-
My first question is if "no quierer decir" is suppose to be "no querer decir" and it was a typo; however, everywhere I check online spells it the same.
-
Second is why is the subjuctive used, specifically in lines 2 and 6? What is the trigger?
-
Does the "que" used at the beginning of just used as an exclamatory remark and not meant to be directly translated?
-
Why is it "invencible soy" and not "soy invencible"? Is there a method between choosing which one to use or is it whatever the songwriter felt?
I think that is all the questions I have regarding this lyrics. I have found that it is extremly challenging to try and translate song lyrics.
Here is a link to the song for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhgsRjSh6_8
I’ve heard it’s mostly obsolete nowadays aside from in literature, but are there any spanish-speaking countries or areas that still include it in their dialects?
I think it is incredible.
I sometimes struggle with it (mostly because I accidentally use the indicative instead of the subjunctive conjugation, because I thought I was using the subjunctive), but I remember when it clicked (during Christmas time actually) and it just made sense.
Now I absolutely love the subjunctive because everything makes more sense: in conversations, TV shows and movies and much more.
The world feels like a better place with the Subjunctive and it feels like as if you unlocked a new weapon or area in a game.
I get so happy when I hear and understand the Subjunctive being used: in conversations I hear, when I use it in my conversations or on TV/movies.
Or am I just weird and I find Spanish Grammar incredibly fascinating?
Reading a linguistic paper on Spanish, it is pointing out that the use of the subjunctive has been changing over time. In cases where subjunctive is applied to a sub-clause to make agreement with a parent clause it is now required, but in the past the indicative could be used to give a different meaning. So for the below, 1 is allowed but 2 is not, while in the past 2 would have been allowed with a different meaning:
- (Te ordeno / Te prohibio / Te conviene / Deseo) que lo hagas!
- (Te ordeno / Te prohibio / Te conviene / Deseo) que lo haces!
Do any native speakers disagree that 2 is not meaningful? Can any native speakers explain the difference in meaning, historically or currently?
UPDATE: adding source: "Las construcciones subjuntivas en español: del subjuntivo modal al subjuntivo sintáctico" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332179756_Las_construcciones_subjuntivas_en_espanol_del_subjuntivo_modal_al_subjuntivo_sintactico?enrichId=rgreq-68468f8d60ae5128a094f9702a94fd0e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMjE3OTc1NjtBUzo3NDM1OTQxODA3NTEzNjJAMTU1NDI5ODA3NjQ5NQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
Hi, I have a question about the past subj.
If you say "no creo que (past)" e.g. "I don't believe I went there", would it be "no creo que fuese/fuera allí", or "no creo que fui allí"? I've heard the second one more, but surely no creo que should make it the past subjunctive?
Is it acceptable to use the subjunctive mood in the complement clauses of nouns that are semantically related to uncertain events (probability, demand, desire, etc.)? If so, is there any difference between the interpretation of (1) and (2)?
(1) The desire that he be successful is very widespread
(2) The desire that he's successful is very widespread
Im having trouble understanding the difference in usage of the conditional and subjunctive perfect tenses, since they both translate to "he/I/they would like"
for example:
adónde quisieran ir vs adónde querrían ir for where would they like to go
quisieras comer vs querrías comer for would you like something to eat
hay alguien que quisiera hablar contigo vs hay alguien que querría hablar contigo for there is someone who would like to speak with you
thank you, Im really having difficulty with this.
Extended Barrel / Fluted Barrel
AP Rounds / Ricochet Rounds
Quickdraw
Surrounded
Range Masterwork
I'm an Italian native speaker and I'm trying to learn some Spanish, since it's really similar to italian both in terms of phonetics and grammar and it's much more spoken around the world. I'm going through the LanguageTransfer course though, and right now I'm listening to the lessons about the subjunctive mood, which I noticed being kinda different from Italian. Which are the main differences between Italian and Spanish in this specific regard? Gracias por su respuestas por adelantado!
As an English speaker I am having tons of trouble understanding the conditional and the imperfect subjunctive in certain circumstances.
A tiny bit of this confusion was cleared up (and maybe this will help someone out there) when I learned that a phrase like "You told me you would come to my party" is actually TWO separate concepts in Spanish. In Spanish this may be the conditional: "Me dijiste que vendrías a mi fiesta" (which refers to the future, You told me you would come to my party next week) OR the imperfect-subjunctive: "Me dijiste que vinieras a mi fiesta" (which refers to the past, You told me you would come to my party but you didn't show up).
For the folks that have mastered both the conditional & imp. subjunctive do you have any tips?
I have recently become aware of the near ubiquity of sentences constructed as “if I would have [past participle], I would have...” In my experience, it is strikingly common among English speakers of all classes, regions, and educational levels. Am I right in my sense that this phenomenon is becoming more common - or am I just hearing it more because I’m sensitized to it? Am I being too bleak, or is the language ‘evolving’ toward a new standardization in which the past subjunctive is a dying archaic variant?
Do you use voseo in a subjunctive clause with similar modification like in non-voseo Spanish?
For example:
Espero que tu puedas
Espero que vos podás (???)
The second seems like it would make sense as a hybrid when trying to follow rules of both subjective and voseo, but obviously something working in theory isn't the same as it actually being applied in real communication.
Can someone explain why “decir” is conjugated in the subjunctive form? I have Do Not Disturb turned on when I drive and it sends a message to someone if I’m driving and they text me. This is what it says: No estoy recibiendo notificaciones. Si es urgente, envíame un mensaje que diga “urgente” para que me llegue una notificación con tu mensaje original.
I know llegar is subjunctive because it follows “para que.”
Please enlighten me on which one is better. Forget the other better smgs. I love bad reputation. It's what I have besides riskrunner and I love it. But I got subjunctive and everyone says it's better but it doesnt feel as good as bad reputation. So tell me what you think and know, thank you. Also I see how much damage and how fast subjunctive is but its stability is ass and that's not okay
