Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum Learn REAL Spanish now!  

Go Back   Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum > Spanish Forum > Spanish Basics - Vocab and Grammar Q & A

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21st October 2008, 03:11 PM   #21
tad
virtual idiot
 
tad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: palmers green
Posts: 2,402
Default

I think there're a few people putting words in Marina's mouth - it was her sister Martha talking about her teacher training experiences in England.

This discussion is way above my head but it seems to me that the word 'que' is implied and that if you place it in front of 'se pongan de pie, hagan la fila' to give 'que se pongan de pie, que hagan la fila' you see the subjunctive flavour more clearly.
tad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2008, 05:10 PM   #22
barry
Super Forero
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Costa del Sur. England
Posts: 116
Default

Tads version would make it clearer for learners.

However out of interest, I put the quetion to a practising spanish native teacher of castellano in the Basque country. Here is his answer.

1. Por que ....... comes top as the most widely used in this context .
2. En que ..... a close second in use, but also the grammatically correct version according to RAE.
3. Porque .... not widely used in this context, but nevertheless still used, perhaps in the order of 10%.

Seems like everyone was right !
barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2009, 05:09 PM   #23
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 186
Default

As said, it was "por que" and oral Spanish.

Both 1) and 2) come from actions depicted as things (not desire, not hidden commands).

1.a. "Me da mucha rabia que el vecino toque el piano tan tarde."
1.b. "Me da mucha rabia que el vecino esté tocando el piano a estas horas"
1.c. "¡Cómo se le ocurre tocar a estas horas! ¡Me da mucha rabia!"
1.d. "Ya son las doce y el vecino sigue tocando aunque yo explote de rabia"

I'd like to know how does it work the "emotional hypothesis" with 1.a and 1.d. together.

El vecino toca el piano.
Eso
me molesta.
El vecino toca el piano y eso me molesta.
Me molesta que el vecino toque el piano.

(in bold letters, the "thing")

Also you could try the "known information hypothesis", but it's still a "thing".

2.a "...en Inglaterra hay como una obsesión por que todos los niños se sienten a la vez, se pongan de pie, hagan la fila"
2.b. "...en Inglaterra hay como una obsesión por los movimientos coordinados del alumnado: ponerse de pie al mismo tiempo, sentarse a la vez, formar filas bien rectas..."
2.c. "... en Inglaterra los alumnos se sientan a la vez, se ponen de pie y hacen filas al obsesivo comando de sus maestros..."
2.d. "... en Inglaterra hay como un obsesión por darle a los alumnos órdenes como "¡pónganse de pie!", "¡siéntense!", "¡formen una fila!", y lograr que lo hagan..."

The traditional hypothesis use to work because there are some logical ways for building speech:

When speaking of emotions we tell the things we like, hate, love, etc.
It's difficult to deal with unknown things. Once something is known then you can call it "a thing".
Sometimes, the best way to get things done is just by giving a command, but please don't mix up the action itself with the command given to have it done.

[English student, please forgibb my misteakes]
aleCcowaN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2009, 06:14 PM   #24
delgado
Mega Forero
 
delgado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Sebastián (Bidebieta)
Posts: 377
Default

Changing the subject slightly......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckett View Post
the phrase "para que" is always followed by the subjunctive.

To be grammatically correct yes, but in spoken Spanish that is not always the case , I often hear "por que" and " para que" used in place of each other (perhaps coloquially),especially in phrases like "¿para que has traído esto?" etc.........
delgado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2009, 10:06 PM   #25
gastephen
..es que yo no estoy loco
 
gastephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gales
Posts: 1,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by delgado View Post
especially in phrases like "¿para que has traído esto?" etc.........
Just to be a stickler, that would be ¿para qué..., as opposed to para que...
gastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 03:12 PM   #26
delgado
Mega Forero
 
delgado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Sebastián (Bidebieta)
Posts: 377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gastephen View Post
Just to be a stickler, that would be ¿para qué..., as opposed to para que...

Ok, thanks Graham, I've never actually seen it written (hence my mistake) and only ever heard it said in informal situations.

Just out of interest would it be considered grammatically correct in the example that I previously posted?
delgado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 03:28 PM   #27
gastephen
..es que yo no estoy loco
 
gastephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gales
Posts: 1,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by delgado View Post
Ok, thanks Graham, I've never actually seen it written (hence my mistake) and only ever heard it said in informal situations.

Just out of interest would it be considered grammatically correct in the example that I previously posted?
Yes, I think so. Here's another example: "¿Para qué fue construida la muralla China?", Why (for what purpose, as opposed to for what reason) was the Great Wall built?
gastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 03:42 PM   #28
gastephen
..es que yo no estoy loco
 
gastephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gales
Posts: 1,932
Default

And, by the way, I'm so sure that "para que" is always followed by the subjunctive when in a subordinate clause. Here's an example:

Quote:
Además, estuvieron presentes directivos de Aena, del aeropuerto de Barajas, de Boeing y de la compañía aérea Spanair, que trasladó a 43 familias en sus aviones desde Las Palmas para que pudieron asistir a la ceremonia.

http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/histori...245370605.html
Unless it is a typo, the above is informing us that Spanair took the families in its planes so that they could attend the ceremony, and they were able to.

Had it been pudieran, we would know the purpose of Spanair's action but would be left in suspense as to whether or not the families were actually able to attend.
gastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 06:42 PM   #29
Kralizec
Ací n'hi han dracs
 
Kralizec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: P.Cat.
Posts: 209
Default

It's a typo. It should say "pudieran", missed by a letter.
"Pudiesen" is also an option.

Last edited by Kralizec; 9th January 2009 at 06:45 PM.
Kralizec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 08:04 PM   #30
gastephen
..es que yo no estoy loco
 
gastephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gales
Posts: 1,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
It's a typo. It should say "pudieran", missed by a letter.
"Pudiesen" is also an option.
Aha! Thank you! I was thinking it must have been used there in similar manner to de modo/manera que + indicative/subjunctive.
gastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 08:49 PM   #31
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gastephen View Post
Aha! Thank you! I was thinking it must have been used there in similar manner to de modo/manera que + indicative/subjunctive.
Sure it's a typo. With "pudieron" the whole paragraph is "agramatical" -it doesn't make sense at all-.

Perhaps the latter may be an interesting point because

a. "Lo bueno es que no tenemos que estudiar en verano"
b. "Lo bueno es que no tengamos que estudiar en verano"

are in the real world the same and subjunctive or indicative is chosen mainly by reasons that are external to the inherent information in the sentence. But:

"trasladó a 43 familias en sus aviones desde Las Palmas para que pudieron asistir a la ceremonia"

sounds wrong automatically because you can't tell an action (trasladó) and what was the reason or cause (poder asistir) as if the last were the very action that happened, specially when a "perífrasis verbal" formed with "poder" is involved. In the sentence, "para que" means cause and this claims an explanation, not something happening. Any action that belongs to that explanation use subjunctive in order to set it outside the main stream of the actions in the story -although intentions and reasons within a story are as important as facts, we have to treat them in a different fashion.

An example:

Primero se paró para que lo pudieran ver. Después saludó con la mano porque sabía que no alcanzarían a escuchar su voz. Por último se sento por que no pensaran que estaba intentando opacar al orador.

Actions (main stream): él se paró / él saludó / él se sentó
Explanations and details introduced by: para que / porque / por que (coll.)

All the explanations use different tenses than the one used in the main stream. Subjunctive when required.
aleCcowaN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 08:58 PM   #32
gastephen
..es que yo no estoy loco
 
gastephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gales
Posts: 1,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post

sounds wrong automatically because you can't tell an action (trasladó) and what was the reason or cause (poder asistir) as if the last were the very action that happened
I see (I think )

So, am I right in thinking that de modo que can mean two different things (purpose / outcome) depending on mood, whereas para que only ever means one thing (purpose)?
gastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2009, 09:13 PM   #33
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gastephen View Post
I see (I think )

So, am I right in thinking that de modo que can mean two different things (purpose / outcome) depending on mood, whereas para que only ever means one thing (purpose)?
I think there might be a confusion with

de modo + que (replacing "de" because it follows a subordinate)... = de modo de = reason

and

"de modo que" or "de suerte que" = conjunctional phrase that indicates consequences and outcomes.
aleCcowaN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th January 2009, 11:38 AM   #34
gastephen
..es que yo no estoy loco
 
gastephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gales
Posts: 1,932
Default

Reading a bit more about this in B & B, I was interested to read the following observations on another difference between British and US English.

Quote:

De modo que/de manera que/de forma que may indicate either result or aim, and in the latter case they take the subjunctive. Unfortunately, some varieties of English (e.g. British) in which the subjunctive has virtually disappeared no longer systematically clarify the difference between result and aim in this kind of sentence, so Lo hizo de modo que nadie se enteró and Lo hizo de modo que nadie se enterase/enterara may both be translated 'He did it so no one realized', despite the fact that they mean entirely different things in Spanish.

It seems that North Americans systematically differentiate 'He did it so no one realized (de modo que nadie se enteró) and 'He did it so no one would realize (subjunctive only: de modo que nadie se enterase/enterara).
gastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks
Learn REAL Spanish now!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.