View Single Post
Old 22nd March 2009, 01:00 AM   #110
Forero Senior
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 59

Lozano's and Campillo's approaches are not necessarily incompatible or mutually exclusive. Lozano's approach is a syntactic based one, outlining the general patterns observed depending on the sytactic function of the subordinate clause, which can potentially be in subjunctive. Campillo's approach is an operational one, and it focuses on understanding why the subjunctive is triggered in any case.

The first approach covers a lot of ground, but it gives a different rule for every structure, and in many cases, just a recipe of usage with no justification. I have entire books that use this approach, and as more complex structures and situations arise, the number of rules increase dangerously. For example, I have a 400 pages book only on the subjunctive with adverbial clauses (there are other books on noun and adjective clauses), and it would take time just to count how many rules they come up with in the whole book. To make things worse, it is not that difficult to conceive with a twisted example where this huge amount of disconnected rules doesn't apply.

Here is where Campillo's approach is useful, because no sentence seems to escape its logic (except in a couple of archaic fossilized structures), and all apparent exceptions make perfect sense. The syntactic based approach is actually a convenient way of reviewing and practicing all (or most) typical structures to actually put Campillo's declaration principle to good use, because we can make sense of each usage in every structure as we explore them while we practice. The declaration rule provides the logic, and the syntactic approach provides a structured approach to illustrate the rule working.

My advice: use the pragmatic and structured approach used by Lozano's materials, and make sense out of each case using Campillo's.
lazarus1907 is offline   Reply With Quote