hasta que sin el subjuntivo?

[gastephen]

Originally Posted by gastephen

In 1, I didn't kill my brother, and it was because he was my brother. But in 2, I did kill him, but for some other reason.

Can anyone explain what is going on here? i.e. what 'rule' is operating, or how the difference in meaning can be clarified in terms of 'declaración' or any other model.

Reading a bit further in Lozano, I've found that this construction is explained there with this example:

8.a. No salgo con Mike porque es muy guapo
8.b. No salgo con Mike porque sea muy guapo.

PORQUE + INDICATIVE --> CAUSE

PORQUE + SUBJUNCTIVE --> NEGATION OF CAUSE, AFFIRMATION OF MAIN VERB

In b. the speaker is not 'declaring' the proposition in the subordinate clause as it is not the reason for the main action. (It might actually be true or false, but that is irrelevant.)

[aleCcowaN]

Interesting...

About these examples:

No lo maté porque fuera mi hermano.
No salgo con Mike porque sea muy guapo.

or something more "every day"

No lo compré porque estuviera de oferta.

"porque" is a conjunction that means "cause"

Those sentences follow a very common pattern that involves subjunctive: one part of the sentence is true and the other part of the sentence can be also true but not as the cause of the first one. As subjunctive depletes all the "doing" capacity in a verb but leaves the "being" part of the verb, so to speak [The theory that tells that subjunctive has to do with no-actions], then subjunctive here strips off any ability of "estar de oferta" to operate, then becoming "unreal" as the cause of "comprar".

So "comprar" and "estar de oferta" can't be real when one action is the cause of the other one. Certainly the product can "estar de oferta" but the reason for buying it is another one. Then, the "no" affects the relation between both parts and affects "porque" (the causation), not the first action ("lo compré"). In some way the "no" togheter with "estuviera" deny the causal relationship between both parts.

Other ways to say that are:

Lo compré, pero no porque estuviera de oferta.
No es cierto que lo compré porque estaba de oferta.

[gastephen]

Bien dicho.

[gastephen]

Por si acaso interesa a alguien, os doy mi resumen:

Lidia Lozano: Hacia una única explicación del subjuntivo aplicado a la adquisición de E/LE

Lozano’s aim is to explain all uses of the subjunctive in terms of the concept of non realisation. The article — running to 30 printed pages — is in two parts: Part 1 deals with contexts in which only the subjunctive is possible; Part 2 with those where either the subjunctive or the indicative are possible but with different meanings.

A large number of examples are presented and analysed. In both Parts the examples are grouped according to the type of clause containing the verb in question: noun phrases, adjective phrases, adverb phrases, and independent clauses.

As each example is discussed it is shown to belong to one of four general categories put forward to characterise all uses of the subjunctive:

• Use 1: Action unrealised at the time of the main action. Hypothetical action.
• Use 2: Presupposed (already known) information.
• Use 3: Negation of antecedent or subordinate action.
• Use 4: Not committing to the truth of a proposition.

Having explained all the examples in terms of these four categories, Lozano goes on to say that the key concept is that the subjunctive conveys the idea of non realisation.

It seems clear that Uses 1 and 3 relate to non realisation. For uses 2 and 4, it is said that these involve actions ‘not realised through the act of speech’ (???).

It is also noted that it is important to consider the appropriate syntactic structure, the semantic content, and also the pragmatic issues involved in each case. Or, put another way, the selection of mood can depend not only on the explicitly stated meaning, but also on the particular type of construction used and also on the intent of the speaker and the situational context.

In addition to the above, here are a few points I noted from the article:

• Subjunctive is required in certain subordinate clauses not because the main verb expresses desire, need, obligation, possibility, etc, etc, but because the subordinate action is hypothetical, not yet realised.

• Use of the future indicative can imply intention.

• Present subjunctive can express a hypothetical future.

• Both the subjunctive and the indicative can express varying degrees of possibility (e.g. the use of the ‘suppositional’ future).

• The conditional can also be used to express the idea of non realisation (i.e. in its use to refer to a hypothetical future in the past), but a certain syntactic structure is required for this (coordinated clauses, rather than a subordinate one).

• In ‘comment’ contexts, the new information (el rema) is the comment itself (in the indicative). The speaker is not interested in presenting the subordinate information as new and important, but as already known (el tema) and less important: hence the subjunctive.

[gastephen]

I asked José Ruiz-Campillo about how the "cuando se ponga el sol..." type of sentence would be accounted for within the framework of his declaración model. In case it is of interest to anyone else, here is what he says about this:

En mi modelo, todas las tradicionalmente llamadas cláusulas adverbiales (modo, tiempo, cantidad, lugar) son matrices que responden a la lógica local del contexto 3, es decir, funcionan exactamente igual que las clásicas relativas con antecedente del clásico tipo “una estudiante que habla / hable ruso”. El caso temporal es, eso sí, el más complicado de todos. En primer lugar, no puede ser despachado con la regla de que necesitamos siempre el subjuntivo (hay muchos ejemplos en el segundo artículo que te referí y en esta página 194 del tipo “Cuando tú vuelves (en marzo), yo me voy”, donde es imposible el subjuntivo de la “regla”). En segundo lugar, para entenderlo es necesario, otra vez, desligar la realidad “objetiva” de la lengua: la decisión de usar indicativo o subjuntivo en el contexto 3 (especificación de entidades) no responde a lo que “objetiva” o “realmente” sé o no sé, sino a si quiero, o puedo, presentar lingüísticamente la entidad (en este caso, el tiempo) como identificada. Cuando surge la lógica pregunta:



¿Por qué subjuntivo en “Cuando se ponga el sol” si yo puedo tener perfectamente identificado el momento, con hora, minutos y segundos?



la respuesta que yo tengo es la siguiente: no importa si yo lo tengo identificado o no en mi cabeza, lo que importa es si quiero marcarlo o no como identificado gramaticalmente para mi oyente. Lo normal, en este tipo de cláusulas, en cualquier lengua, es que la identificación del momento no importe realmente. Lo único que importa es ligar un acto en el futuro con una declaración: “Cuando se ponga el sol, me acuesto” significa que voy a acostarme en sincronía con la puesta de sol, sea ésta cuando sea, es decir, NO IMPORTA CUÁNDO se ponga. Si cambiamos el predicado, alejando el distractor que supone pensar en un hecho universal y recurrente, se verá más claro: en



“Cuando llegues, me acuesto”



debemos interpretar que esta persona se acostará en sincronía con la llegada del otro, NO IMPORTA CUÁNDO LLEGUE. Alguien puede saber, por ejemplo, perfectamente, cuándo llegará el otro, pongamos a las 9:30, porque siempre llega a esa hora, pero esto no importa, porque lo que queremos decir con esta frase no es que nos acostaremos a las 9:30 (para eso está “Me acostaré a las 9:30”), sino que nos acostaremos a la llegada del otro. Una prueba de ello es que el que dice esto no se va a acostar a las 9:30 si el otro no ha llegado. Si el otro llega a las 11:00, entonces me acostaré a las 11:00, y el enunciado “me acostaré cuando llegues” sigue siendo verdad, a pesar de que yo tenía perfectamente (aunque equivocadamente) identificado el momento. Es más: si me acuesto a la hora identificada al pronunciar la frase (las 9:30), ¡habré mentido!

[gastephen]

PS: He also mentioned that he intends to include this forum in the grammar course (“The Spanish Grammar: from Rules to Laws and Beyond”) that he teaches at Columbia.

[gastephen]

Originally Posted by gastephen

In an interview, Ruiz Campillo briefly touches on the question of the choice of mood in conditional statements with regards to 'declaración'.

He says that in terms of teaching Spanish in the classroom this is an area that is simply not worth fully explaining, as the cost/benefit ratio is too high. The simple rule for this restricted context is easy to memorise; and the full explanation is too abstract and time consuming.

He does mention in passing, however, that "the operator si frees mood from any 'declarative' responsibility."

There is another more recent article by José Plácido Ruiz Campillo about the subjunctive as non-declaration here:

http://www.marcoele.com/num/7/02e3c0...subjuntivo.pdf

This one has a section specifically dealing with conditional si, in which he puts forward the hypothesis that it can be thought of as a special-case matrix or operator.

Whereas with all other cases, the ‘modal meaning’ of the matrix dictates the mood of the subordinate verb, the si operator serves to open a ‘mental space’ for hypothesis, in which the choice of mood is no longer bound to the speaker’s modal attitude. This then leaves it free to operate within the mental space to distinguish the degree of possibility.

There are two type of si conditional: ‘real’ (real) and ‘unreal’ (irreal). In the former the condition is considered to be possible or realisable; in the latter, not realised in the past or unrealisable or improbable in the present or the future.

e.g.

(real) Si nieva, podrás hacer un muñeco de nieve.

(unreal) Si fuera rico, viajaría por todo el mundo.

According to Ruiz Campillo, the use of non-present forms (e.g. the imperfect subjunctive in standard Spanish, and also the conditional and imperfect in certain variants) serves to set the condition at a distance, marking its possibility as being more remote.

In standard usage, the use of the subjunctive adds further distance between real and unreal conditions.

The declaration of the condition can thus be interpreted as a marker of greater possibility, and its non-declaration as one of counterfactuality.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by gastephen

Whereas with all other cases, the ‘modal meaning’ of the matrix dictates the mood of the subordinate verb, the si operator serves to open a ‘mental space’ for hypothesis, in which the choice of mood is no longer bound to the speaker’s modal attitude. This then leaves it free to operate within the mental space to distinguish the degree of possibility.

While I was in high school, they used to consider conditional as an independent mood (the "potential mood") and subjunctive in conditional clauses as "subjunctive mood". One score later, I came to the fact that they consider conditional as a part of indicative mood, and recently, that many consider subjunctive in conditional clauses to be an indicative use of subjunctive conjugations (there are other uses of subjunctive as indicative mood). I think that use is lying half way between indicative and subjunctive, explaining why it has "survived" and now is regarded as correct the use of pluperfect subjunctive as conditional when the condition is completely set in the past and history can't be rewritten ("si hubiera tenido el dinero lo hubiera comprado inmediatamente, pero ya es tarde").

Regarding all the rest of Ruiz Campillo's work, I consider it valuable as it provides great insights and carefully thought explanations, examples and counter-examples, even with a touch of humor

- ¿Te parece irreal que esté aquí?
- No, no, me parece evidente que ESTÁS aquí.
- Entonces te das cuenta de que ESTOY
realmente aquí, ¿no?
- Sí, ya sé que ESTÁS aquí, lo que no sé es por
qué insistes tanto en que ESTÁS aquí.
- Bueno, es que el autor me lo ha pedido

But I still consider the approach in Lozano's article as useful -if not even better- as Ruiz Campillo's. I think that the examples in 16 and 25 (quite) "están poniendo la regadera lejos de los malvones", so to speak. In 29, my opinion is that both "declaran". Some of Ruiz Campillo's examples are better explained with Lozano's approach. That's the case of

- Ya sé que ERES (*seas) mi hermana, y por eso estoy dispuesta a ayudarte en
este lío. Solo hay una cosa que te pido a cambio.
- ¿Qué es?
- No quiero que tu novio ENTRE y SALGA de mi habitación ni TOQUE mis cosas.
- ¿Eso hace?

where the sister clearly wants the boyfriend not doing a list of things.

This slippery creature subjunctive hasn't yet found its "unified field theory", no matter all the ink rivers that have been wasted in its behalf. I insist on the main problem is that a native speaker acquires subjunctive in different ages and mental stages: the full role of subjunctive as do-not-do and don't(do-not-do) and other vanilla-approaches are fully working even when the raising native speaker hasn't yet reached the age for his brain to fully understand that conservation laws take priority over what your senses perceive.

[gastephen]

I like his touch of humour too.

— No me gusta que grites.
— ¡Pero si yo no grito!
— Yo no he dicho que grites, he dicho que no me gusta

[lazarus1907]

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.