Spanish language learning forums

Spanish language learning forums (http://forums.tomisimo.org/index.php)
-   Grammar (http://forums.tomisimo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Compound Tenses (http://forums.tomisimo.org/showthread.php?t=8629)

laepelba August 02, 2010 07:05 AM

Compound Tenses
 
Okay, I know this question is probably a bit too nit-picky, but it's how my brain works. Thank you for bearing with me! :)

My workbook has a chapter on "The Progressive Tenses". The next chapter is called "Compound Tenses: The Present Perfect and the Past Perfect". In the introduction to the chapter on the "Compound Tenses", it explains that these formas compuestas "consist of more than one verb element ... These tenses are conjugated with a basic form of a verb called a past participle..."

But wait! Aren't the progressive tenses formed with "more than one verb element"? Shouldn't the progressive tenses be included under the sub-heading of "compound tenses"/"formas compuestas"?

Thanks!

Perikles August 02, 2010 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90289)
But wait! Aren't the progressive tenses formed with "more than one verb element"? Shouldn't the progressive tenses be included under the sub-heading of "compound tenses"/"formas compuestas"?

Thanks!

Yes, but you must remember that the book was almost certainly not written by a tidy-minded mathematician with logic as a top priority. I guess they would start off with a structure like a) simple tenses b) compound tenses. Then they write the info for both these. Then they flesh out the simple tenses chapter with another chapter about progressive tenses, thereby confusing the issue.

Perhaps there is a subtle linguistic distinction after all, but it does sound to me like a quibble over taxonomy. :)

laepelba August 02, 2010 07:42 AM

Okay - that's what I was hoping. Just semantics. But one would think that grammar categories ought to be treated in a very objective manner with a mathematical-like approach......

chileno August 02, 2010 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90294)
Okay - that's what I was hoping. Just semantics. But one would think that grammar categories ought to be treated in a very objective manner with a mathematical-like approach......

Unfortunately or maybe fortunately not everybody has a mathematical type of thinking, and that has to be taken in account when a book is written. It is intended for everyone to read it. :)

Lorenzo August 02, 2010 02:00 PM

I get confused with the order of my textbook too. It needs to be written better.

Me confundo con el orden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito mejor.

laepelba August 02, 2010 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chileno (Post 90311)
Unfortunately or maybe fortunately not everybody has a mathematical type of thinking, and that has to be taken in account when a book is written. It is intended for everyone to read it. :)

Yeah. The problem is that those of us with the analytical minds see things as "correct" or "incorrect".......... I feel that the explanation in this introductory paragraph of the textbook is "incorrect" and thus misleading. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorenzo (Post 90336)
I get confused with the order of my textbook too. It needs to be written better.

Me confundo con el orden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito mejor.

Welcome, Lorenzo from Yonkers. I have been out of town since you've joined Tomisimo. Let me tell you that you can ask any questions you want here and there are lots of people who are SO MUCH more personable than your textbook to give you answers. Enjoy!!!

chileno August 02, 2010 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90344)
Yeah. The problem is that those of us with the analytical minds see things as "correct" or "incorrect".......... I feel that the explanation in this introductory paragraph of the textbook is "incorrect" and thus misleading. :)

I am pretty sure they is a simple explanation for the way the material is presented in the book.

But for you, it shouldn't be that simple. :whistling:

Rusty August 02, 2010 05:09 PM

One thing I noted here, and thought I would bring to your attention, is that the book said the compound tenses are formed with the (past) participle. This can't be said for the (progressive), which uses a (present participle).
The compound tenses use a conjugated form of haber, while the (progressive) uses a conjugated form of estar.

In the paragraph above, I deliberately placed certain terms in parentheses. This is because a native speaker of Spanish isn't taught these terms. These are English terms that we try to fit on Spanish parts of speech. The Spanish equivalents for these terms are participio and gerundio, respectively.

The "compound" tenses are formed using haber + participio (Spanish terms used the formula). The 'progressive' isn't ever listed in a conjugation chart. This is because it is neither a "simple" nor a "compound" tense. It is simply known as the gerundio.

The gerundio has nothing to do with the English gerund. (Don't get me started.)

You'll find all kinds of sites (and books) teaching these things wrong.

laepelba August 02, 2010 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 90352)
One thing I noted here, and thought I would bring to your attention, is that the book said the compound tenses are formed with the (past) participle. This can't be said for the (progressive), which uses a (present participle). <---YES! That's why I included that part of the quote...
The compound tenses use a conjugated form of haber, while the (progressive) uses a conjugated form of estar.

In the paragraph above, I deliberately placed certain terms in parentheses. This is because a native speaker of Spanish isn't taught these terms. These are English terms that we try to fit on Spanish parts of speech. The Spanish equivalents for these terms are participio and gerundio, respectively.

The "compound" tenses are formed using haber + participio (Spanish terms used the formula). The 'progressive' isn't ever listed in a conjugation chart. This is because it is neither a "simple" nor a "compound" tense. It is simply known as the gerundio.

The gerundio has nothing to do with the English gerund. (Don't get me started.)

You'll find all kinds of sites (and books) teaching these things wrong.

Okay - that is exactly what I was looking for. So "compound" isn't only about having two verb elements. It is specifically about the use of *haber* as the first of those verb elements and the past participle. Thus, the term "compound" is a tad bit misleading.

It's interesting to me that the progressive isn't considered a "conjugation". It seems to me to be quite parallel to the perfect tenses: estar/haber conjugated in present or past or future tense + gerundio/participle

Hmmmm.....

Well, I definitely won't get you started on the gerundio vs. gerund. I DO understand that they're different ... and am starting to get a feel for when to use the gerundio vs. when to use the infinitive.

Thanks, Rusty!!

Lorenzo August 02, 2010 08:41 PM

Yes, I see. I want to use/enjoy this site and my Spanish books.

Si, veo. Quiero usar/disfrutar esto sito y mi libros de Español.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90344)
Yeah. The problem is that those of us with the analytical minds see things as "correct" or "incorrect".......... I feel that the explanation in this introductory paragraph of the textbook is "incorrect" and thus misleading. :)



Welcome, Lorenzo from Yonkers. I have been out of town since you've joined Tomisimo. Let me tell you that you can ask any questions you want here and there are lots of people who are SO MUCH more personable than your textbook to give you answers. Enjoy!!!


Rusty August 02, 2010 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorenzo (Post 90336)
Me confunde con el órden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito Se necesita escribirlo mejor.

confundirse = to be mistaken/wrong (synonym of equivocarse)
confundirse con = mingle/blend/get confused with

"It needs to be written" is an example of the English passive voice. The passive voice in Spanish is not used nearly as often. Instead, use the 'passive se' construct that appears above.

"Lo" can't be used as a subject pronoun. In the construct I used, the direct object pronoun lo is suffixed to the infinitive. Though awkward in colloquial English, the translation of the construct I used is:
One needs to write it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorenzo (Post 90358)
S*, ya veo. Quiero usar/disfrutar de este sitio y mis libros de español.

"Ya (lo) veo" = I see (in the sense of understanding something)

Ask if you have other questions about the corrections.

chileno August 03, 2010 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorenzo (Post 90336)
I get confused with the order of my textbook too. It needs to be written better.

Me confundo con el orden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito mejor.

Rusty already corrected the first part, but the second one i guess he got confused too.

Se necesita que esté escrito mejor/mejor escrito
o
Necesita estar escrito mejor/mejor escrito.

Rusty August 03, 2010 12:35 AM

I also corrected the second part, chileno. ;)

Perikles August 03, 2010 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 90352)
One thing I noted here, and thought I would bring to your attention, is that the book said the compound tenses are formed with the (past) participle. This can't be said for the (progressive), which uses a (present participle).

My grammar book says
Quote:

the compound tenses for all verbs are formed from the auxiliary verb haber followed by the past participle
This is an interesting statement because I think it is ambiguous and the author is unaware of the ambiguity. I take it to mean either

a) We define compound tenses as those where verbs are formed from the auxiliary verb haber followed by the past participle

or

b) A compound tense is one where the verb is expressed by more than one word. In Spanish, all such all tenses are formed from the auxiliary verb haber followed by the past participle

This is where the lack of clarity arises, because text authors overlook this ambiguity. It is obvious to them that they mean a) and they can't see that a student might understand it as b)

This is called Betriebsblindheit in German - you are so close to the material that you are unaware of your assumptions.

What do you think? Perhaps I'm labouring the point too much, but I do find gammar books very irritating in that they are full of such debatable points. :thinking:

irmamar August 03, 2010 03:56 AM

I think you are confused, grammar is almost rubbing maths. :D

I agree with Rusty. You are studying las formas compuestas de los tiempos verbales, right? Why are you asking about las per*frasis verbales? To me they are quite different concepts, so you'll arrive to study las per*frasis verbales, don't worry. ;)

laepelba August 03, 2010 06:42 AM

@Perikles - I definitely don't think you're belaboring the point too much. It's why I ask such questions. Perhaps only you and I can understand the way my mind might be compelled to do so.... :)

@Irmamar - It's not "worry"... :D I KNOW that I will eventually learn the things I need to learn. When you're a mathematician you are trained to define the terms you use (I'm talking about the definitions of the grammar terms, not the definitions of vocabulary words themselves), and when reading these definitions to pick them apart word for word. I can't *NOT* do so. My confusion has been with the use of the word "compuesta" which, to my mind, is too generic to ONLY refer to "haber + participle". But if that is the definition of that grammatical term, I shall accept it as such. :)

poli August 03, 2010 07:24 AM

Perhaps when you the the word compound verb could be read
as subordinate verb. The verb haber is subordinate to the particple, because the meaning of the verb is in the particple.

There are other verbs such as estar that are can be subordinate in Spanish, but haber is nearly exclusively subordinate (though not completely)

chileno August 03, 2010 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 90391)
I also corrected the second part, chileno. ;)

:):D:lol::lol::lol:

laepelba August 03, 2010 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poli (Post 90408)
Perhaps when you the the word compound verb could be read
as subordinate verb. The verb haber is subordinate to the particple, because the meaning of the verb is in the particple.

There are other verbs such as estar that are can be subordinate in Spanish, but haber is nearly exclusively subordinate (though not completely)

Hmmmm..... :thinking::thinking: ... interesting....

irmamar August 03, 2010 11:05 AM

Yo hablar*a de "verbo auxiliar", más que de "verbo subordinado". ;) :)

laepelba August 03, 2010 11:09 AM

Pero .... ¿Comó es "haber" un verbo auxiliar aunque "estar" no es...?

(Please know that I completely realize that we are "arguing" about semantics here....)

irmamar August 03, 2010 11:22 AM

Ser and estar are also verbos auxiliares. But they don't form compound forms in verbal tenses, but per*frasis verbales. :)

poli August 03, 2010 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90425)
Ser and estar are also verbos auxiliares. But they don't form compound forms in verbal tenses, but per*frasis verbales. :)

Ahora estoy confudido. No veo. No veo una gran diferencia entre la funcion de haber y estar en los siguientes frases: He salido y Esoy saliendo. Los dos verbos parecen auxiliario pero ¿estoy saliendo es un perifrasis verbal:thinking:?

This is why linguistics classes at school alway drove me crazy. I think there is a point where I stop understanding. Everyone has their limits I suppose.

laepelba August 03, 2010 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poli (Post 90431)
Ahora estoy confudido. No veo. No veo una gran diferencia entre la funcion de haber y estar en los siguientes frases: He salido y Esoy saliendo. Los dos verbos parecen auxiliario pero ¿estoy saliendo es un perifrasis verbal:thinking:?

This is why linguistics classes at school alway drove me crazy. I think there is a point where I stop understanding. Everyone has their limits I suppose.

And THAT is why I was asking these questions. Again, I believe that in the end it's all about semantics, right?

Perikles August 03, 2010 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poli (Post 90408)
Perhaps when you the the word compound verb could be read
as subordinate verb. The verb haber is subordinate to the particple, because the meaning of the verb is in the particple.

I see the point, but haber is the only finite part of the verb, so you also argue that the non-finite part, the participle, is (grammatically) subordinate to it :). I think this is not getting us anywhere, because as far as I know, haber is always known as the auxiliary verb in these constructions. Other languages such as French and German use to have and also to be as auxiliary verbs in the active voice, depending on the participle.

laepelba August 03, 2010 12:18 PM

<<<....wondering how in the world a tiny little question I asked has turned into such a huge *discussion* about semantics...>>>

Perikles August 03, 2010 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90435)
<<<....wondering how in the world a tiny little question I asked has turned into such a huge *discussion* about semantics...>>>

Well, that's the fun of turning over a stone - you never know what you may find underneath. :D:D

But seriously, it highlights the problem that terminology in languages is problematical.

laepelba August 03, 2010 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perikles (Post 90437)
But seriously, it highlights the problem that terminology in languages is problematical.

:thumbsup:

Perikles August 03, 2010 01:09 PM

It must be the heat - I could not see the 'problem' until you changed its colour. Sorry - color. :)

chileno August 03, 2010 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorenzo (Post 90358)
Yes, I see. I want to use/enjoy this site and my Spanish books.

Si, ya/lo veo. Quiero usar/disfrutar este sitio y mi libros de Español.

:):):)

laepelba August 03, 2010 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perikles (Post 90447)
It must be the heat - I could not see the 'problem' until you changed its colour. Sorry - color. :)

Oh, really? I was certain that you had written it like that on purpose. ("hab*as escrito" o "hubiste escrito"....)

CrOtALiTo August 03, 2010 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90460)
Oh, really? I was certain that you had written it like that on purpose. ("hab*as escrito" o "hubiste escrito"....)

Is hubiese escrito:)

Did you want to mean that?

irmamar August 04, 2010 02:56 AM

When you are studying verbs, you're studying "conjugación verbal", all the forms a verb is able to show depending on some categories (tiempo, persona, número, modo, aspecto, etc.). Verbal compound forms belong to that "conjugación", and they are formed with "haber".

"Per*frasis verbales" are two verbs together working as a unity. One of the verbs is conjugated, the other is a non-personal form (infinitivo, gerundio o participio), with a link (preposition, conjunction) or not. For instance: tener que hacer (tengo que hacer, tienes que hacer, etc.), deber salir (debo salir, debes salir, etc.), estar + haciendo (estoy haciendo, estás haciendo, etc.). Verbal compound forms are also "per*frasis verbales" (he comido, has hecho, etc.). But when you study those "per*frasis" you have already studied conjugation, so you will learn that verbal compound forms are a kind of per*frasis and you don't need to learn them, because you already know them. There are a large quantity of "per*frasis" divided into some types, but you can use many verbs in a non-personal form, while the conjugated ones are not so many (estar, haber, tener que, ir a, andar, seguir, dejar, ser, etc.).

Similary, passive voice is also a "per*frasis verbal", but you won't study passive voice with "per*frasis", since it deserves a separate lesson (like verbal compound forms). When you study "per*frasis", you'll be told that passive voice is a special kind of per*frasis, but you'll already know it. ;)

In English I have studied continuous forms of verbs while I was studying another tenses, but I have never done that when studying Spanish. I guess the reason is that we don't have a "presente continuo" or a "pasado continuo" (and when I hear those terms, I'm sure that they are anglicisms), we use that sort of "per*frasis" instead. Well, they are grammar matters. :)

chileno August 04, 2010 08:35 AM

Irma:

I think this explanation will satisfy Lou Ann's mathematical mind perfectly.

irmamar August 04, 2010 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chileno (Post 90578)
Irma:

I think this explanation will satisfy Lou Ann's mathematical mind perfectly.

Sure? :lol: :lol: :lol:

laepelba August 04, 2010 09:15 AM

Okay, you two, sometimes it scares me when people I've never met know me so well. LOL!! Thanks for that in depth explanation, Irma. I still don't like it ... but can live with it. :)

irmamar August 04, 2010 09:25 AM

I'm sure you'll be able to understand it. I've been told that I have a logical mind, too logical even. But grammar and the way of learning it is not a problem for me. ;) :D

laepelba August 04, 2010 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90611)
I'm sure you'll be able to understand it. I've been told that I have a logical mind, too logical even. But grammar and the way of learning it is not a problem for me. ;) :D

Oh, I KNOW you have a logical mind. That is why I'm always SO glad when you jump in with answers to my nit picky grammar questions. In fact, I typically ask them with you in mind. :) It's not that I don't understand. I just don't like it. I think I need to go work on some Algebra.... ;)

irmamar August 04, 2010 09:38 AM

Why don't you like it? It's beautiful like a bright white flower in a green field (algebra is not like this, by the way). :D

laepelba August 04, 2010 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90620)
Why don't you like it? It's beautiful like a bright white flower in a green field (algebra is not like this, by the way). :D

My dislike is just because I don't see such a huge difference between "estar + gerundio" and "haber + participio".

Given that I DO understand ALL of these explanations, and that I CAN accept them, I will choose to live with my "dislike" of this one tiny point, because I KNOW that it will NOT hamper my ability to learn to speak Spanish. :) Thanks for all of your contributions!!

chileno August 04, 2010 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90623)
My dislike is just because I don't see such a huge difference between "estar + gerundio" and "haber + participio".

Given that I DO understand ALL of these explanations, and that I CAN accept them, I will choose to live with my "dislike" of this one tiny point, because I KNOW that it will NOT hamper my ability to learn to speak Spanish. :) Thanks for all of your contributions!!

I am sorry now, am I missing something here?

Your dislikes :

Estoy comiendo = I am eating

He comido = I have eaten

Again, am I missing something with the grammar terms?

I know Rusty's gerund.....

uh uh, too late... I got him started... :rolleyes:

irmamar August 04, 2010 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90623)
My dislike is just because I don't see such a huge difference between "estar + gerundio" and "haber + participio".

Given that I DO understand ALL of these explanations, and that I CAN accept them, I will choose to live with my "dislike" of this one tiny point, because I KNOW that it will NOT hamper my ability to learn to speak Spanish. :) Thanks for all of your contributions!!

Usually I find your posts very difficult to read, since almost always there are some word(s) that I don't understand. "Hamper" is the word in this one. So, I've just learnt a new word. I don't understand your posts, but working with them, at last I am able to. So, at the same time that I try to understand, I learn something. That's the basis for a good learning: understanding. ;)

laepelba August 04, 2010 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chileno (Post 90626)
I sorry now, am I missing something here?

Your dislikes :

Estoy comiendo = I am eating

He comido = I have eaten

Again, am I missing something with the grammar terms?

I know Rusty's gerund.....

uh uh, too late... I got him started... :rolleyes:

No, you're not missing anything. If you look at my original question, I have issues with the use of the word "compound" ONLY with the tenses that use "haber + participio". By my idea of the word "compound", it should also include "estar + gerundio". But, as it has been explained in this thread (over and over again), it is simply not so. My "dislike" is the IL-logic of the use of the word "compound" when to me there isn't such a difference between the two constructions. That's all. I want "compound" to include any and all verb constructions that use more than one verb element. But they don't. End of story. I didn't make the rules. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90628)
Usually I find your posts very difficult to read, since almost always there are some word(s) that I don't understand. "Hamper" is the word in this one. So, I've just learnt a new word. I don't understand your posts, but working with them, at last I am able to. So, at the same time that I try to understand, I learn something. That's the basis for a good learning: understanding. ;)

Wow, Irma - but your English is SO good, it never occurred to me that there would be things that you don't understand. "Hamper" is a good word. I don't know if a lot of people use it, but I like it, so I use it a lot. Thank you SO much for going out of your way, so often (!!), to understand my posts!! Your input has directly helped my learning of Spanish SO MUCH!! :D

Perikles August 04, 2010 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90638)
I have issues with the use of the word "compound" ONLY with the tenses that use "haber + participio".

Just having a look at a few Google hits for "compound verbs Spanish" tells me that this expression is used exclusively for "haber + participio". That seems to me to be the definition of compound (although I find it arbitrary and annoying). My grammar book defines "more than one word to express a verb form" as periphrastic, so that compound verbs are a subset of periphrastic ones. Periphrastic ones include

Estar + gerund
Llear + gerund
Tener + past participle

and presumably also things like the passive voice with estar.

So I think that when you think compound you should be thinking periphrastic for those forms which trouble you. It is just a matter of definition. :)

irmamar August 05, 2010 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laepelba (Post 90638)

Wow, Irma - but your English is SO good, it never occurred to me that there would be things that you don't understand. "Hamper" is a good word. I don't know if a lot of people use it, but I like it, so I use it a lot. Thank you SO much for going out of your way, so often (!!), to understand my posts!! Your input has directly helped my learning of Spanish SO MUCH!! :D

Thanks for the compliment, but I think that your English is really good (not only because you are a native), but for the job you give me when I'm reading your posts :D . For instance, today I have had to look up for the word "banter". I would have used "joke" instead. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perikles (Post 90642)
Just having a look at a few Google hits for "compound verbs Spanish" tells me that this expression is used exclusively for "haber + participio". That seems to me to be the definition of compound (although I find it arbitrary and annoying). My grammar book defines "more than one word to express a verb form" as periphrastic, so that compound verbs are a subset of periphrastic ones. Periphrastic ones include

Estar + gerund
Llear + gerund
Tener + past participle

and presumably also things like the passive voice with estar.

So I think that when you think compound you should be thinking periphrastic for those forms which trouble you. It is just a matter of definition. :)

Yes, that's what I tried to say (although I think I didn't get it :thinking: ). And what you call "periphrastic" are those "per*frasis verbales". I tried to give an explanation of the reason, but I realise that I wasn't able to. :sad:

laepelba August 05, 2010 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90762)
Yes, that's what I tried to say (although I think I didn't get it :thinking: ). And what you call "periphrastic" are those "per*frasis verbales". I tried to give an explanation of the reason, but I realise that I wasn't able to. :sad:

That IS what you said ... and I understood it when you explained ... and I understand it a little better now. Like I said, it makes sense to me. I simply dislike it. :)

Perikles August 05, 2010 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90762)
Yes, that's what I tried to say (although I think I didn't get it :thinking: ). And what you call "periphrastic" are those "per*frasis verbales". I tried to give an explanation of the reason, but I realise that I wasn't able to. :sad:

Yes you were quite able, I was just confirming what you said because I wasn't sure either. :)

irmamar August 05, 2010 04:39 AM

¡Ah, bueno!, ¡menos mal! :D


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Forum powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.