Adjective + que + noun/subject pronoun + subjunctive/infinitive

[laepelba]

Okay, so I'm working through an "Advanced Spanish Grammar", obviously (I believe) written by a native Spanish speaker (based on the occasionally awkward English...). It's probably a bit beyond my ability, but I'm really trying to grasp as much of it as I can anyway.....

In the chapter on adjectives, there are several sections on adjective constructions. The one that I have questions about is like this:
adjective + que + noun/subject pronoun + subjunctive

There are several examples given:
Es importante que él se haga miembro.
No es justo que ella viva aquí.

Then they say that sometimes you can arrange the structures as follows, but not always, in this form: adjective + para + noun/subject pronoun + infinitive:
(1) Es bueno para ella nada mucho.
(2) No es conveniente para ti hacer eso.

The "not always" example is given as INcorrect:
(3) Es extraño para ella hacer eso.

I don't understand why #1 and #2 are correct and #3 isn't ... they seem exactly the same to me. What is the difference? Can you give me some more examples of correct vs. incorrect sentences of the same construction?

[Rusty]

In number 1, 'nada' should be 'nadar'.

I agree that there appears to be no difference between the three examples, but your book said that there are "some adjectives" that "don't sound natural with para and an infinitive." That is the key - it doesn't sound natural.

Even though you and I can't see why, a native speaker says that it is a mistake to use the extraño + para + noun/subject pronoun + infinitive construction.
The native speaker, by the way, has confused a subject pronoun with a prepositional pronoun. That's why ti was used instead of tú in the one example. That's also why mí would be used in this construction instead of yo.

It doesn't sound natural. (It doesn't sound right.)
We native English speakers refuse to use certain word combinations (collocations). If a non-native speaker uses an odd collocation, we say it doesn't sound right, no matter the fact that the grammar is correct.

All this said, I'm pretty sure native speakers use that construction. So, I conducted a search on the internet and found over 8,500 hits to support my case.
Here are just a few:

Bello dijo que fue bastante extraño para ella hacer una cinta ...

ES ALGO EXTRAÑO PARA ELLA HACER UN NUEVO DISCO COMPLETAMENTE EN ESPAÑOL, PARA ESO ESTÁ TOMANDO CLASES ...

Era algo extraño para ella hacer eso a mano cuando no muy lejos poseía un buen ordenador ...

era completamente extraño para él hacer esa clase de cosas en un lugar ...

¿No crees que es extraño para ti hacer estas cosas?

es extraño para nosotros hacer dos diferentes juegos de la
misma serie ...

No es extraño para nosotros hacer un análisis de lo acontecido ...

Es muy extraño para mí hacer dos goles en otros tantos partidos ...

era extraño para mí hacer cosas como esa ...

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

In principle I agree that there is nothing wrong with "es extraño para ella hacer eso", but perhaps it's the slight nuance in the sentences point of view what doesn't match...

Es extraño que ella haga eso. -> The speaker feels she's having a strange behaviour.
Es extraño para ella hacer eso. -> She feels strange doing that.

No es extraño para Juan competir en carreras. -> Juan usually competes in races and is used to them.
No es extraño que Juan participe en carreras. -> The speaker knows that Juan usually competes in races.

Es muy extraño para mí hacer dos goles... -> I'm not used to making two goals (either I usually make more or I make less.)
Es muy extraño que yo haya hecho dos goles... -> Something beyond my control made me make two goals.

I'm not happy with "¿No crees que es extraño para ti hacer estas cosas?", since I'd prefer "¿No crees que es extraño que hagas estas cosas?". Still, one may say "para tu comportamiento usual, es extraño que hagas estas cosas", where "para" compares what someone's usual behaviour is and what is strange in the things he/she is doing now.

[laepelba]

Thanks to both of you!!! These answers are helpful. (Rusty - it looks like you have my book.... )

[Rusty]

Escrito originalmente por laepelba

Thanks to both of you!!! You're welcome!
(Rusty - it looks like you have my book.... )

No, I just found it online.

[laepelba]

Okay, still working on this concept. I'm still trying to get a feel for *when* to use "(como) para que" with the subjunctive vs. when to use just para + infinitive. The following were from the exercises at the end of the chapter. Of course, the instructions said to rewrite all of the sentences using "(como) para que", but the book's answers didn't all use "(como) para que". (sigh.....)

2) Original sentence given in the book: El coche es demasiado viejo. No podemos hacer un viaje largo con él.
The book's answer: El coche es demasiado viejo para hacer (o: para poder hacer) un viaje largo con él.
Could this also have been: "... para que podamos hacer un viaje ..."? What would be the difference in meanings?

6) Original sentence given in the book: Ana es demasiado ambiciosa. No se contentará con tan poca cosa.
The book's answer: Ana es demasiado ambiciosa para contentarse con tan poca cosa.
Could this also have been: "... para que se contente con ..."? What would be the difference in meanings?

8) Original sentence given in the book: Ese médico es demasiado viejo. No operará a nuestro hijo.
The book's answer: Ese médico es demasiado viejo para operar a nuestro hijo.
Could this also have been: "... para que opere a nuestro hijo"? What would be the difference in meanings?

Thank you all SO much!!

[aleCcowaN]

All of them are OK. With subjunctive, it sounds a bit more informal and it focuses in each specific situation. With infinitive, it is a bit more formal and categorical, as if it is a general rule. Then the only difference is showing which is the speaker's concern.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

@Lou Ann: Remember previous explanations on "same-subject"+subjunctive and "different subject"+infinitive.

[laepelba]

So in #6 and #8, it seems that the have the same subject. Got it - that makes a lot of sense. But in #2, I thought the subject in the first part was the car and in the second part was "nosotros"....?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Hmmm... true... but I think in this case, "nosotros" is being used instead of an impersonal sentence (which I'd find better) like "no se puede hacer un viaje tan largo en él". I guess that's why "para poder hacer un viaje..." doesn't sound so strange.