la diferencia entre los verbos venir e ir

[gramatica]

Hola a todos:

¿Me pueden decir si esto está correcto, por favor?

-Ven acá=Come here
-Ya voy=I'm coming y no ya vengo ni vengo pero otra persona puede decir "ya viene"=she's coming y no se diría "ya va" ¿no?

Dos personas hablan(están hablando) en persona

-¿Puedes venir al evento?=Can you come/go to the event?/¿Vienes al evento?=Are you coming/going to the event?
-No, perdón, pero no creo que pueda (venir)=No, sorry, but I don't think I can come

Dos personas hablan(están hablando) por teléfono

-¿Puedes ir al evento?/¿Vas al evento?=Can you go to the event?/Are you going to the event?
-No, no puedo ir (al evento)=No, I can't go (to the event)

(en persona)
-¿Puedes venir/ir a la escuela o estás demasiado enfermo?=Are you going to school or are you too ill/sick?

¿Hay una regla de cuándo se usa "venir" y cuándo se usa "ir" en casos así?

Fue al evento/vino al evento=She went to the event/she came to the event

Muchas gracias

[Tomisimo]

Originally Posted by gramatica

-Ven acá=Come here
-Ya voy=I'm coming y no ya vengo ni vengo pero otra persona puede decir "ya viene"=she's coming y no se diría "ya va" ¿no?

Dos personas hablan(están hablando) en persona

-¿Puedes venir al evento?=Can you come/go to the event?/¿Vienes al evento?=Are you coming/going to the event?
-No, perdón, pero no creo que pueda (venir)=No, sorry, but I don't think I can come

If they're talking in person, and they are not at the location where the event will take place, it would be:

¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento? No creo que pueda ir.

If the two people where talking on the phone, and the person doing the inviting was at the location where the event will take place, then they would say:

¿Puedes venir? ¿Vas a venir?

But the other person would still say:

No creo que pueda ir.

Originally Posted by gramatica

¿Hay una regla de cuándo se usa "venir" y cuándo se usa "ir" en casos así?

There´s actually a really simple rule for ir and venir:

When the location of the person doing the talking is not the same as the destination being discussed, they should use ir.
When the location of the person doing the talking is the same as the destination being discussed, they should use venir.

1. Someone knocks on the door and I shout from the other room "I'm coming". I need to use ir because my location (the person speaking) is not the same as the destination (the door), so I say "Ya voy".

2. I'm at home and I call someone to invite them over. Use venir because my location (the person who's speaking) is the same as the destination being discussed (my home). ¿Quieres venir a mi casa? Te invito a mi casa.

3. I'm in my car and someone calls me from their home, inviting me to come to their house. The invitation would be with venir, because the person doing the speaking (inviting) is at the location being discussed. they would say: ¿Quieres venir a mi casa? I would respond with ir, since the destination is not the same as my present location (since I'm now doing the speaking). "Si, voy a tu casa.".

I hope that clears it up.

This exact same rule works for llevar / traer as well.

When speaker's location = destination being discussed, the speaker will use venir & traer, otherwise they will use ir & llevar.


NOw you can try out this rule on a bunch of examples and post them here, and we'll see if you get them all right. Once you get your head around this rule, it's really not that hard.

[gramatica]

Thank you very much

¿Te parecen bien estos ejemplos?

In person:
(informal)-¿Me puedes traer un paquete de servilletas, por favor?
(formal)-Sí, ya se las traigo.

In person:
-¿Qué llevas al evento?/¿Qué quieres llevar al evento?/¿Qué vas a llevar al evento?
-(Llevo cualquier cosa,) no me importa. ¿Qué quieres que lleve?

(en otro sitio aparte de él del evento)
-¿Vas al evento?
-Sí (yo voy)

(en casa, a punto de irse al evento o en el carro enfrente del evento)
-Ya es muy tarde, ¿vienes?
-Sí, ya voy

-¿Qué lleva/trae la pizza/le ponen a la pizza?
-Lleva/trae

Thank you very much

[Alfonso]

Tomísimo, I think yours is a superb explanation and a great attempt to find a rule, but it lacks the idea of companionship that these two verbs, venir and traer, can convey.

Originally Posted by Tomisimo

If they're talking in person, and they are not at the location where the event will take place, it would be:
¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento? No creo que pueda ir.

Actually, in the same context, you can use either one of these, but they convey different meanings:

• ¿Puedes venir al evento? ¿Vienes al evento?
• ¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento?

(In Spanish it's neither common nor colloquial the word evento, although not incorrect).

And the difference between these phrases is not the place in which the person who is doing the talking is, but the fact that if he or she is going to the event or not.

• Vienes a la fiesta? (Yo también voy).
• Vas a la fiesta? (Yo no voy).

The same works for traer / llevar.

[Marsopa]

Thanks for the additional comment on ir/venir a la fiesta. It was a great addition to David's really great rule.

It seems like it has to do with where the speaker is imagining himself to be--either at the party (vienes?) or at home (vas?)

That is a really subtle and interesting difference.

thanks,

Marsopa

[gramatica]

Muchas gracias a todos

En este caso, es igual de correcto preguntar ¿Qué lleva el sándwich? que ¿Qué trae el sándwich?

Alfonso,

A few small corrections:

Tomísimo, I think yours is a superb explanation and a great attempt to find a rule, but it lacks the idea of a connection between these two verbs, venir and traer (that can be conveyed/expressed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisimo
If they're talking in person, and they are not at the location where the event will take place, it would be:
¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento? No creo que pueda ir.

Actually, in the same context, you can use either one of these, but the have/convey different meanings:

• ¿Puedes venir al evento? ¿Vienes al evento?
• ¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento?

(In Spanish it's neither common nor colloquial the word evento, although not incorrect).

And the difference between these phrases is not the place in which the person who is doing the talking is, but the fact that if he or she is going to the event or not.

• Vienes a la fiesta? (Yo también voy).
• Vas a la fiesta? (Yo no voy).

The same works for traer / llevar.

Muchas gracias

saludos

[Alfonso]

Marsopa, yes it's a subtle difference, but it's everyday Spanish. Any Spanish speaker will use it that way without thinking about it.
I agree with you, it's got something to do with where the speaker imagines to be.

Gramática, thanks a lot for your corrections! I understand all of them, except this one: but it lacks the idea of a companion between these two verbs, venir and traer that can be conveyed.

I guess from your correction that you can not only choose between two things, but also add between two things.

And I guess it's also possible: it lacks the idea of a companion these two verbs can convey. But I don't know why is it neccesary the article a for an abstract noun.

What would you say? To convey the idea of Love or to convey the idea of a Love? (I'm referring to Love in general terms, as an abstract).

Originally Posted by gramatica

En este caso, es igual de correcto preguntar ¿Qué lleva el sándwich? que ¿Qué trae el sándwich?

Yes, both of them are correct. But they convey subtlety different meanings, mainly depending on intonation and context (pragmatics).
I would say that ¿Qué trae el sandwich? is more easily converted into an ironic sentence. You're not very sure you will like the sandwich, or you are sick and tired of eating always the same thing. Of course, the same sentence said with a sincere and frank smile will not have any sarcastic meaning.

Corrections are welcomed.

[gramatica]

Hi,

Gramática, thanks a lot for your corrections! I understand all of them, except this one: but it lacks the idea of a connection between these two verbs, venir and traer that can be conveyed.

I guess from your correction that you can not only choose between two things, but also add between two things.

And I guess it's also possible: it lacks the idea of a companion these two verbs can convey. But I don't know why is it neccesary the article a for an abstract noun.

Corrections are welcomed=corrections are welcome

Isn't it the same in Spanish? ¿No se dice "le falta la idea de una conotacion/conexcion entre estos dos verbos (que se puede expresar)"=it lakes the idea of a connotation/connection between these two verbs (that can be expressed/conveyed)

Espero que te sirva

Regards

[Alfonso]

Thanks a lot, Gramática, but I didn't say anything about connection between two verbs, but about the idea of companion that these two verbs can convey.

Originally Posted by gramatica

Isn't it the same in Spanish? ¿No se dice "falla en la idea de una (connotación/) conexión entre estos dos verbos (que se puede expresar)"= it lakes the idea of a connotation/connection between these two verbs (that can be expressed/conveyed)

Espero que te sirva

Regards

So, what I meant, I don't know if rightly expressed or not, is that both verbs can convey the same idea of companion, what is the lack I found in David's rule.

The phrase you wrote in Spanish would be: [La regla] falla en la idea, que se puede expresar, de conexión entre estos dos verbos, but it doesn't make too much sense to me.

Anyway, I think I found the way of the sentence: the rule lacks the idea of companion that these two verbs can convey. Is it right?

[Rusty]

Perhaps this would work: The rule lacks the idea of companionship that these two verbs can convey. That there are two people involved, in a companionship (one accompanying the other), is what I think you're trying to say.