Oraciones Sustantivas: Contradicción de las reglas gramaticales

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by BenCondor

"Por atrevidos que sean, no van a ganar" Here we use the subjunctive because the narrator (implicit person reporting clause) is not saying that "they" are in fact daring. Maybe none of them are daring. Or maybe all of them are daring. The narrator is not claiming to know. He is simply saying no matter how daring they may be they are not going to win..

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

It doesn't work that way, that's why it's important to forget all the uncertain, feeling, opinion, etc business.

-Ellos son muy inteligentes, del pirmero al último. Han sido sometidos a exámenes científicos y un panel de expertos los declaró extraordinariamente inteligentes.
-No lo dudo, pero por más inteligentes que sean ésta no la van a descifrar

The speaker is saying that there is no possible reality where they are intelligent and they decipher the riddle by intelligence. In fact, given the context the phrase "por más inteligentes que sean" acknowledges that they are intelligent indeed, but for the sake of deciphering that riddle, they are not. It's not a matter of "they are not enough", a frequent patch used to keep the "feelings, uncertainty, yada, yada" CliffNotes-like lists.

For somebody viewing Spanish from the perspective of English, I would say that BenCondor has got it right. I'm not saying for one minute that Alec is wrong, but his explanation is not designed for clarity. For example, irrespective of context, the expression "por más inteligentes que sean" (at least in English) makes no acknowledgement whatsoever about anything. It can't, because the verb is not in the indicative mood. It is a hypothetical conjecture. In fact, Alec's explanation leads to the conclusion that it is hypothetical.

Alec starts his post with

It doesn't work that way, that's why it's important to forget all the uncertain, feeling, opinion, etc business.

but in my view Ben has simply described the hypothetical nature of the subjunctive mood. This the nature of the subjunctive mood, and in general terms with clear differences in application, this is how it does work, at least how I have seen it work in English, German, Welsh, French, Latin and Greek. I don't see why Spanish should be viewed differently.

[aleCcowaN]

All sounds good until you find that people, even illiterate ones, spending a great deal of their time speaking in hypothetical terms for an amazing variety of reasons, which includes "no creo que venga" but "creo que viene", and also includes "lo que importa es que hoy no trabajamos" and "lo que importa es que no trabajemos" being both the same. I'm sick of reading in web forums the after-the-fact tailored explanations made by English natives about what a Spanish speaker says. You may not perceive how ridiculous it appears when you try to explain what a real poster said in a thread by giving an interpretation of his or her use of subjunctive, typical ones being «he said "lo que importa es que no trabajemos" because he became somewhat speculative» or «she said "no creo que venga" because in fact she is not sure about it, but if she had said "creo que no viene" she'd be».

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

You may not perceive how ridiculous it appears when you try to explain what a real poster said in a thread by giving an interpretation of his or her use of subjunctive, typical ones being «he said "lo que importa es que no trabajemos" because he became somewhat speculative» or «she said "no creo que venga" because in fact she is not sure about it, but if she had said "creo que no viene" she'd be».

That is a valid point, but the ridiculous nature is an outcome of an incorrect explanation as above. The subjunctive is used for instances which are not covered by the indicative, and this is often just convention rather than logical. These conventions are quite language specific, but there is considerable overlap so that some features are shared by lots of languages, others not (impossible hypothetical conjecture being the most commonly shared).

Each language has its native grammar experts which can explain why their subjunctive is logical and as it should be. I've read explanations from a German as to why the subjunctive is used in indirect speech, and it makes total sense. Not much use when learning Spanish.

I'm just guessing when I say that the problem stems from the inheritance of a highly complex verb system from Indo-European which has been simplified. But each daughter language has simplified different aspects and developed new ones. As one example, Spanish took over Vulgar Latin subjunctives (in which the optative mood had already been absorbed into the subjunctive) then proceeded to invent a future subjunctive before dropping it. Modern Greek is a simplified version of Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek has imperative moods in three distinct tenses, with subtle differences. No modern language has kept this (?I think).

The point I'm making (if anyone is still reading ) is that wherever an indicative seems inadequate for some reason, a subjunctive is used as the alternative catch-all mood which might have been some other mood thousands of years ago. It follows that an explanation for a subjunctive cannot necessarily have watertight logical explanations to satisfy a foreigner, whereas every native grammarian can convince themselves otherwise but is not able to express that with sufficient clarity for a foreigner. Others may well disagree.

[aleCcowaN]

Perikles, among languages dead or alive that you are familiar in any degree, do you know of another one that has opposition of moods similar to this:

creo que viene / no creo que venga
ve / no vayas

?

The problem here is also the wrong notion of that, being something logical, it can be explained in words.

[JSK]

Originally Posted by BenCondor

Probably the most effective test is to ask: "Is the clause in question considered an actual fact by the person reporting the clause? If so, use the indicative. Otherwise (grammar permitting) use the subjunctive"
[...]

I really tried that today with the exercises and it actually helped a lot. Really, in most cases. Except for some rare situations like this:
1. Sentí que (tu, no llegar) ___________ a tiempo.
2. Sentí que alguien (llamar) __________ a la puerta.

I know that the word sentir has two meanings, being sorry and being slightly aware of something. The first requires Subjunctive, the latter requires Indicative mode. Therefore, I chose Indicative for the 2nd sentence, because it doesn't make sense to say sth. like "I was sorry that someone rang the doorbell."
But what's with the first sentence? Theoretically I can express regret: I was sorry that you didn't make it on time. Or just about the idea: I felt that you wouldn't make it on time.
I chose the second version (Indicative, llegabas) and I was said to be wrong with this decision. Like, definately and doubtlessly wrong. WRONG wrong.
What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

[...]
The speaker is saying that there is no possible reality where they are intelligent and they decipher the riddle by intelligence. In fact, given the context the phrase "por más inteligentes que sean" acknowledges that they are intelligent indeed, but for the sake of deciphering that riddle, they are not.

Right. So this action of intelligence not happening is the reason for why they're not going to solve the riddle and this is the reason for why we use Subjunctive here.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

It's not a matter of "they are not enough", a frequent patch used to keep the "feelings, uncertainty, yada, yada" CliffNotes-like lists.

I personally never learned sth. like this if it interests you. And I'm glad because it's unevident. Whether something is enough, or too less, or more or less is really so speculative... it would require a whole new mode, apart from the subjunctive, to express that one. And nobody would want THIS to happen....
Yet, your example with the scientists is what BenCondor put forward and also what you told me at the very beginning. The mode changes into subjunctive because the speakers transports the question of happening/not happening, being/not being, be a fact/be a may be - call it however you like - in the new situation and asks whether the folks are smart enough to decipher the riddle. They are not. So subjunctive.
Especially for the pattern por más que I'd tend to use subjunctive because the expression itself for me hints that there is a "but".
Speaking in terms of gramatical concession, my book offers me by the way the following:

=> Aunque/A pesar de que/ Pese a que/Por más [Sustantivo] que

Indicativo: nos referimos a hechos experimentados o conocidos, a la existencia real de un obstáculo o dificultad.
1) Aunque (a pesar de que, pese a que) es verdad, no lo admitirá.
2) Por más ejercicios que hago, no consigo comprender este tema de gramática.

Haha, qué ironica es la segunda frase...
Anyways, would you @ alecCowan ever say the first one in the indicative mode ? I read each one of your posts as well, so I know that you hate this BUT:
If yes, that would mean you're saying Even if it would be true, he's not going to admit it, he would never admit it.
Whereas with the indicative you're saying Although it is true, he's not going to admit it.
Am I right or wrong? Is that a way to differentiate?

Now the next thing would be what I don't get apart from this: the book rigidly and invariably says that the concessive expression
por mucho/poco [/random ADJ or ADV] que
requires the Subjunctive, no exceptions. Would you agree? Because to me, it is exactly the same idea as the one above with por más que.

Oh and I understand that you're fed up with ppl trying to interprete like 1-2-3 what someone else is saying. I don't like this style of interpretation as well. It doesn't dignify or appreciate the complex being of an utterance. So although I came to the conclusion that most situations the subjunctive is dealing with have to do with happening and not happening, I will never nail down the interpretation of a person's mood or feeling to this simple yes or no question. That's exactly the reason why I registered, because I felt that there had to be more to it.

Originally Posted by Perikles

The point I'm making (if anyone is still reading ) [...]

Haha, well, I am! And I can only agree, especially to your last paragraph. There is nothing left to say here.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Perikles, among languages dead or alive that you are familiar in any degree, do you know of another one that has opposition of moods similar to this:

creo que viene / no creo que venga
ve / no vayas

I don't know any dead languages. A language is alive if it has a literature which is read, and Ancient Greek has a vastly greater readable literature than Spanish (just my opinion).

Specifically, Latin and Greek take an accusative and infinitive construction after verbs of believing, so I can't think of a parallel to "creo que viene / no creo que venga". Some Greek verbs take a subjunctive, such as verbs of fearing, but this is not your question.

As for "ve / no vayas" there is an exact parallel in Greek where a positive imperative (an exhortation) is the imperative mood, but the negative (a prohibition) is expressed with me (mu + eta) plus a present or aorist subjunctive (subtle difference in meaning). As ever with Greek, that is a slight simplification, but the parallel is striking.

[aleCcowaN]

Por más ejercicios que hago, no consigo comprender este tema de gramática
Por más ejercicios que haga, nunca consigo comprender este tema de gramática.
Aunque es verdad, no lo admitirá.
Aunque sea verdad, no lo admitirá.

I don't see "the rule".

Por mucho escándalo que hagas, no te lo devolverán
Por muy rojo que te pongas, no te escucharán.
¿Viste que por más escándalo que hiciste (a pesar del escándalo que hiciste), al final nunca te lo devolvieron?

Por más verdad que sea, (futuro)
Por mucho que sea la verdad, (futuro)

I see "the rule" meaning that when you say "however hard you practise ..." or "no matter how much you love her ...." you introduce an action that won't happen, so both phrases can't coexist in the same sentence, so one of them must be expressed in a muffled way (subjunctive), that is, the action which is not efficient cause of the other one, no matter how intense it is. This is typical Spanish subjunctive at work.

Originally Posted by Perikles

(just my opinion).

opinions !

An aoristo subjuntivo for Spanish. That would be good.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Perikles

(just my opinion).

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

opinions !.

In English, opinion can be countable and uncountable. You would never** say "just my opinions" because opinion can be the whole body of what the speaker opines, containing any number of points.

**If the issue is one topic. You could say "his opinions about religion, politics and women are ridiculous"

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

In English, opinion can be countable and uncountable. You would never** say "just my opinions" because opinion can be the whole body of what the speaker opines, containing any number of points.

**If the issue is one topic. You could say "his opinions about religion, politics and women are ridiculous"

Efharistó

[JSK]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

[....]
I don't see "the rule".

Are you kidding?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

[...]
I see "the rule" meaning that when you say "however hard you practise ..." or "no matter how much you love her ...." you introduce an action that won't happen, so both phrases can't coexist in the same sentence, so one of them must be expressed in a muffled way (subjunctive), that is, the action which is not efficient cause of the other one, no matter how intense it is. This is typical Spanish subjunctive at work.

Right. I am aware of the underlying principle of subjunctive. However, that was not my question. You see, I take this exact princinple and attach it to theory texts and to the example sentences in the book I am supposed to fill out: I was (and still am) asking myself in the first instance how come there are situations in which you start a sentence with a concessive construction but STILL end it with the indicative. What's the difference between
Aunque es/sea verdad, no lo admitirá
and
Por mucho que sea verdad, no lo admitirá
?
There must be SOME difference, but which is it? Why does although allow indicative but no matter how doesn't ?? They, in general, express the same idea of improbability....jeez
My personal memory hook here is that in English I tend to combine no matter how with the modal verbs, whereas although for me is followed by a main verb. But I'm not sure....

Apart from this, I am still confused about the person who feels deep regret for his/her friend who was late...why is it impossible for everyone in class to say Sentí que no llegabas a tiempo ?
I am again aware that one possible answer here could be that the friend in fact didn't make it on time, so action not happening, so subjunctive. I want to note at this point that the sense of the exercise was to practice the difference between verbs like sentir, decir, acordar, recordar, etc. dependent on the use of subjunctive or indicative. With that background, it just can't be the exclusive one-and-only-idea -that comes to everybody's mind except mine- to use sentir with subjunctive, expressing regret.