No va el tío y sigue trabajando

[Michael30000]

Hola a todos,

La frase en cuestión es del libro Tinta invisible de Javier Peña.

Mientras escribo esto, unas conocidas han entrado en la cafetería en la que trabajo, las he saludado con una sonrisa y me he sentido incómodo porque quizás debería acercarme a su mesa a hablar con ellas. ¿Estaré siendo descortés? ¡Pero esta es mi oficina! Nadie comprendería que yo me plantase en su trabajo y me sentara a su lado y lo mirase fijamente sonriendo y luego dijera, dios, menudo maleducado, ¿no va el tío y sigue trabajando?

Esto me recuerda a una anécdota que contaba Pizarnik sobre Jacinto Benavente, el que fuera segundo Premio Nobel de Literatura en lengua española. El dramaturgo estaba ensimismado corrigiendo su obra La Malquerida en la butaca del teatro cuando notó unos golpecitos en el hombro. Un hombre le preguntó si sabía dónde estaban los aseos. Benavente no podía creer que interrumpieran su trabajo para eso. ¿Interrumpiría ese hombre a un médico en mitad de una cirugía para preguntarle dónde podía aliviarse?

I've to say that the highlighted part is a complete mystery to me.
What is it all about and what does it refer to?

For example, "en su trabajo y me sentara a su lado y lo mirase" - Who is he talking about?

¿no va el tío y sigue trabajando - what does it mean in this context?

Thank you.

[aleCcowaN]

The author is reversing the situation and picturing himself as someone that enters the working space of another person, smiles at them and immediately complains about the person not paying atention to him. He deems such situation as something nobody would understand.

The hypothetical complaint is "dios, menudo maleducado, ¿no va el tío y sigue trabajando?" God, such a boor, I can't believe he continued working [and ignored me]. The part between ¿? expresses disbelief by starting the phrase with negation.

[Michael30000]

Thank you very much, aleCcowaN.

[aleCcowaN]

Allow me to make a comment, although I'm afraid I'm about to meterme en un berenjenal (to get myself in a quagmire)

It seems you're diving now into the finer subtleties of Spanish and what makes it distinct, including different grammar bits somewhat competing to get the same meaning or intention.

Basically these things:

Spanish is not as dependent on word order as English is, as there's a heap of resources like the "magical" conjunction que which allows to link toghether two parts of the speech, though it does't hint where the second part ends. Sometimes the English speaker, while trying to make sense of phrases and clauses, forgets it all started with que.

Second, English speakers, no matter how proficient in Spanish, frequently ignore that Spanish indicative requires an action to be real, or to be happening in a mental space, or to be the focus of the speaker's attention. "I hope it rains" contains two verbs in indicative but only one translates into Spanish indicative: hope, as the hope is real and hoping is happening, while the "hoped" action isn't, then defaulting to subjunctive. Espero que llueva.

Saying "expectations trigger subjunctive" is a Cliffs notes workaround that helps to pass tests but it's not real.

But, what about no espero que llueva? No esperar is not an action. Well, it really is, as opposed to other things the speaker isn't actively doing like being hungry or climbing a mountain.

But what has all of these to do with the finer points of Spanish? Well, it's important to understand Spanish subjunctive points towards no-action. It's a killer in more than one way: ¡Ve! ¡No, no...no vayas! What decent language works that way?

The it-is-really-not-happening quality of Spanish subjunctive makes it adequate to become the catch-it-all case each time the strict demands of Spanish indicative are not satisfied. The action is in doubt? Subjunctive! Unlikely? Subjunctive! Kind of speculative? Subjunctive! An excercise of imagination? Subjunctive!!! Just don't do it!? Subjunctive!!!

Third, negation and use of opposites to make a point.

Have you ever wondered why "I got nothing" doesn't become nonesensical "conseguí nada" or " no conseguí algo" but sensical "no conseguí nada" or " no conseguí cosa alguna"? (-singing- we don't need no education! -yes, you do. You just used a double negative).

Well, it doesn't help saying it's like golf and you need one no to get the ball near the hole and a second no to complete it. The fact is that you never know what's behind the first no. It may be the speaker is just taking distance from something like a speculative or imaginary situation. So, in reality, Spanish speakers "ain't really double-negatin' nothin' "

Add to this the fact that Spanish frequently uses opposites to highlight a certain degree of astonishment and have elements present in litotes in English deeply hardwired in its grammar and style, and you'll understand why it was so difficult for you to parse the text in bold you asked about.

So, finally, after this long-winded introduction, a comment on the text you quoted.

The author does his work in a bar, following a trend in recent decades for profesionales liberales like architects and accountants and independent workers to find economically sound not to spend a lot of money to mantain offices in downtown Bigcity and pay assistants, but work from home or at a bar. Some of them are even the owners of bars and reserve a private room for them to work.

But a bar is intended as a place to chat and laugh, and relax and enjoy
The author feels uncomfortable because some aquaintances of him bump into him in the bar he deems as his workplace and he feels guilty for not being social but rejects he may be judged to be antisocial for not reacting the way he's expected. The tension between bar as a fun place and bar as a workplace is palpable so the author starts an artful justification of himself that begins with an imaginary situation and ends with anecdotes to prove that it is the barfolks who are in fault and not himself.

Read again the whole text you quoted and watch how all the language elements I described are used by the author to turn his guilt into guilt of others and he parcially fails to assuage his guilt.

[Michael30000]

Thanks for such an interesting and informative post, aleCcowaN!

And now my humble attempt at analysis:

Nadie comprendería que - condicional simple introduces an imaginary situation.

plantase en su trabajo - subjuntivo (imaginary action)

y me sentara a su lado y lo mirase fijamente sonriendo - subjuntivo (imaginary actions)

y luego dijera - subjuntivo (imaginary action)

"Have you ever wondered why "I got nothing" doesn't become nonesensical "conseguí nada" or " no conseguí algo" but sensical "no conseguí nada" or " no conseguí cosa alguna"?"

Interesting thing to note is that the same thing happens in my native Russian. i.e. in Russian we say it (no conseguí nada) in the same way as Spanish speakers do.

And one more interesting to note is: if I understood you correctly, "su trabajo" refers to "Nadie" and "Nadie" in this particular case is any imaginary person whose workplace I came to. And although this structure (Nadie comprendería que yo me plantase en su trabajo) is possible in Russian, the meaning would be different, because in Russian it is impoosible for "su trabajo" to refer to "Nadie."*

I'll give you an example to illustrate what I mean.

For example, I'm talking to my friend and he says, "Why don't you come to Tom's place and talk to him?" And I say in response: Nobody would understand if I come to his place to talk to him. In this case, "his place" doesn't refer to "Nobody", because "Nobody" simply means any people in general.

That's why I was asking in the OP: For example, "en su trabajo y me sentara a su lado y lo mirase" - Who is he talking about? Because I couldn't imagine then that "su trabajo" refers to "Nadie."

* To avoid confusion, I mean this specific structure "Nobody would understand if I do something where nobody means people in general, not a particular person". In other cases, pronouns like his/her/their can refer to "nobody" in Russian.

[aleCcowaN]

Very interesting.

Nadie comprendería (esta conducta)= I can't think of anyone who would justify (this behavior)

Nadie is like the empty set, empty, yet still a set.

Languages are a funny thing. Think of the sentence "al final, nadie entendió nada". Nadie implies ... everyone!