la diferencia entre los verbos venir e ir

[Alfonso]

Thanks a lot, Rusty and Gramática. Now I think it's really clear for me.

[Tomisimo]

Alfonso,

Thanks for your additional explanation, I really appreciate it.

[canyonff]

this is just my 2 cents.

I think what alfonso's trying to convey might be better described as a state of mind, rather than using ones imagination.

in his example he used two different verbs, which could/should mean two different things, to convey the same meaning/action.

what i mean to say is, in english sometimes we do this too, and evidently in spanish speakers aswell. let me explain, i think this is what he was trying to say.

let's say there is a party, or a destination, that you KNOW you will go to or be at. In this state of mind, since you know you're going to attend or are going, you would consider yourself there. sort of like imagining, but more a state of mind since you KNOW it rather that THINK it.

now you leave your house, get by your car and another friend pulls up. this friend doesn't know about the party or isn't sure if they're going. You could say
"Man i'm going to this killer party, you want to come?" or you could say
"man i'm going to this killer party, you want to go?"

either way, in this context, the listener is going to know what you mean. so in this case, come and go actually mean the same thing as they are expressing the same action: moving location. But the speaker, has the option to use either because of a state of mind.


also in the same conversation that friend, who is now the speaker, could say either:
"Sure i'll come." or
"sure i'll go."

and both would be correct as they both express the same action [moving location].


so it's really dependent on your mindset. another example could be:

in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to come with us? or
in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to go with us?

again two different verbs, two different 'meanings,' conveying the same action.


i think that's what he meant to say. So pretty much I would say tomisimo's rule is a viable rule, and i was taught that rule in spanish 101, but under certain specific conditions the speaker may use either/or. i.e. when go and come will convey the same action regardless of time or location.

[Alfonso]

Hmmm, Canyonff, not exactly...

I think what you call verbs are better called tenses.

You make a difference between state of mind and imagination. I can only say that in Spanish imaginación works perfectly for what I mean. I'm not getting into connotations about these two words in English, so you can choose which one is the best to translate the Spanish imaginación.

Originally Posted by canyonff

let's say there is a party, or a destination, that you KNOW you will go to or be at. In this state of mind, since you know you're going to attend or are going, you would consider yourself there. sort of like imagining, but more a state of mind since you KNOW it rather that THINK it.

now you leave your house, get by your car and another friend pulls up. this friend doesn't know about the party or isn't sure if they're going. You could say
"Man i'm going to this killer party, you want to come?" or you could say
"man i'm going to this killer party, you want to go?"

either way, in this context, the listener is going to know what you mean. so in this case, come and go actually mean the same thing as they are expressing the same action: moving location. But the speaker, has the option to use either because of a state of mind.

Actually, in Spanish, to choose venir o ir in this context makes a difference:

• Voy a la fiesta, ¿quieres venir? It's coherent.

• Voy a la fiesta, ¿quieres ir? Here there is a contradiction. The other person can ask: ¿No has dicho que vas a la fiesta? ¿Por qué me preguntas que si voy yo? ¿Es que tú no vienes? Or, at least, the first person is not encouraging the other to go the party. The second one will understand that he has to go by himself. There is not idea of companionship.

Originally Posted by canyoff

also in the same conversation that friend, who is now the speaker, could say either:
"Sure i'll come." or
"sure i'll go."

and both would be correct as they both express the same action [moving location].

In this case it's impossible to translate it literally into Spanish, since there is only one possibility:

• Claro que voy. Either with you or by myself.

Originally Posted by canyoff

so it's really dependent on your mindset. another example could be:

in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to come with us? or
in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to go with us?

again two different verbs, two different 'meanings,' conveying the same action.

Again you can get the same contradiction already explained:

• En Inviernno nos vamos de crucero. ¿Te gustaría ir con nosotros?

Either there is a contradiction (ir con nosotros instead of venir con nostros) or the one who speaks is not really inviting the other to go on a cruise. Sure, it's only a compliment.

Originally Posted by canyoff

i think that's what he meant to say. So pretty much I would say tomisimo's rule is a viable rule, and i was taught that rule in spanish 101, but under certain specific conditions the speaker may use either/or. i.e. when go and come will convey the same action regardless of time or location.

What I think about this is that you've been taught a rule you will have very soon to forget to improve your Spanish. You can think it's a beginner's rule... I don't think so. It's more confusing than clarifying. It's an abstract with no relationship with reality. Sure, you can learn the rule and think it's really easy. No, it's not. Of course, it's easy to use venir and ir, but other way out, apart from the usage you do in English of to go and to come.

I'm not saying that all Spanish speakers use venir and ir the way I'm saying. But the mainstream does.

[mxchana]

Hi - I learn so much just from trying to follow your discussions, everyone - but I just have to ask re:

¿Qué lleva el sándwich? que ¿Qué trae el sándwich?

Does this mean, what is the sandwich made of? Thanks~

[Alfonso]

You're right, Mxchana.

[Iris]

I would say " ¿ Qué lleva el sandwich?" , but not "¿Qué trae?

[Tomisimo]

I'm having a bit of a hard time keeping up with all the conversations around here. You all go really fast

Another option for "meter la pata" is "to commit a faux pas". Pronounced "fo pa".

Going back to the ir/venir debate, I'd like to give my take on how I understand what Alfonso is saying, to see if I understand right.

1. Voy a la fiesta, ¿vas a venir?
2. Voy a la fiesta, ¿vas a ir?

Example #1 would be something like:

"I'm going to the party, are you coming with me?" <- the idea of companionship (in other words we're going to drive there together)

And number 2 would be:

"I'm going to the party, are you going to show up/ are you going to be there?" (In other words, I'm planning on going, but I'm not going right this instant, and I just want to know if the other person is going to be there later on.)

Would that be a pretty good analogy? Or, in case #2, would you still use "vas a venir"?

[Alfonso]

Thanks a lot, David, for your answer. To commit a faux pas, that's French! Am I right if I think it can sounds in English a little snobbish? Is it used all over English speaking countries?

Regarding venir/ir debate:

I agree with you in #1. That is exactly what I mean.

Another option to explain the idea of companionship that can be involved in the verb venir is the fact that vienes conmigo? can be said, meanwhile vas conmigo is hardly acceptable (I'm looking for a context on which this can be said, but I can't find a clear one). And the impossibility of mixing up the verb ir and the complement of companionship conmigo is due to the contradiction lexically suggested between both words.

#2. Actually, time is not involved. So I don't think it matters if you or I are going to the party right now or later on. The only idea conveyed is the fact that I'm not inviting you to come along with me. So there is not idea of companionship conveyed.

[Tomisimo]

Originally Posted by Alfonso

Thanks a lot, David, for your answer. To commit a faux pas, that's French! Am I right if I think it sounds a little snobbish in English? Is it used all over English speaking countries?

Yes, faux pas is French, but it's a very common expression in the US. I don't know about other countries. Here it wouldn't be snobbish or stuck-up at all.

Originally Posted by Alfonso

Regarding venir/ir debate:

I agree with you in #1. That is exactly what I mean.

Another option to explain the idea of companionship that can be involved in the verb venir is the fact that vienes conmigo? can be said, meanwhile vas conmigo is hardly acceptable (I'm looking for a context on which this can be said, but I can't find a clear one). And the impossibility of mixing up the verb ir and the complement of companionship conmigo is due to the contradiction lexically suggested between both words.

#2. Actually, time is not involved. So I don't think it matters if you or I are going to the party right now or later on. The only idea conveyed is the fact that I'm not inviting you to come along with me. So there is not idea of companionship conveyed.

Thanks for your explanations Alfonso, they help. Here's another hypothetical situation:

There's going to be a party at 8pm at someone's house, and we're at school.

#1. Va a haber una fiesta a las 8 en casa de Fulano, ¿vas a ir?
#2. Va a haber una fiesta a las 8 en casa de Fulano, ¿vas a venir?

Are both of these right?

Also, what do you think of a sentence like the following, does it sound ok to you?

(Estamos en la Ciudad de México, y le digo a un amigo)
Mañana voy a Guadalaja, ¿te vas conmigo?