Reflexive Pronoun Question

[Solidaridad]

My Spanish book says that this sentence means "Two cups of Jose's got broken":

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas.

But it says that this sentence means that "The little boy tore his shirt":

Al chico se le rompio la camisa.

Are these the same construction? Is there any way to tell just by reading a sentence whether you are saying that "your plate" was broken rather than "you broke the plate"?

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Solidaridad

My Spanish book says that this sentence means "Two cups of Jose's got broken":

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas.

But it says that this sentence means that "The little boy tore his shirt":

Al chico se le rompio la camisa.

Are these the same construction? Is there any way to tell just by reading a sentence whether you are saying that "your plate" was broken rather than "you broke the plate"?

I don't agree that the second one necessarily means The little boy tore his shirt. It means the little boy's shirt was torn. This is the same construction as the first one. The Spanish does not indicate who broke the cups, nor who tore the shirt. But I'm ready as always to be corrected.

[cogu]

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas.

In my opinion, it was indeed Jose the one who broke the cups. But that "se" in "se le rompieron" indicates that he broke them involuntarily, not on purpose (Jose rompió dos tazas). Cups don't get broken as if by magic (Dos tazas de Jose se rompieron --> ???) Nobody else than Jose broke his cups (A Jose le rompieron dos tazas)

Al chico se le rompió la camisa

.

Same construction. That "se" indicates that the boy didn't intend to tear anything. It's clear that it was an accident.

Is there any way to tell just by reading a sentence whether you are saying that "your plate" was broken rather than "you broke the plate"?

--> This is probably not a rule, but when the agent doesn't matter, or it's not the point, it's common the presence of "se".

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Solidaridad

My Spanish book says that this sentence means "Two cups of Jose's got broken":

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas.

Now I'm really really really confused. What do people think? Which, if any, of these is a translation of the Spanish?

1) Two of José's cups were broken (owner of cups: José, breaker: unknown)
2) J broke two of his cups (owner of cups: J , breaker: J )
3) J broke two cups (owner of cups: unknown, breaker: J) [J is a waiter]

i.e. What does the Spanish say about who broke the cups, and who owned the cups? Is there ambiguity depending on context?

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by Solidaridad

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas.

Originally Posted by Perikles

Now I'm really really really confused. What do people think? Which, if any, of these is a translation of the Spanish?

1) Two of José's cups were broken (owner of cups: José, breaker: unknown)
2) J broke two of his cups (owner of cups: J , breaker: J )
3) J broke two cups (owner of cups: unknown, breaker: J) [J is a waiter]

i.e. What does the Spanish say about who broke the cups, and who owned the cups? Is there ambiguity depending on context?

Technically, in the absence of any context, any of the three are possible meanings. The only thing that is certain is that the speaker feels that Jose has some type of relationship to the cups, and that the breaking of the cups was not something that Jose intended.

Usually there is at least a little bit of context to help narrow down the intended meaning, allowing the listener/reader to have some sense of the likelihood that Jose is the owner of the cups or that some action or inaction on Jose's part contributed to their breaking.

[cogu]

In the sentence:

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas

There is information about who broke two cups.
There is no information about the owner of the two cups.


Consider this:

Se me rompieron ( I broke them, accidentally)
Se te rompieron (You broke them, accidentally)
Se le rompieron (He broke them, accidentally)

Without the se:

Rompí las tazas (I broke them)
Rompiste las tazas (You broke them)
Rompió las tazas (He broke them)

If we don't know who broke them:

Las tazas se rompieron.

None of these sentences tells anything about the owner of the cups.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If we wanted to speak about the owner of the cups, we could do it this way:

Rompí las tazas de Jose (I broke Jose's cups)
Rompiste las tazas de Jose (You broke Jose's cups)
Rompió las tazas de Jose (He -not Jose, but someone else- broke Jose's cups)
Jose rompió sus (propias) tazas (Jose broke his own cups ... in a rage, for example)

However, if those two cups belong to Jose and they were somehow very dear to him, we could replace the neutral "de Jose" by an affective "le" pronoun, which indicates that the cups belong to Jose, and those cups are important to him for some reason. So, if his cups were broken on purpose, like kind of a revenge, we could say:

(A Jose) Le rompí las tazas - I broke his "dear" cups
(A Jose) Le rompiste las tazas- You broke his "dear" cups
(A Jose) Le rompió las tazas- He broke his "dear" cups
(A Jose) Le rompieron las tazas - Someone broke his "dear" cups.

If Jose's cups got broken involuntarily, then:

Se me rompieron dos tazas de Jose- I accidentally broke two of Jose's cups
Se te rompieron dos tazas de Jose- You accidentally broke two of Jose's cups
Se le rompieron dos tazas de Jose - He accidentally broke two of Jose's cups
A Jose se le rompieron dos de sus tazas - Accidentally, Jose broke two of his own cups

Does the last one ring a bell? It's very similar to your original sentence, the only difference is that this one does indicate that Jose is the owner of the cups.

This is the way to express the owner of the cups, the accidental nuance, and who broke the cups in the same sentence in Spanish.

Spanish does not allow this construction:

Se me le rompieron las tazas to express--> I (me) accidentally (se) broke his dear cups (le)


Finally, if the cups got broken by magic:

Se rompieron dos tazas de Jose.

Conclusion:

A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas
Owner of the cups: Unknown
"Breaker": Jose, indicated by the pronoun "le"
It was accidental, indicated by the pronoun "se"

I hope this helps.

[aleCcowaN]

@Perikles

I agree with Bill, all three options are possible depending on the context. More information can be given through the intonation of the phrase, but that not always disambiguate it.

@everybody

Remember that "José rompió dos tazas" means that the sole effect of José's actions (and probably, the sole purpose) was to break them, then, that action is supposed to have been aggressive and intentional, or at least it was the result of José's inexcusable neglect.

"A José se le rompieron dos tazas" only means "two cups were broken; José owned them -possibly-; and José did it -probably-" as that "le" may have a wide and not unique meaning. It might mark possession or control (two cups of him or under his control or responsibility were broken) or it might be also a "dativo ético" (he was affected because either he was the owner or the cups were under his supervision and their got broken accidentally and he is now deeply mortified).

[Perikles]

Wow! Thanks everybody. I'll need to think about this. I find this aspect of Spanish the most difficult I've come across, and the above does help.

I find the ability to express the accidental nature of the action particularly interesting.

[aleCcowaN]

Remember that Spanish has a high level of built-in irresponsibility in its own grammar:

Se me rompió tu taza. (like I didn't do it; destiny is a bitch)
Hay que portarse bien. (No specific subject; video meliora proboque deteriora sequor)

So, the swinging approach of speakers doesn't reflect the elasticity of huge idiomatic grey zones but their personal world views that change mainly according to their social level, education and local culture (racial makeup "seems" to be also operating, but it's a fata morgana with historical and institutional origins, though it's still very different to be of agricultural descent -Italian, Aymara, Iraqi, Chinese or Mayan- or of hunter-gatherer or pastoral descent).

[cogu]

Now, I think we are splitting hairs.

Let's go back:

1) Two of José's cups were broken (owner of cups: José, breaker: unknown)
2) J broke two of his cups (owner of cups: J , breaker: J )
3) J broke two cups (owner of cups: unknown, breaker: J)

1) There is indeed a way that "A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas" means "two of Jose's cups were broken". However, it's really hard for me to think of a context where this sentence could make sense. Let's be picky and let's say, for example, that Jose has two very special cups for having breakfast, and he's being subject of a conspiration. We could say:

Hemos tomado represalias con Jose por su mal comportamiento. Por lo tanto, se le suspendió de empleo y sueldo, se le embargó la casa, y se le rompieron dos tazas de desayuno. ... ???

Let's admit it, the sentence is possible, but the possibility that Jose has two special cups and those cups have been broken by an unknown or misterious agent is so low if we compare with meaning 3, that I dare to say that no native speaker would think of this option as the first one.

2) There is no way that "A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas" means also that the cups belong to Jose, unless you specify:

A Jose se le rompieron dos de sus tazas
A Jose se le rompieron dos tazas que eran suyas.

3) This is what the sentence means, I would say in 99% of the cases or even more. It's a very common construction in Spanish, along the lines of:

Se me olvidó lo que iba a decir (I didn't forget it on purpose)