Oraciones Sustantivas: Contradicción de las reglas gramaticales

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I reckon you don't realise how both ridiculous and baffling sounds the sentence "se encontraron antes de que aparecieron los demás" for a native. .

I'll take your word for it. I struggle with the problem of associating with Spanish speakers who use a very low register, where this would be not an issue

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

In "se encontraron antes de que aparecieran los demás" a basic feature of "the last action gets the focus" is on, and subjunctive guarantees that the right action gets the attention by muffling the other action and making it impossible to be performed in the same mental frame. .

Thanks for that. This is another interesting statement. Believe me, your explanation of how the subjunctive works is totally convincing. The problem is that I have never come across any grammar book for foreigners which actually explains this. Nor did you use this argument in your previous post when explaining it.

If you state that the force of having the focus on the last action is greater than the force of a main clause, that is absolutely fine. This is the first time I have ever seen such an explanation.

[aleCcowaN]

All explanations are equally and simultaneously valid although different because they try to describe a logic that doesn't work with the same logical premises of the explanations themselves. Language parsing is like a stellar body affected by different force fields and that's why sometimes it looks like the wrong force is attracting the body.

This kind of explanations are not common in specialized literature because they'd never be a commercial nor an academical success, as they are difficult to follow, require a previous effort to acquire subjunctive and some "experience in failing doing so" that may take advantage of them, and they seemingly contradict each other all the time.

After these years my conclusion is that the only way for English natives (and Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and maybe Swedish) to learn subjunctive is to be well taught in the very beginning, and they don't have to know much about the inner workings of the language, the same way most Spanish natives don't know why but use it correctly when they say "quizás venga" (with "él viene" being just one of two, three or many possible future developments) or "a lo mejor viene" (with "él viene" being the possible future development among the possible ones that particularly satisfy the speaker's expectations or whatever).

To teach this last thing you only need a set of examples that associate "a lo mejor" with "perhaps" and "maybes" that make the speaker excited, squirrelly and the like:

A- Compré un billete de lotería
B- Pero es muy poco probable ganarla
A- No se sabe. A lo mejor me saco el premio mayor.

A- Fulano siempre llegando tarde
B- Es que se queda dormido
C- Yo creo que ni le importa
D- A lo mejor tuvo un accidente, está herido, y nosotros acá criticándolo.

[JSK]

My posts are getting longer and longer...

very lovely you are so patient, thanks a lot guys, I mean it.
It's really important to me that my questions finally find an answer and not any longer a desperate "Well, it is because it is . Okay, everything cleared, let's go on, yay."

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I am kidding not!

Por más ejercicios que hago, no consigo comprender este tema de gramática -> I am, in fact and actually, doing* a lot of exercises, but nontheless and still I do not understand this topic of grammar.

Por más ejercicios que haga, nunca consigo comprender este tema de gramática. -> I may haven't done too many exercises on this topic but it doesn't matter anyways because however hard I'm trying, I don't understand this topic of grammar.

I wana say that this feels so odd now. Why am I the one explaining to a native/grammar pro his own rules of grammar, speaking in terms of "grade of concession", especially in front of the fact that this exact native is trying to clarify the whole issue for days ?


* alternatively I have done .... for the past days/weeks/etc.
Whatever you like, any kind of expression that comes to mind that indicates a fact to be fact and therefore the utterance of the speaker to be considered truth.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

[...]
Por mucho que sea verdad, no lo admitirá --> it could be also "que es" but it is not so common, because it means the person never accepting it as a fact, so there's no possible world where that is true and that person admits it.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't follow here. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to what you're saying (no offense).

If I say Por mucho que es verdad, no lo admitirá I intend to state that the truth is a fact. So far, so good. Now if the person does not accept the fact, that does mean nothing else but exactly this: that is, that the person does not accept a fact. The fact itself stays a fact, i.e. it is still true. It's up to the person to accept it or not, but that does have no influence on the fact being true.
I mean.... do you know what I mean?? I really want to make myself clear because, slowly but surely, I'm under the impression that the two of us have a different opinion about what is within the power of a person's influence and what isn't.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The concessive nature of "por mucho que" is regarding the conversation with the other party and not the person that they are talking about.

Yes, exactly! And let's imagine the two parties -talking about the idiot who doesn't admit the truth to be truth- agree that it is true and agree that smb. won't admit sth. I wonder why not indicative.

Party A: Actuó como un burro y no hay ninguna justificación para actuar así. La insultó y lo sabe.
Party B: Si, si, tienes razón. Pero por mucho que eso es verdad, no lo admitirá.

If Party B goes for a talk to the person Party A is complaining about, the whole thing is, of course, different. Party B (believing that the person is guilty of wrong behaviour), confronts the person. The person says sth. like: Pero ella empezó con hablar mal sobre xy.
Party B says: Por mucho que sea la verdad, no ...blabla, expressing with the Subjunctive You may are right, she started the provocation. But I can't verify it (I wasn't there when it happened or whatever). Apart from whether it might be true, it doesn't... blabla.


So this second situation, the situation in which Party B confronts the person who doesn't admit he acted wrong, would be an example of what you said:

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

[...] "por mucho que" is used as an introduction of an "inefficient cause" so subjunctive comes absolutely natural.

Originally Posted by BenCondor

Though I'd certainly like to hear some discussion of why the subjunctive is being used in the above examples.

I'm no English native either but I want to provide a guess here.

I wish it were summer.

Utterance of a wish/desire. In reality, it's not summer in the moment the speaker utters the wish. In order to stress that, subjunctive is used (although I personally never would have named it subjunctive but rather conditional... but since the two modi express about the same idea it is not toooo important to make a distinction here I guess).
I wish it is summer is a contradiction. You don't wish for something that already exists or that you posess.

The ultimate goal of the Arabs is that the distinction be made ...

Utterance of a wish/desire + Indirect speech. The distinction ought to be made only in the perspective of the Arabs, not in the perspective of the speaker: the speaker is citing smb. elses wish, not his own. You either choose indirect speech (citation) + subjunctive or direct speech (quotation) + indicative.

It's not really vital he be involved in this call.

Hint for a possible condition that yet is not a fact. Similar to type 2 if-clause that expresses possibilty but not probability: If he were involved in this call, it would not be vital.
If I say It's not really vital he is involved in this call, the condition has already become reality and I may express shortly afterwards or during the condition that it is not a vital one.

It seemed fated that the project take its name from the Scripture celebrating renewal.

That's a tricky one. I have an idea of about the same content that alecCowan provided for the Sentí que no llegaras a tiempo-thing, but I'm unable to put that into exact words now. I only know it makes sense to use take instead of takes or took because it intuitively feels right. Plus, in my native language we have the same construct. Can't explain that one either.

Originally Posted by BenCondor

The human mind is an immensely powerful language processing machine, but we often don't understand how it actually detects flaws and produces grammatically correct phrases with such an astonishing rate of accuracy.

!

Okay, for now I'm done. it's getting to long here. I will read+post somewhen else. I'm going to go back to my exercises now

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by JSK

I'm no English native either but I want to provide a guess here.

I wish it were summer.

Utterance of a wish/desire. In reality, it's not summer in the moment the speaker utters the wish. In order to stress that, subjunctive is used (although I personally never would have named it subjunctive but rather conditional... but since the two modi express about the same idea it is not toooo important to make a distinction here I guess).

On the contrary - it is vital to call it a subjunctive and not a conditional. They are often linked with

If it were summer, I would take my clothes off.

This subjunctive/conditional combination expresses a hypothetical situation, but please don't confuse the two different verb moods.

Originally Posted by JSK

The ultimate goal of the Arabs is that the distinction be made ...

Utterance of a wish/desire + Indirect speech. The distinction ought to be made only in the perspective of the Arabs, not in the perspective of the speaker: the speaker is citing smb. elses wish, not his own. You either choose indirect speech (citation) + subjunctive or direct speech (quotation) + indicative.

If the above had been in German, the explanation would have been acceptable (note the subjunctive/conditional combination for the hypothetical ) As it is English, it is absolutely incorrect, I'm afraid. English does not have a subjunctive for indirect speech. I could also say The ultimate goal I have is that the distinction be made which is the speakers wish and not reported speech.

I think the above counts as a hortative subjunctive expressing a wish for the future. As in

My father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done....

I could say more, but I'll keep it at that.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by JSK

Por más ejercicios que hago, no consigo comprender este tema de gramática -> I am, in fact and actually, doing* a lot of exercises, but nontheless and still I do not understand this topic of grammar.

Por más ejercicios que haga, nunca consigo comprender este tema de gramática. -> I may haven't done too many exercises on this topic but it doesn't matter anyways because however hard I'm trying, I don't understand this topic of grammar.

For instance, it's more "in spirit" like:

I do a lot of practice indeed, but I seem not to be able to understand this grammar issue.

I have tried a lot of different approaches in exercises, but I seem not to able to understand this grammar issue.

Note that mood selection can affect the meaning of "(más) ejercicios", because indicative "hago" tends to reaffirm that practise is indeed done and subjunctive "haga" tends to affirm that such a practise, done indeed, is not effectively causing learning that point of grammar.

Originally Posted by JSK

I'm sorry, but I couldn't follow here. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to what you're saying (no offense).

If I say Por mucho que es verdad, no lo admitirá I intend to state that the truth is a fact. So far, so good. Now if the person does not accept the fact, that does mean nothing else but exactly this: that is, that the person does not accept a fact. The fact itself stays a fact, i.e. it is still true. It's up to the person to accept it or not, but that does have no influence on the fact being true.
I mean.... do you know what I mean?? I really want to make myself clear because, slowly but surely, I'm under the impression that the two of us have a different opinion about what is within the power of a person's influence and what isn't.



Yes, exactly! And let's imagine the two parties -talking about the idiot who doesn't admit the truth to be truth- agree that it is true and agree that smb. won't admit sth. I wonder why not indicative.

Party A: Actuó como un burro y no hay ninguna justificación para actuar así. La insultó y lo sabe.
Party B: Si, si, tienes razón. Pero por mucho que eso es verdad, no lo admitirá.

If Party B goes for a talk to the person Party A is complaining about, the whole thing is, of course, different. Party B (believing that the person is guilty of wrong behaviour), confronts the person. The person says sth. like: Pero ella empezó con hablar mal sobre xy.
Party B says: Por mucho que sea la verdad, no ...blabla, expressing with the Subjunctive You may are right, she started the provocation. But I can't verify it (I wasn't there when it happened or whatever). Apart from whether it might be true, it doesn't... blabla.


So this second situation, the situation in which Party B confronts the person who doesn't admit he acted wrong, would be an example of what you said:

Wrong, those are "workarounds" common during the learning of subjunctive. Pretty much like "that hammer was so useful in the past, I trying it to assemble these nuts and bolts in place."

Read again what I explained the moment you can do it with an open and "unprejudiced" mind.