Ejercicio 15-15 - más del subjuntivo

[laepelba]

En estas oraciones, tuve que escoger entre dos conjugaciones de un verbo. Tengo dudas sobre tres....

#4) Cenicienta no se habría casado con el príncipe si no (pierde | hubiese perdido) la zapatilla de cristal.

#5) El atleta corría como si (podía | pudiera) ganar la carrera.

#6) Nosotros ganaremos el premio si (compramos | compráramos) unos boletos.

Las respuestas del libro son...
#4) hubiese perdido
#5) pudiera
#6) compramos

No entiendo las razones por las respuestas del libro.....

¡Muchísimas gracias!

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Las respuestas del libro son...
#4) hubiese perdido
#5) pudiera
#6) compramos

No entiendo las razones por las respuestas del libro.....

I'll have a go pending higher authority.

#4) hubiese perdido:

the action of losing the shoe happened before the getting married, and the getting married was conditional on it. Therefore pluperfect subjunctive, (as it is as well in English)

#5) pudiera

si + imperfect subjunctive for an event which didn't happen in the past.


#6) compramos

The simple statement of fact, if X then Y, is si + indicative (an open condition, where the result could be anything)

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by laepelba

En estas oraciones, tuve que escoger entre dos conjugaciones de un verbo. Tengo dudas sobre tres....

#4) Cenicienta no se habría casado con el príncipe si no (pierde | hubiese perdido) la zapatilla de cristal.

#5) El atleta corría como si (podía | pudiera) ganar la carrera.

#6) Nosotros ganaremos el premio si (compramos | compráramos) unos boletos.

Las respuestas del libro son...
#4) hubiese perdido
#5) pudiera
#6) compramos

No entiendo las razones por las respuestas del libro.....

¡Muchísimas gracias!

Wow! Post 100% Spanish! Perfect Spanish!
Olé! Olé, olé, olé! ... Lou Ann! ... Lou Ann! (melody available in Invictus' soundtrack) [edit: or here , but in the last seconds they use a wrong name that is a 'sucker']

#4 --> Exactly, a conditional sentence in the past, but in reversed order

Si Cenicienta no hubiera perdido la zapatilla de cristal no se habría casado con el Príncipe.

How is it in English? "Hadn't Cinderella lost her glass slipper, she wouldn't had married the Prince"? or "Cinderella wouldn't had married the Prince, hadn't she her glass slipper lost"?? what would be :

Cenicienta no se habría casado con el Príncipe si no hubiera perdido la zapatilla de cristal.

Why not "pierde"? It's not advisable because there is no coordination of tenses (timing). Using present subjunctive supposes the narrator changing the temporal frame to the "present time of the event", something now accepted but mostly popular style.

This point tests if you coordinate past-past or you ""neglect"" matching past with past.

#5

a) El atleta corre [ahora] como si pudiera ganar la carrera ---> adverbial phrase introduced by "como si" --> it depicts the way the sportsman run
b) El atleta corrió [ayer] como si pudiera ganar la carrera ---> the same
c) El atleta corría [ayer] como si pudiera ganar la carrera ---> the same

We don't know if he will win or if he won, but there are 'statistical presumptions':

a) maybe I don't think he'll win
b) ambiguous
c) imperfect indicative allows that imperfect subjunctive a clear nuance of "it didn't happen" -subjunctive tending to no-action-. Still, it's not completely certain.

Why not "podía"? Again, somewhat possible in popular speech, certain regions, informal. Essentially two actions competing to catch our attention. Did he run or was he able to win? Spanish subjunctive resolves that by subordinating one action as a characteristic of the other action.

#6 Exactly as told by Perikles. The generic act of 'buying a ticket' gives birth to a generic '100% possibility of a low probability of winning'. But we have to add that the chap saying #6 is quite sure of his luck. Usually those statements of fact are said in a negative form "No ganaremos ningún premio si no compramos algún boleto".

Why not "compráramos"? It looks like 'certainty/regular occurance (future indicative) is the strict and direct consequence of an action, performed or not performed, nobody cares to state. Illogic.

[laepelba]

I suppose I should have started my comments by saying that I wasn't thinking to consider past/present/future correlations of the phrases. I was ONLY looking at subjunctive vs. indicative. So, given that constraint, help me understand why these phrases take indicative/subjunctive.... THANK YOU, both of you!!

Originally Posted by Perikles

I'll have a go pending higher authority.

#4) hubiese perdido:

the action of losing the shoe happened before the getting married, and the getting married was conditional on it. Therefore pluperfect subjunctive, (as it is as well in English)

#5) pudiera

si + imperfect subjunctive for an event which didn't happen in the past.

#6) compramos

The simple statement of fact, if X then Y, is si + indicative (an open condition, where the result could be anything)

#4) Remember that it does not compute with me to compare subjunctive in Spanish to subjunctive in English because I am completely unaware of when I use the subjunctive in English...

I have difficulty looking at past events as "hypothetical" because if it's PAST, it either happened or didn't.... The workbook makes a big deal about "real"/"likely" vs. "hypothetical"...

She DID lose the shoe, and thus DID get married.... Subjunctive??

#5) Do we KNOW that he didn't win? How do I know when it's real vs. hypothetical...??

#6) okay...

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Wow! Post 100% Spanish! Perfect Spanish!
Olé! Olé, olé, olé! ... Lou Ann! ... Lou Ann! (melody available in Invictus' soundtrack) [edit: or here , but in the last seconds they use a wrong name that is a 'sucker']

¡Muchas gracias! Y me gusta esta canción ... me hace recordar de mirar el Mundial en Buenos Aires este verano.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

#4 --> Exactly, a conditional sentence in the past, but in reversed order

Si Cenicienta no hubiera perdido la zapatilla de cristal no se habría casado con el Príncipe.

How is it in English? "Hadn't Cinderella lost her glass slipper, she wouldn't had married the Prince"? or "Cinderella wouldn't had married the Prince, hadn't she her glass slipper lost"?? what would be :

Your sentence (red) in English: "If Cinderella hadn't lost her shoe, she wouldn't have married the prince." The sentence from the book (just rearranged) in English: "Cinderella wouldn't have married the prince if she hadn't lost her crystal slipper."

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Cenicienta no se habría casado con el Príncipe si no hubiera perdido la zapatilla de cristal.

Why not "pierde"? It's not advisable because there is no coordination of tenses (timing). Using present subjunctive supposes the narrator changing the temporal frame to the "present time of the event", something now accepted but mostly popular style.

This point tests if you coordinate past-past or you ""neglect"" matching past with past.

The order of the sentence doesn't confuse me at all, with the "si..." phrase first or second. And I see the past/present/future non-correlation issue (ahorita) ... My confusion is only about the indicative vs. subjunctive... (see what I wrote to Perikles above). She DID lose her shoe, and she DID marry the prince. So there's nothing hypothetical or in doubt about the statement... ????

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

#5

a) El atleta corre [ahora] como si pudiera ganar la carrera ---> adverbial phrase introduced by "como si" --> it depicts the way the sportsman run
b) El atleta corrió [ayer] como si pudiera ganar la carrera ---> the same
c) El atleta corría [ayer] como si pudiera ganar la carrera ---> the same

We don't know if he will win or if he won, but there are 'statistical presumptions':

a) maybe I don't think he'll win
b) ambiguous
c) imperfect indicative allows that imperfect subjunctive a clear nuance of "it didn't happen" -subjunctive tending to no-action-. Still, it's not completely certain.

Why not "podía"? Again, somewhat possible in popular speech, certain regions, informal. Essentially two actions competing to catch our attention. Did he run or was he able to win? Spanish subjunctive resolves that by subordinating one action as a characteristic of the other action.

Sorry, I'm still not sure about this one. At this point, like in previous similar discussions about my lack of understanding of subjunctive, should I just say that unless I am rather much more certain, then I should opt for the subjunctive......?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

#6 Exactly as told by Perikles. The generic act of 'buying a ticket' gives birth to a generic '100% possibility of a low probability of winning'. But we have to add that the chap saying #6 is quite sure of his luck. Usually those statements of fact are said in a negative form "No ganaremos ningún premio si no compramos algún boleto".

Why not "compráramos"? It looks like 'certainty/regular occurance (future indicative) is the strict and direct consequence of an action, performed or not performed, nobody cares to state. Illogic.

Okay - I think I'm good on #6..........

Thanks to you both!!

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by laepelba

She DID lose the shoe, and thus DID get married.... Subjunctive??

"Cinderella wouldn't have married the prince if she hadn't lost her crystal slipper."

She DID lose her shoe, and she DID marry the prince. So there's nothing hypothetical or in doubt about the statement... ????

Of course there is !!!!! Your statement (She DID lose her shoe, and she DID marry the prince) is indeed a positive fact (grammatically - personally I think the story is not true ), but the sentence in question is another statement, a statement about what would have happened if she had not lost her shoe, a very hypothetical situation which didn't happen. How much more hypothetical do you need it to be?

[aleCcowaN]

I think, Lou Ann, you're having an issue with subjunctive that is common among intermediate students: you default subjunctive to probability.

Please, I beg you to take this piece of advise and memorize it no matter you don't understand it plenty -correct my English as applicable, an my accent too -:

Subjunctive relates to likelihood, probability and doubt once you have found all the other uses not applicable to the case.

It's not true with a 100% of cases, but maybe 90%.

Originally Posted by laepelba

#4) Remember that it does not compute with me to compare subjunctive in Spanish to subjunctive in English because I am completely unaware of when I use the subjunctive in English...

I have difficulty looking at past events as "hypothetical" because if it's PAST, it either happened or didn't.... The workbook makes a big deal about "real"/"likely" vs. "hypothetical"...

She DID lose the shoe, and thus DID get married.... Subjunctive??


The order of the sentence doesn't confuse me at all, with the "si..." phrase first or second. And I see the past/present/future non-correlation issue (ahorita) ... My confusion is only about the indicative vs. subjunctive... (see what I wrote to Perikles above). She DID lose her shoe, and she DID marry the prince. So there's nothing hypothetical or in doubt about the statement... ????

"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning, I'd hammer in the evening, all over this land" ... nope, I have no problems regarding the past as hypothetical. Just kidding!

I always compare this structure to -soon ancient- manual transmissions. You have a shift pattern with 3 to 5 forward speeds one neutral and one rearward. To avoid accidental clutching, you have to press down the lever before you reach the rearward position. When you press down the lever you enter the rearward world and you have to use you mirror and left is right and vice-versa, etc.

The same way, when you abandon the world of real things and enter the world of hypothesis and imagination, you press the gear down by selecting modus irrealis, that is, present subjunctive or imperfect subjunctive. Any consequence of it or future development uses conditional, as conditional is the future of unreal hypothetical things:

real ---> si un león mata una gacela, se la come
hypothetical ---> si un león te matara, te comería
hypothetical in the past ---> si un león lo hubiera matado, no habríamos encontrado su ropa en perfecto estado

and following, something hypothetical

Si Cenicienta no hubiera perdido la zapatilla de cristal no se habría casado con el Príncipe.

As Cinderella did marry her Blue Prince (and give him Prozac to get rid of his blues), not marrying him is hypothetical. The fact is that this hypothetical structure is used to pinpoint the fortunate fact that made the marriage possible, a device of Spanish (but I think it's not strange to English too).

Originally Posted by laepelba

#5) Do we KNOW that he didn't win? How do I know when it's real vs. hypothetical...??


Sorry, I'm still not sure about this one. At this point, like in previous similar discussions about my lack of understanding of subjunctive, should I just say that unless I am rather much more certain, then I should opt for the subjunctive......?

Again, it's just -and not less than- an adverbial phrase.

El atleta corría como si pudiera ganar la carrera, y acabó ganando.
El atleta corría como si pudiera ganar la carrera, pero igual perdió.
El atleta corría como si pudiera ganar la carrera, pero me tuve que ir y aún no conozco el resultado.

"como si pudiera ganar la carrera" means exactly the same in all three sentences. It's an adverb: it describes something characteristic of the action expressed by the verb, the same way an adjective does the same for a noun.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning, I'd hammer in the evening, all over this land" ... nope, I have no problems regarding the past as hypothetical.

But the had is not past tense - it represents a present subjunctive, followed by several present conditionals I'd.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

But the had is not past tense - it represents a present subjunctive, followed by several present conditionals I'd.

Certainly! But you'll find an overwhelming majority of English speakers saying "I am completely unaware of when I use the subjunctive in English", so they'd tell you it's past tense -the same way Spanish speakers don't recognize "hay" as a verb-. I think "past" and "hypothesis" were used together in such kind of context, not a formal or specialized one, so I thought I was playing along.