Oraciones Sustantivas: Contradicción de las reglas gramaticales

[JSK]

Hola a todos :)


since my Spanish profesor at the university wasn't able to help me because she didn't even understand what my question was (as always...) I've just registered for the forum. I hope that someone may help me out, I really don't understand this thing about Las Oraciones Sustantivas:


The second law of the first rule in our spanish book says => if the subject of verb 1 and the subject of verb 2 are not the same, the second verb has to be in subjunctive form. Example: Espero que nos veamos pronto.

Two subjects here, Subjunctive form needed, alright, easy thing.
Now on the next page is the second rule with the following laws:

=> If verb 1 is affirmative, verb 2 goes in Indicative form. Example:
Pienso que debemos irnos ahora.
=> If verb 1 is a negative question, verb 2 goes in Indicative form. Example: ¿ No comentaste que era fácil ?


It really irritates me because the two rules seemingly contradict each other. What am I supposed to write if I have a sentence with two subjects but the first verb being affirmative? Does one law outweigh the other one?


JSK

P.S.: My stupid teacher said about this: "Bueno, tienes que saber cuándo es necesario usar regla una y regla dos." Funny honey she is.... I'm not a spanish native and well, I DON'T know from instinct or something. Do you guys maybe have another idea how I can logically teach myself and see how and when to use which of the rules? There are many sentences in the exercise I stumble over, because I just don't notice a difference :( this is my very last grammar class in Spanish at the Uni and it gives me a pain in the ass. I have tons of questions, in fact, but this is the most basic one so let's start with this one first.

[Perikles]

The second law of the first rule in our spanish book says => if the subject of verb 1 and the subject of verb 2 are not the same, the second verb has to be in subjunctive form. Example: Espero que nos veamos pronto. .Hello :) Wait for an expert, but meanwhile I would say that the law I quote above is only half correct. It depends on the verb. Take esperar. It does take a subjunctive, as above. But other verbs don't: Pensé que iba a protestar.

I think that what the book means as a general rule is that if the outcome of the first verb is uncertain, the second takes a subjunctive mood. If certain, then indicative mood.

I think you must be quoting the above out of a restrictive context.

[JSK]

Hi Perikles, thank you so far for your answer. That's definately something I can work with :) and in any case a lot more than my prof told me. But I'm not quite sure what you mean with outcome of the first verb being uncertain. Are you talking about the uncertainty on the speaker who expresses uncertainty with verbs like esperar, intentar, pretender, etc. or do you adress the uncertainty of a listener here?

Thank you so much anyways, you really helped a lot already! :)

[Perikles]

Hi Perikles, thank you so far for your answer. That's definately something I can work with :) and in any case a lot more than my prof told me. But I'm not quite sure what you mean with outcome of the first verb being uncertain. Are you talking about the uncertainty on the speaker who expresses uncertainty with verbs like esperar, intentar, pretender, etc. or do you adress the uncertainty of a listener here?

Thank you so much anyways, you really helped a lot already! :)If you say 'I hope ...' then what will happen is uncertain, thus what follows is a possibility, thus not an indicative mood, but subjunctive.
If you say 'I know that...' then what follows is certain, thus indicative. :)

[Kunstliebhaber]

I am a native speaker and I don't understand what you mean, a language can be explained and it has its rules, but it's not a machine or a computer, provide real context and sentences. It's really hard to make a sentence just building it with "blocks" it's a big mistake when learning languages.

Answering your questions:

What am I supposed to write if I have a sentence with two subjects but the first verb being affirmative?

As a native speaker, I use the simple present in the second sentence, as in:

Yo creo que eres el asesino.
Ella piensa que tengo dinero para pagar la cuenta.
Nosotros suponemos que María es tu novia.

And if the first verb is negative, I use subjunctive in the second sentence:

No creo que SEAS el asesino.
Ella no piensa que TENGAS dinero para pagar la cuenta.
No imaginamos que María SEA tu novia.

Does one law outweigh the other one?

No idea... You might ask a purist orthodox of the Spanish grammar, maybe they perfectly understand what you mean.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Your question "What am I supposed to write if I have a sentence with two subjects but the first verb being affirmative" is answered by your first two rules. You only have to know how to differenciate the situations in which subjunctive is needed, for which, you need to know the rules of subjunctive. You can browse the forums for plenty of examples and post your questions. :)


if the subject of verb 1 and the subject of verb 2 are not the same, the second verb has to be in subjunctive form. Example: Espero que nos veamos pronto.

· Quiero que limpies tu cuarto. -> Verb 1 conjugated for "yo" - Verb 2 conjugated for "tú"
I want you to clean your room.
· Juan espera que lleguemos pronto. -> Verb 1 conjugated for "él" - Verb 2 conjugated for "nosotros"
Juan hopes we will arrive soon.


=> If verb 1 is affirmative, verb 2 goes in Indicative form. Example: Pienso que debemos irnos ahora.
· Quiero limpiar mi cuarto. -> Verb 1 and verb 2 correspond to the same subject, and verb 2 takes an infinitive form.
I want to clean my room.
· Juan espera llegar pronto. -> Verb 1 and verb 2 correspond to the same subject, and verb 2 takes an infinitive form.
Juan hopes to arrive soon.
· Creemos que sabemos contar muy buenas historias. -> Verb 1 and verb 2 correspond to the same subject, and "cluster" of verb 2 takes an indicative + infinitive form.
I think that we know how to tell very good stories.
· Pensamos que deberían irse todos. -> Verb 1 conjugated for "nosotros" and verb 2 conjugated for "ellos" or "ustedes"; "cluster" of verb 2 takes an indicative + infinitive form.
We think that everyone should go.


Same need to know about subjunctive to review this one:
=> If verb 1 is a negative question, verb 2 goes in Indicative form. Example: ¿ No comentaste que era fácil ?

· ¿No te parece que exageras? -> Verb 1 and verb 2 are conjugated for the same subject in indicative form, because the speaker intends to state a fact.
Don't you think you are exaggerating?
· ¿No dijo Juan que no iría a la fiesta? -> Verb 1 and verb 2 are conjugated for the same subject in indicative form, because the speaker is stating that Juan actually went to the party.
Didn't Juan say he would not go to the party?
· ¿No creen que sea difícil aprender otro idioma? -> Verb 1 is conjugated for "ustedes" and verb 2 is conjugated for "aprender otro idioma", and verb 2 is conjugated in subjunctive because the speaker is expressing the perception that there is a small possibility that learning a foreign language is hard.
Don't you think it would be hard to learn another language?
·¿No sabes si es difícil aprender otro idioma? -> Verb 1 is conjugated for "tú" and verb 2 is conjugated for "aprender otro idioma"; both are conjugated in indicative because the speaker considers the possibility that learning a foreign language is not too hard.
Don't you know whether it is difficult to learn another language?


Hope it helps.

[aleCcowaN]

Everything boils down to "in order to know subjunctive you need to already know subjunctive". It's also difficult to explain subjunctive from a native point of view. Kunstliebhaber took a special group of verbs and cast them as if they are the general rule you asked about.

You have to learn Spanish indicative first: unlike English and other languages, we can only use indicative with things that are happening (no matter when) or things that do exist, at least in an abstract level:

Creo que eres el asesino (the notion exist in my mind hence indicative)
No creo que seas el asesino (the notion doesn't exist in my mind hence subjunctive)

Espero que nos veamos pronto (the action is not happening, it is expected)
Confío en que nos veamos pronto (the action is not happening)
Confío en que nos veremos pronto (the action is happening, it's a token of certitude)

¿No comentaste que era fácil? ---> It is difficult, but you said otherwise (the action is happening ---> you said the wrong thing)
No comentaste que fuera fácil ---> It is easy, but you wouldn't say (the action is not happening)

[JSK]

If you say 'I hope ...' then what will happen is uncertain, thus what follows is a possibility, thus not an indicative mood, but subjunctive. (...)


Makes sense to me. And if I consider "pensar" a verb that also expresses uncertainty (do you think else btw ?) the following thing confuses me:

Pensamos que deberían irse todos.

Why's that? There are two subjects in the sentence and the first verb suggests that the speaker expresses uncertainty. After the rules in the book that means that I have to use the subjunctive form. How would you write the sentence without the verb "deber" in the conditional form ? "Pensamos que deben irse todos" or "Pensamos que deban irse todos" ? I'm asking because I already suggested exactly that solution to my prof and she said we are not allowed to "take the easy way" with a conditional, but instead are supposed to learn to express uncertainty with the subjunctive.

Sorry for acting so stubborn, no offense meant :) In fact I also thank you very much for your explanations! Your second "package" of examples made totally sense to me. Hmm, thinking about those carefully now... I'm asking myself whether my question to you above (about the sentence with everyone's supposed to leave) isn't kind of dependent of the viewer's opinion.
I mean, for me, personally, it just doesn't feel like I'm expressing strongly that someone ought to leave if I use phrases like "you should", etc. If I want to make clear to a person that I want to be alone, I say it: "I think you have to go/leave now." (or simply "Please leave.")
-> Pienso que debes irte.
It's just that the Spanish version here asks me to better use subjunctive, because in front of my inner eye the rule appears that, no matter how much certainty I express, I have to use the subjunctive, because there are two subjects... and that's my problem. After what you guys are saying, this rule isn't even correct anymore.
The way I see it, the rule actually wants to state that what CAN BE a reason for subjunctive is the occurance of two subjects (but if this is the case it doesn't mean automatically that subjunctive is used forever and for always). What do you think ? Would you agree here?

No idea... You might ask a purist orthodox of the Spanish grammar, maybe they perfectly understand what you mean.

Well, we actually have this kind of super-pro at our University as well... he's mad with grammar and obsessed by it. Weird prof, he knows about everything about Spanish grammar. Anyways he was not able to answer the whole thing in a way that could satisfy me or gave me the feeling that I now understand the rule. Thanks for your help as well :)

¿No comentaste que era fácil? ---> It is difficult, but you said otherwise (the action is happening ---> you said the wrong thing)
No comentaste que fuera fácil ---> It is easy, but you wouldn't say (the action is not happening)

Hm, I thought that the first sentence means what you said for the second one :D. Can you translate the first sentence to English please? (The second one is translated "Didn't you think it was easy", right ??)

[Perikles]

Makes sense to me. And if I consider "pensar" a verb that also expresses uncertainty (do you think else btw ?) the following thing confuses me:Ah, but grammatically, pensar does not express uncertainty, even if logically it does. That is because that which you think is a specific idea, even if the idea expresses uncertainty.

I'm not sure that your approach here is going to be helpful. You need to list all the situations where the subjunctive is required (e.g. in certain constructions), then those where it is optional. You should then get a feel for when the subjunctive is appropriate. Being acutely aware that mood in English also helps. The rules are not that rigid or consistent that they can be understood logically (just my opinion).

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

@JSK: I think everyone has given you the same advice here: check your subjunctive. You will be much less confused. :)

As for these translations: check Alec's explanations on the meaning of those sentences. You should be able to see the translation through them...
¿No comentaste que era fácil? ---> Didn't you say it was easy?
No comentaste que fuera fácil ---> You didn't say it was easy.

[JSK]

Ah, but grammatically, pensar does not express uncertainty, even if logically it does. That is because that which you think is a specific idea, even if the idea expresses uncertainty.

Okay, first of all: oh, I seeeeee :eek: Well, that changes A LOT. And it explains a lot. My teachers somehow haven't EVER considered this to be an important fact.... Thank you once again, I'm actually feeling really enlightened right now. Wow.


I'm not sure that your approach here is going to be helpful. You need to list all the situations where the subjunctive is required (e.g. in certain constructions), then those where it is optional.

Yeah well, but the problem is, that nobody admits that there are cases in which a subjunctive is optional, so I've never learned that, so I simply don't know where it is optional. ;)
The first thing I was taught at the University was that I must forget everything about the subjunctive having something to do with uncertainty, mood, feeling, opinion, etc. and the books we are working with (its a series by the same author) support this announcement. They are made very strictly and rigidly so it appears to you that a subjunctive is at all only named when it is required, obligatory (that explains why I detected the rules to be contradictory... they are not, because they are not built upon each other, although the book suggests this). Literally, the word "opcional" never occurs when I think about it now...
No offense ;) but this forum in fact was my last attempt to get to know rules. I showed the book and the exercises it contains to a lot of Spanish teachers I know personally and they gave it a look and said that, at a certain point, it is not about rules and grammar anymore but about style and interpretation. What you and Angelica told me so far only supports their opinion. But, for obvious reasons, the book and my profs at the University would never say such. A different story.

Thank you anyways also @ AngelicaDeAlquezar. But I have one last question: how would you say the following loaded question in Spanish:
A: Do you remember the exam yesterday?
B: (makes a sceptical face) Yeah, I know.....
A: What's up?? Don't you think it was easy?

I would translate it with ¿Pero qué pasa? No pienses que fuera fácil?
because this would be according to what alecCowan said
---> It is easy, but you wouldn't say (the action is not happening)

[aleCcowaN]

A: Do you remember the exam yesterday?
B: (makes a sceptical face) Yeah, I know.....
A: What's up?? Don't you think it was easy?

I would translate it with ¿Pero qué pasa? No pienses que fuera fácil?
because this would be according to what alecCowan said

¿No piensas que era fácil?

Both actions are happening. You can't expect that lies become subjunctive in Spanish. Things happen or doesn't happen within the scope of the sentence, even if that is not essentially true.

Look these examples:

No lo maté porque fuera mi hermano ---> I killed him, but not because he was my brother (one action happens -matar-, the other is not the cause, so it doesn't happen in the scope of the sentence though evidently he is indeed my brother)
No lo maté porque era mi hermano ---> I didn't kill him because he is/was my brother (both actions happen: no matar, and ser)

By the way, "no pienses" is subjuntivo exhortativo, that is, it is imperative, another case of actions that are not happening.

[BenCondor]

No lo maté porque fuera mi hermano
No lo maté porque era mi hermano Note that these two sentences could be translated as:
"I didn't kill him because he was my brother"
In English we don't know which of Alec's cited meanings is the intended one. Are you explaining that you didn't kill him because he's your brother (and you couldn't bring yourself to pull the trigger, for example), or are you explaining that you did kill him but simply not for the reason that he's your brother?

This shows of course that both constructions: with indicative and with subjunctive in the second clause are perfectly valid. I'm not sure how this squares with the rules the professors have been citing.:hmm:

[aleCcowaN]

This shows of course that both constructions: with indicative and with subjunctive in the second clause are perfectly valid. I'm not sure how this squares with the rules the professors have been citing.:hmm:

Surely it hasn't to do with subordinadas sustantivas, but it was presented to illustrate how the concept of an action happening (Spanish indicative -keeping conditional in a different lot) and not happening (everything else).

These are some general examples of subordinadas sustantivas:

Creo que podemos hacerlo.
No creo que podamos hacerlo.
Creo que no podemos hacerlo.
No creo que no podamos hacerlo.

Me gusta que venga.
No me gusta que venga.
Me gusta que no venga.
No me gusta que no venga.

Estimo que es momento de que te esfuerces
No estimo que sea momento de que te esfuerces.
Estimo que es momento de que no te esfuerces.
No estimo que sea momento de que no te esfuerces.

But it is not clear what supposed grammar rule is invoked by JSK in the opening post. It seems to apply only to the Spanish way for question tags:

You commented that the exam was easy, didn't you?
¿No comentaste que el examen era fácil?

as opposed to non-questions:

No comentaste que el examen fuera fácil.
No comentaste que el examen fue fácil.
No comentaste que el examen es fácil.

[JSK]

@alecCowan: "pienses" was just a typing mistake. I wanted to write "piensas", of course! The thing with the imperative I already knew (glad I at least got that one right...).
And thanks for your further explanations :) I feel better now, your idea of actions happening/not happening is evident. I will keep that in mind.

@ BenCondor: you are totally SO right. I'm often confused because I can't, sort of, let go the English language patterns and implications. Not helpful. And, no, it does NOT square with the way of teaching of my professors :D not at all.

[BenCondor]

I have to admit I was puzzled by this:

The first thing I was taught at the University was that I must forget everything about the subjunctive having something to do with uncertainty, mood, feeling, opinion, etc.
Basically I'd have to disagree, though I would be careful in the choice of words in my disagreement. Probably the most effective test is to ask: "Is the clause in question considered an actual fact by the person reporting the clause? If so, use the indicative. Otherwise (grammar permitting) use the subjunctive"

So: "Creo que el cielo es rojo" Why? Because the person reporting the clause (me) believes it to be true. Now external observers (such as yourself) may disagree and doubt the veracity. But I'm the one reporting it and to me it's a fact. Ergo use indicative.

"Por atrevidos que sean, no van a ganar" Here we use the subjunctive because the narrator (implicit person reporting clause) is not saying that "they" are in fact daring. Maybe none of them are daring. Or maybe all of them are daring. The narrator is not claiming to know. He is simply saying no matter how daring they may be they are not going to win.

Now of course there is more to it than this, especially in identifying where the subjunctive may occur. But I find this test to be effective once you are asking yourself the question of which to use.

[aleCcowaN]

"Por atrevidos que sean, no van a ganar" Here we use the subjunctive because the narrator (implicit person reporting clause) is not saying that "they" are in fact daring. Maybe none of them are daring. Or maybe all of them are daring. The narrator is not claiming to know. He is simply saying no matter how daring they may be they are not going to win.


It doesn't work that way, that's why it's important to forget all the uncertain, feeling, opinion, etc business.

-Ellos son muy inteligentes, del pirmero al último. Han sido sometidos a exámenes científicos y un panel de expertos los declaró extraordinariamente inteligentes.
-No lo dudo, pero por más inteligentes que sean ésta no la van a descifrar

The speaker is saying that there is no possible reality where they are intelligent and they decipher the riddle by intelligence. In fact, given the context the phrase "por más inteligentes que sean" acknowledges that they are intelligent indeed, but for the sake of deciphering that riddle, they are not. It's not a matter of "they are not enough", a frequent patch used to keep the "feelings, uncertainty, yada, yada" CliffNotes-like lists.

[BenCondor]

But the intrinsically hypothetical nature of the phrase is still there. The hypothetical (though in this case true/factual) nature is what invokes the subjunctive. I don't see how your arguments are refuting my point. Am I missing something?

[aleCcowaN]

But the intrinsically hypothetical nature of the phrase is still there. The hypothetical (though in this case true/factual) nature is what invokes the subjunctive. I don't see how your arguments are refuting my point. Am I missing something?

Subjunctive is pretty easy and straightforward once you know Spanish indicative. Otherwise, every case is a new rule plenty of exceptions. The following sentences say the same, with some difference out of their bare meaning:

Lo bueno es que no trabajamos hoy.
Lo bueno es que no trabajemos hoy.

CliffNotes may have one rule for that, but indeed it's just another case of indicative in its best.

[BenCondor]

You've stated this:

we can only use indicative with things that are happening (no matter when) or things that do exist, at least in an abstract level...
And I have stated this

But I'm the one reporting it and to me it's a fact. Ergo use indicative.
To be honest, I think that yours actually needs some modification because I could say, for example:

"Creo que dos más dos es igual a cinco". Grammatically this is correct, but even invoking the caveat "at an abstract level" does not help us understand why the indicative is being used. After all, math is by nature abstract, and in that abstract realm we can clearly see it is wrong and by many definitions non-existent, so we should be rejecting the indicative by your criteria. Shouldn't we? This is why I'm careful to stress that the reality (nature as fact) is in the mind of the narrator or writer.

That quibble aside, I've never seen a case where the subjunctive didn't involve a hypothetical or subjective aspect. I'm unclear why this fact is being written off as "CliffNotes" Indeed, looking at most explanations on this thread, aside from requiring two separate subjects, the most common one seems to be that there is such an aspect. If I say "the sky is red" that, to me, is a fact. When I start speculating whether it is necessary, good, bad, etc. those speculations aren't facts. Even the famous example of the dead/living brother shows that the clause that reveals he, in fact, killed his brother is precisely the speculative(subjunctive) one by focusing the certainty onto the first clause.