Nos alegramos de que estés en Sevilla

[mwtzzz]

What's the correct translation for:
"Nos alegramos de que tu estés en Sevilla"

estés is present subjunctive. does this mean that we "would be happy if you were in Sevilla" but without using the conditional form of alegrar? if so, why not use the conditional?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

The sentence ia saying that we are happy that you are here.
The subjunctive is triggered by the expression "alegrarse de que".

[mwtzzz]

It seems that the present subjunctive is triggered by "que" "para que" "de que":
me gustaría que prestes atencion a ...
(I would like you to pay attention to ...)


And the past subjunctive is triggered by "si":
me gustaría si prestaras atencion a ....
(I would like if you paid attention to....)

[aleCcowaN]

"Que" is a conjunction. It triggers nothing. It just says that the following bit must be parsed with the preceding phrase, and, sometimes, how. And if part of anything, it's a part of what follows and not a part of what comes first.

About why subjunctive, my explanation here (http://forums.tomisimo.org/showpost.php?p=158788&postcount=3) applies.

I agree beginners can be overwhelmed if Spanish subjunctive is explained as it should, hence all those tricks and rules having each a dozen exceptions they are told just to help them and lure them into acquiring basic information on the subject. But it comes the time when the faux theories start doing more harm than good, as they promote the utterly false notion that Spanish takes the English indicative and simply unfolds it in two different moods, all "triggered" by ritualistic words.

Spanish indicative and subjunctive are the weft and warp of the language. Indicative points to the action indeed happening in the space of the phrase (Llueve = it, indeed, rains; No llueve = Indeed, it doesn't rain). Subjunctive points to an action that has lost its ability to occur in the space of the phrase (No vayas = Don't go).

As there are just two moods related to this, both move towards their common border and generate tons of uses that may whelm the trigger-ridden student who can't get rid off that beginner fluff. "Quizás venga" but "a lo mejor viene". "Busco una persona que hable español" but "busco una persona que habla español". Both instances of focus. "Es genial que este año febrero tiene 29 días" but "es genial que este año febrero tenga 29 días", instance of the informational value. Or "no lo maté porque era mi hermano" and "no lo maté porque fuera mi hermano", two phrases that say exactly the opposite.

That, you and everybody will learn when you say "sayonara, triggers". And by the way, emotions and wishes are expressed in indicative. "Quiero que vengas", "¿Cómo quieres que te quiera?" ("quiero", "quieras" are indicative)

[mwtzzz]

"Busco una persona que hable español" but "busco una persona que habla español". Are both these correct? What is the difference?

Let's take a look at this:
"Como te quiero no hay nadie que te quiera"
"Como te amo no hay nadie que te ame"
What does these mean in English?
Can we also say:
"Como te quiero no hay nadie que te quiere"
"Como te amo no hay nadie que te ama"
?


Let's also take a look once again at the original post:
"nos alegramos de que tu estés en Sevilla". this uses the subjunctive. So it means to say that maybe you are in Sevilla, maybe you aren't, but we are happy if you are ...

If you really truly are in Sevilla at this moment, should I say "nos alegramos de que tu estas en Sevilla". Is this correct or incorrect?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

It seems that the present subjunctive is triggered by "que" "para que" "de que":
me gustaría que prestes atención a ...
(I would like you to pay attention to ...)

And the past subjunctive is triggered by "si":
me gustaría si prestaras atención a ....
(I would like if you paid attention to....)
Although those linking words are not necessarily related to the subjunctive, you are right about the the cases you're quoting and comparing here.
"Si" introduces a condition, similar to the subjunctive it introduces in English (like in "If I were attentive, you would be happier"); both are constructed in the past and both consider a possibility the speaker doesn't feel very close to.


"Busco una persona que hable español" but "busco una persona que habla español". Are both these correct? What is the difference?
In the first sentence, you haven't met the person yet, so the subjunctive is expressing some kind of uncertainty that there is someone who will meet your need.
In the second sentence, you already know someone who speaks Spanish and you are looking for that specific person.


Let's take a look at this:
"Como te quiero no hay nadie que te quiera" :good:
"Como te amo no hay nadie que te ame":good:
What does these mean in English?
Can we also say:
"Como te quiero no hay nadie que te quiere":bad:
"Como te amo no hay nadie que te ama" :bad:
?

In English, these sentences say "there is no one who loves you the way I do".
And the subjunctive is triggered by the negative statement ("no hay nadie"), so the last two sentences are incorrect in Spanish.
The positive sentence is constructed with the indicative: "Hay alguien que te quiere/ama como yo".
Yet, you can say "Nadie te quiere/ama como yo", which is a way simpler negative construction and also uses the indicative.


Let's also take a look once again at the original post:
"nos alegramos de que tú estés en Sevilla". this uses the subjunctive. So it means to say that maybe you are in Sevilla, maybe you aren't, but we are happy if you are ...

If you really truly are in Sevilla at this moment, should I say "nos alegramos de que tú estás en Sevilla".:bad: Is this correct or incorrect?
As I said, the expressions like "alegrarse de que" (and the similar ones I listed in your other thread plus those that express how you feel about something) are constructed with the subjunctive. In this case, there is no ambiguity: the person is here.
I found this link (http://hispanoteca.eu/Foro-preguntas/ARCHIVO-Foro/Subjuntivo%20o%20indicativo%20con%20verbos%20de%20 afecci%C3%B3n.htm) that explains some of these uses of the subjunctive. You might find it useful. :)

[aleCcowaN]

Let's start again:

Nos alegramos de que estés en Sevilla (the person is undoubtedly in Seville)

I already started explaining the reason for you. You may try to understand my explanation or follow another path (is it leading you somewhere?)

Busco una persona que habla español (you have learnt there's such a person in the place you're asking; if you have met the person before but you forgot their name, you personalize it even more by saying "busco a una persona ...")
Busco una persona que hable español (you don't know if such a person exists in that place, but that kind of person is what you are looking for)

Nadie te ama como yo te amo (a declaration of a fact)
Como yo te amo no hay nadie que te ame (a declaration of the exactly same fact, just more emphatic and less 100% factual: that doesn't come at all from subjunctive)

They are exactly the same. Why the change of mood? The verb haber -that triggers squat- reinforced by the negation of the action. Again, two verbs collide. Only one can be the star of the sentence (the action that is meant to occur around it).

no hay nadie que te ame
no creo que haya nadie/alguien que te ame
se me dificulta que creas que haya alguien que te ame
no concibo que se te antoje creer que haya alguien que te ame

[mwtzzz]

Hay alguien que te quiere.

No hay nadie que te quiera.

Como yo te quiero, tambien hay otro que te quiere.

Como te quiero, no hay nadie que te quiera.

An example from the link that Angelica provided:
Me molestó que llegara cuando yo ya habia hecho el trabajo
me molestó que llegó cuando yo ha habia hecho el trabajo

The meaning of the first is that I was upset that somebody *might* arrive after I finished the job.

The meaning of the second is that I was upset that a specific person arrived (did arrive) after I finished the job.

Correct?

[aleCcowaN]

No. Both phrases can mean exactly the same. The second one informs something that is not known to the person hearing it -the other person arrived late-. The first one supposes that bit of information known to that interlocutor.

Both phrases can convey nuances depending on the rest of the conversation, the intonation used, and the education of the speaker. I prefer not to beat around the bush and offer my own interpretation as some other can offer exactly the opposite.

You only may suspect that by using subjunctive in the first example, the speaker is focused in he being angry, and with indicative, focused on the reason for that anger.

Hay alguien que te quiere.

No hay nadie que te quiera.

Como yo te quiero, tambien hay otro que te quiere.

Como te quiero, no hay nadie que te quiera.

Hay alguien que te quiere / Creo que viene
No hay nadie que te quiera / No creo que venga

No hay nadie que te quiera como te quiero yo
Hay muchos que te quieren como te quiero yo

All exactly the same: indicative points to existence, subjunctive to lack.

Not related with the previous examples (remember reasons for indicative/subjunctive can concur)

Veo con gozo que expreses que te fascina que haya alguien que te ama.

We can rizar el rizo all we want, but again, founding different reasons for subjunctive/Spanish indicative concurring in every example. For instance:

Veo con gozo que expresas que te fascina que haya alguien que te ama.

is also a valid one, but with a different meaning of the verb ver.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

An example from the link that Angelica provided:
Me molestó que llegara cuando yo ya habia hecho el trabajo
me molestó que llegó cuando yo ha habia hecho el trabajo

I agree with Alec that both sentences would have the same meaning.
However, I don't find correct "...que llegó...", because the verb agreement is forced. It is understandable that someone would say "llegó", because the situation is in the past --it's a fact that the person arrived when the work was finished and it's a fact I was upset by it. Yet, grammatically, as the speaker is saying "me molestó que", which expresses how they feel about something, the verb agreement needs the subjunctive. The past situation is already understood, and the subjunctive responds more to how I feel, than to how close to the facts the situation was.

Finally, please note that the sentence was used in the question; it's not included in the examples of the explanation. :)