Compound Tenses

[laepelba]

Okay, I know this question is probably a bit too nit-picky, but it's how my brain works. Thank you for bearing with me! :)

My workbook has a chapter on "The Progressive Tenses". The next chapter is called "Compound Tenses: The Present Perfect and the Past Perfect". In the introduction to the chapter on the "Compound Tenses", it explains that these formas compuestas "consist of more than one verb element ... These tenses are conjugated with a basic form of a verb called a past participle..."

But wait! Aren't the progressive tenses formed with "more than one verb element"? Shouldn't the progressive tenses be included under the sub-heading of "compound tenses"/"formas compuestas"?

Thanks!

[Perikles]

But wait! Aren't the progressive tenses formed with "more than one verb element"? Shouldn't the progressive tenses be included under the sub-heading of "compound tenses"/"formas compuestas"?

Thanks!Yes, but you must remember that the book was almost certainly not written by a tidy-minded mathematician with logic as a top priority. I guess they would start off with a structure like a) simple tenses b) compound tenses. Then they write the info for both these. Then they flesh out the simple tenses chapter with another chapter about progressive tenses, thereby confusing the issue.

Perhaps there is a subtle linguistic distinction after all, but it does sound to me like a quibble over taxonomy. :)

[laepelba]

Okay - that's what I was hoping. Just semantics. But one would think that grammar categories ought to be treated in a very objective manner with a mathematical-like approach......

[chileno]

Okay - that's what I was hoping. Just semantics. But one would think that grammar categories ought to be treated in a very objective manner with a mathematical-like approach......

Unfortunately or maybe fortunately not everybody has a mathematical type of thinking, and that has to be taken in account when a book is written. It is intended for everyone to read it. :)

[Lorenzo]

I get confused with the order of my textbook too. It needs to be written better.

Me confundo con el orden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito mejor.

[laepelba]

Unfortunately or maybe fortunately not everybody has a mathematical type of thinking, and that has to be taken in account when a book is written. It is intended for everyone to read it. :)

Yeah. The problem is that those of us with the analytical minds see things as "correct" or "incorrect".......... I feel that the explanation in this introductory paragraph of the textbook is "incorrect" and thus misleading. :)

I get confused with the order of my textbook too. It needs to be written better.

Me confundo con el orden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito mejor.

Welcome, Lorenzo from Yonkers. I have been out of town since you've joined Tomisimo. Let me tell you that you can ask any questions you want here and there are lots of people who are SO MUCH more personable than your textbook to give you answers. Enjoy!!!

[chileno]

Yeah. The problem is that those of us with the analytical minds see things as "correct" or "incorrect".......... I feel that the explanation in this introductory paragraph of the textbook is "incorrect" and thus misleading. :)


I am pretty sure they is a simple explanation for the way the material is presented in the book.

But for you, it shouldn't be that simple. :whistling:

[Rusty]

One thing I noted here, and thought I would bring to your attention, is that the book said the compound tenses are formed with the (past) participle. This can't be said for the (progressive), which uses a (present participle).
The compound tenses use a conjugated form of haber, while the (progressive) uses a conjugated form of estar.

In the paragraph above, I deliberately placed certain terms in parentheses. This is because a native speaker of Spanish isn't taught these terms. These are English terms that we try to fit on Spanish parts of speech. The Spanish equivalents for these terms are participio and gerundio, respectively.

The "compound" tenses are formed using haber + participio (Spanish terms used the formula). The 'progressive' isn't ever listed in a conjugation chart. This is because it is neither a "simple" nor a "compound" tense. It is simply known as the gerundio.

The gerundio has nothing to do with the English gerund. (Don't get me started.)

You'll find all kinds of sites (and books) teaching these things wrong.

[laepelba]

One thing I noted here, and thought I would bring to your attention, is that the book said the compound tenses are formed with the (past) participle. This can't be said for the (progressive), which uses a (present participle). <---YES! That's why I included that part of the quote...
The compound tenses use a conjugated form of haber, while the (progressive) uses a conjugated form of estar.

In the paragraph above, I deliberately placed certain terms in parentheses. This is because a native speaker of Spanish isn't taught these terms. These are English terms that we try to fit on Spanish parts of speech. The Spanish equivalents for these terms are participio and gerundio, respectively.

The "compound" tenses are formed using haber + participio (Spanish terms used the formula). The 'progressive' isn't ever listed in a conjugation chart. This is because it is neither a "simple" nor a "compound" tense. It is simply known as the gerundio.

The gerundio has nothing to do with the English gerund. (Don't get me started.)

You'll find all kinds of sites (and books) teaching these things wrong.

Okay - that is exactly what I was looking for. So "compound" isn't only about having two verb elements. It is specifically about the use of *haber* as the first of those verb elements and the past participle. Thus, the term "compound" is a tad bit misleading.

It's interesting to me that the progressive isn't considered a "conjugation". It seems to me to be quite parallel to the perfect tenses: estar/haber conjugated in present or past or future tense + gerundio/participle

Hmmmm.....

Well, I definitely won't get you started on the gerundio vs. gerund. I DO understand that they're different ... and am starting to get a feel for when to use the gerundio vs. when to use the infinitive.

Thanks, Rusty!!

[Lorenzo]

Yes, I see. I want to use/enjoy this site and my Spanish books.

Si, veo. Quiero usar/disfrutar esto sito y mi libros de Español.

Yeah. The problem is that those of us with the analytical minds see things as "correct" or "incorrect".......... I feel that the explanation in this introductory paragraph of the textbook is "incorrect" and thus misleading. :)



Welcome, Lorenzo from Yonkers. I have been out of town since you've joined Tomisimo. Let me tell you that you can ask any questions you want here and there are lots of people who are SO MUCH more personable than your textbook to give you answers. Enjoy!!!

[Rusty]

Me confunde con el órden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito Se necesita escribirlo mejor.confundirse = to be mistaken/wrong (synonym of equivocarse)
confundirse con = mingle/blend/get confused with

"It needs to be written" is an example of the English passive voice. The passive voice in Spanish is not used nearly as often. Instead, use the 'passive se' construct that appears above.

"Lo" can't be used as a subject pronoun. In the construct I used, the direct object pronoun lo is suffixed to the infinitive. Though awkward in colloquial English, the translation of the construct I used is:
One needs to write it

Sí, ya veo. Quiero usar/disfrutar de este sitio y mis libros de español."Ya (lo) veo" = I see (in the sense of understanding something)

Ask if you have other questions about the corrections.

[chileno]

I get confused with the order of my textbook too. It needs to be written better.

Me confundo con el orden de mi libro de texto también. Lo necesita escrito mejor.

Rusty already corrected the first part, but the second one i guess he got confused too.

Se necesita que esté escrito mejor/mejor escrito
o
Necesita estar escrito mejor/mejor escrito.

[Rusty]

I also corrected the second part, chileno. ;)

[Perikles]

One thing I noted here, and thought I would bring to your attention, is that the book said the compound tenses are formed with the (past) participle. This can't be said for the (progressive), which uses a (present participle).
My grammar book says the compound tenses for all verbs are formed from the auxiliary verb haber followed by the past participle This is an interesting statement because I think it is ambiguous and the author is unaware of the ambiguity. I take it to mean either

a) We define compound tenses as those where verbs are formed from the auxiliary verb haber followed by the past participle

or

b) A compound tense is one where the verb is expressed by more than one word. In Spanish, all such all tenses are formed from the auxiliary verb haber followed by the past participle

This is where the lack of clarity arises, because text authors overlook this ambiguity. It is obvious to them that they mean a) and they can't see that a student might understand it as b)

This is called Betriebsblindheit in German - you are so close to the material that you are unaware of your assumptions.

What do you think? Perhaps I'm labouring the point too much, but I do find gammar books very irritating in that they are full of such debatable points. :thinking:

[irmamar]

I think you are confused, grammar is almost rubbing maths. :D

I agree with Rusty. You are studying las formas compuestas de los tiempos verbales, right? Why are you asking about las perífrasis verbales? To me they are quite different concepts, so you'll arrive to study las perífrasis verbales, don't worry. ;)

[laepelba]

@Perikles - I definitely don't think you're belaboring the point too much. It's why I ask such questions. Perhaps only you and I can understand the way my mind might be compelled to do so.... :)

@Irmamar - It's not "worry"... :D I KNOW that I will eventually learn the things I need to learn. When you're a mathematician you are trained to define the terms you use (I'm talking about the definitions of the grammar terms, not the definitions of vocabulary words themselves), and when reading these definitions to pick them apart word for word. I can't *NOT* do so. My confusion has been with the use of the word "compuesta" which, to my mind, is too generic to ONLY refer to "haber + participle". But if that is the definition of that grammatical term, I shall accept it as such. :)

[poli]

Perhaps when you the the word compound verb could be read
as subordinate verb. The verb haber is subordinate to the particple, because the meaning of the verb is in the particple.

There are other verbs such as estar that are can be subordinate in Spanish, but haber is nearly exclusively subordinate (though not completely)

[chileno]

I also corrected the second part, chileno. ;)

:):D:lol::lol::lol:

[laepelba]

Perhaps when you the the word compound verb could be read
as subordinate verb. The verb haber is subordinate to the particple, because the meaning of the verb is in the particple.

There are other verbs such as estar that are can be subordinate in Spanish, but haber is nearly exclusively subordinate (though not completely)

Hmmmm..... :thinking::thinking: ... interesting....

[irmamar]

Yo hablaría de "verbo auxiliar", más que de "verbo subordinado". ;) :)