Subjunctive exercise 14-13

[aleCcowaN]

Como dijo Jack el Destripador, vamos por partes

Again, this depends on your understanding of "hypothetical". With my understanding of the word (in English) it covers constructions like:

Prefiero que vengas mañana
En caso de que necesites ayudo, hablaré con él
Siempre que no te quejas, te saco de paso
Tengo dinero o no, lo va a comprar
Aunque estuviera aquí, no lo hablaría

It looks now to me like the definitions of "hypothetical" and "hipotético" are only partially overlapped. In Spanish hipotético means something "que siendo posible o imposible, se lo supone con el objeto de extraer una consecuencia". Only the fifth of your examples matches this definition. But in English "hypothetical" gets these additional meanings: "2.a. Suppositional; uncertain. b. Conditional; contingent.". Even in Spanish there is some popular approach to "hipotético" that tends to match 2.a. a bit -I suppose that is fostered by dubbing and lipsynch favouring both words to be matched-. But certainly in Spanish something is hipotético when you supposed it is real only for the sake of the reasoning that follows, and within that scope it doesn't matter at all if it's real or not. Sentences like "tenga dinero o no, lo va a comprar" are the exact opposite of that because it says "whether ... or not " or "irrespective" and not "suppose this" or "suppose that".


Yes, I understand exactly your definition of 'prototypical' and 'generic', and I also clearly understand the difference in moods between the two instances of buying soap. (Ignoring the irrelevant problem of how you could use 6 bars of Palmolive soap in 2 months,:rolleyes:) The interesting part is that I see no connection between the definitions of 'generic' and 'prototypical' and the examples given. I see the indicative used for a specific and known type of soap, and the subjunctive used for an as yet unknown type of soap. There is nothing 'generic' or 'prototypical' about this soap, indeed you have specifed qualities that deny it is generic or prototypical, namely that it also has qualities A and B. :thinking:I don't gather how a prototype -of a car or whatever- denies generic qualities of the same kind of object.

But let us try the way of how the idea is constructed -what is prototyping without a name-. When you have a generic object and you want to specify its qualities you may use -among other resources- adjectival clauses including subjunctive. This is a process of synthesis. "Quiero un jabón" -generic holder- "que sea blanco" -you add some quality "y que tenga perfume a lilas" -you add another quality-. Then you submit all three things to the person you are speaking with, who'll keep all three things as a model of the wished object -and not because it is wished, because wishes have nothing to do here-. When you have a concrete object in mind the process is analytical. You 'see' the object in your mind and you thresh qualities in order to describe it: "Quiero ese jabón" -with that "ese" you are saying that we're going analytical- "que es blanco y que tiene ..." so those qualities must act as discriminators among a bunch of mental images of concrete and identified objects within the same category, sort of a fruit/slot machine until the bell announces you got the right object.

Both processes are completely independent in our human mind, but Spanish speakers have it hardwired in our language via moods.

Of course this is just about adjectival clauses.

[Perikles]

It looks now to me like the definitions of "hypothetical" and "hipotético" are only partially overlapped. In Spanish hipotético means something "que siendo posible o imposible, se lo supone con el objeto de extraer una consecuencia". Only the fifth of your examples matches this definition. .OK - so you are using 'hypothetical' in that strict sense of what we might call 'an impossible hypothesis' which is imaginable but untrue:

If I were you ....
If pigs could fly ....
If only I had known ....


But in English "hypothetical" gets these additional meanings: "2.a. Suppositional; uncertain. b. Conditional; contingent.". .Stricty speaking, this is what hypothetical originally meant: pertaining to a hypothesis, a conjecture. It may or may not turn out to be true.

Sentences like "tenga dinero o no, lo va a comprar" are the exact opposite of that because it says "whether ... or not " or "irrespective" and not "suppose this" or "suppose that"..Yes, "suppose this" i.e. hypothetical (in it's boadest, English sense).


"Quiero un jabón" -generic holder- "que sea blanco" -you add some quality "y que tenga perfume a lilas" -you add another quality-. Then you submit all three things to the person you are speaking with....OK, thanks, I now understand how the concept of generic is meant in context. All this highlights the problems associated with words such as hypothetical/hipotético, which as you say do not map exactly onto each other. Another problem is a specialised use of such words so that they may not have the same meanings when used in, say, linguistics and physics.

Both processes are completely independent in our human mind, but Spanish speakers have it hardwired in our language via moods....I'm not a linguist and I know nothing much of linguistics, but I need convincing that there is a fundamental difference between the thought processes in these two cases:

"Quiero un jabón; que sea blanco; y que tenga perfume a lilas"

"I want a soap; let it be white; and let it have the perfume of lilac"

[aleCcowaN]

OK - so you are using 'hypothetical' in that strict sense of what we might call 'an impossible hypothesis' which is imaginable but untrue:

If I were you ....
If pigs could fly ....
If only I had known ....
I meant hypothetical in its strict sense, that is, irrespective it is true or untrue.

If x do have y then ... no matter x is "bigfeet" and y is "children" or x is "couples".

Stricty speaking, this is what hypothetical originally meant: pertaining to a hypothesis, a conjecture. It may or may not turn out to be true.
(Del lat. hypothĕsis, y éste del gr. ὑπόθεσις) ---> what is below the thesis, that is, the set of things that you suppose true or already known or already proved. Thesis means thesis there, but this term comes from the act of placing something (tithenai --> to place, thesis ---> the effect of "tithenai")

OK, thanks, I now understand how the concept of generic is meant in context. All this highlights the problems associated with words such as hypothetical/hipotético, which as you say do not map exactly onto each other. Another problem is a specialised use of such words so that they may not have the same meanings when used in, say, linguistics and physics.
Don't pay much attention to my selection of terms because my English is limited and I tend to select the best substitute available to me. Besides I don't think that formality is much needed to trigger reflexion, and no formality makes you understand a deep aspect of a foreign language when one's time to understand it hasn't come yet.

I'm not a linguist and I know nothing much of linguistics, but I need convincing that there is a fundamental difference between the thought processes in these two cases:

"Quiero un jabón; que sea blanco; y que tenga perfume a lilas"

"I want a soap; let it be white; and let it have the perfume of lilac"
They sound pretty much like a command. Certainly it does in Spanish (they are no longer subordinated but independent)

[Awaken]

This got really complex... If this is how it is going to be taught to students trying to learn subjunctive, I think there will be a LOT of confusion. :confused:

[JPablo]

I tend to agree with you, Awaken.
I would go back to the basic exercise and try to strip the "complexity" of the subject. (I understand Perikles and Alec debate... it's a matter on how to come to terms on the best way to 'explain' it... not necessarily the 'easiest' explanation for new students.) (I.e., it's like a work in progress!)

[aleCcowaN]

Some explanations are not meant to the students but as a hidden thread in a series of exercises. The goal is the student grasping the concept without ever noticing how it works ... pretty much the same way native speakers manage subjunctive remarkably well without knowing how, or ever noticing it.

But discussing some 'theoretical' aspects can be positive anyway.

To this point the major problem I found is the average students thinking in his/her native tongue and then translating into Spanish. English, Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese, Korean and Chinese speakers -named in no particular order- would never learn subjunctive to a 100% that way.

[laepelba]

Some explanations are not meant to the students but as a hidden thread in a series of exercises. The goal is the student grasping the concept without ever noticing how it works ... pretty much the same way native speakers manage subjunctive remarkably well without knowing how, or ever noticing it.

But discussing some 'theoretical' aspects can be positive anyway.

To this point the major problem I found is the average students thinking in his/her native tongue and then translating into Spanish. English, Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese, Korean and Chinese speakers -named in no particular order- would never learn subjunctive to a 100% that way.

Agreed - my math students never need to hear the teachers discussing the best method/vocabulary used to teach multi-step equations or slope or whatever... I have followed what I can from this discussion, and left the rest for the people who know more than I do.

Alec - the *problem* you quote is what kept me from gaining any understanding of Spanish when I took it a zillion years ago in college. I was trying to translate everything to/from English in my head when speaking/listening. This time around, I began by determining to avoid translation wherever possible. I am partially successful, and I am seeing the fruits of those efforts ... in a tighter grasp on meanings and differences between the languages and the richnesses of Spanish grammar. Of course sometimes I need to translate to *get it*, but for the better part I am not doing so. :)

[chileno]

Some explanations are not meant to the students but as a hidden thread in a series of exercises. The goal is the student grasping the concept without ever noticing how it works ... pretty much the same way native speakers manage subjunctive remarkably well without knowing how, or ever noticing it.

But discussing some 'theoretical' aspects can be positive anyway.

To this point the major problem I found is the average students thinking in his/her native tongue and then translating into Spanish. English, Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese, Korean and Chinese speakers -named in no particular order- would never learn subjunctive to a 100% that way.

I agree up to a point. It would be true for languages that do not have subjunctive mode. Else, it is a matter of adjusting the grammar(s) to its translation equivalents.

In the case of French, English and Spanish I think the problem resides in that they have been always in a state of competition and trying each other as to the etymology of the words and its usage, specially grammar wise and each wants to claim they started using whatever form etc...

Latin is the culprit I'd say. :)