Is this the subjunctive? - Page 3

No entiendo que "original holder" significa.

Well, those are dialectal. They don't exist in my dialect at all (nobody uses those forms here, even poor and/or educated people), so they aren't really in the same "league" as "I agree" vs. "I concur." Agree and concur to me are synonyms. There is no difference in meaning. They would be used in the same contexts, in the same way as Spanish has "Me llamo Alec Cowan" and "Llamome Alec Cowen". There is no situation I would ever need to use the word "concur" over the word "agree", not even if I was talking to Queen Elizabeth. But if someone used the word "concur", there wouldn't even be a hint of a difference in meaning, any more than "Me llamo" and "Llamome" has. It would just sound a bit sepia toned, as you put it. So when you said that "Estoy de acuerdo" and "Me sumo" mean "I agree" and "I concur", I couldn't pick out any difference in meaning of those two in English, although in Spanish they obviously mean subtly different things.

Yes, but it comes via French. Not to mention that just the way it looks, it looks like it could be an Anglo-Saxon word, even though it isn't.

Interesting thing about agree:
Dictionary.com has an additional definition:
10.
"Chiefly British . to consent to or concur with: We agree the stipulations. I must agree your plans. "

Both of those sound completely incorrect to my American ears.
We could say "We agree," but not "We agree the stipulations." We would say "We agree to the stipulations." As for "I must agree your plans," I have no idea what that means. Can someone explain? Is it the same as "I agree with your plans?" Why is the "must" in there?

That which you might need (present subjunctive) :)

The commonest use of agree in BrE is with a prepositional complement (agree on; agree to; agree with; agree upon) but there is an ancient transitive use: The tax inspector has agreed your allowances.

The example with must is I think unusual. It either means that I am reluctant to agree, but have no choice, or I think the plan is a particularly good one. The context would make that clear. :thinking:

Back to square one. :)

Here I should have written the translations as:

Lo que pueda necesitar

Lo que pudiera/pudiese necesitar.


OK, You threw me off with the one immediately above...

Why did you say that "Anything you might have needed" is the one that translates to "Lo que puediera necesitar"? OK, I did, but that's how I translate it. How do you translate that to Spanish?


This to me translates as

Lo que puedas/pudieras necesitar... :)

and stop having fun, because there are people that need to learn this stuff. :)

I didn't say that, you did. You asked about the past tense:-
Having said that, I think it "Anything you might have needed" is "Lo que pudiera necesitar" :thinking:
I assure you, I'm not having fun. :) Can we move on?

Having fun or being funny?

Neither, at least not intentionally.

Yes, I realized of it.

I translate it as "Lo que pudiera haber necesitado"


Yes. I was interested in finding out if I was translating correctly.

Thanks anyway.

Hernán.

I think this statement needs a thread of its own. :thinking:


Damn - I almost wrote that myself. Thanks. :)

Also: "Lo que podría haber necesitado".
;)

Correcto. Dependiendo del contexto "could" :)