Si le llego ...

Si le llego ...
 

This is a newspaper article about an (alleged) attempt by some gentleman to poison his wife by mixing poison with some purée she ate. (She is of an advanced age of 54, so presumably food needing teeth is unpopular. :eek:)

The attempt failed, and she is horrified at the thought that her grandson might have been with her and eaten some himself. So she says

Si le llego a dar el puré a mi nieto lo habría matado yo misma

This drives me crazy. Would anyone claim that this is an acceptable way of expressing a hypothetical situation? Does this count as genuine Canarian dialect (I've never heard anybody here use the subjunctive for anything, ever) or is it just wrong? Or correct? :thinking:

Oh - and what is a galletón? and an exaparcera? Thanks.

Aparcero is in the dictionary.

Galletón in this context doesn't seem to be a big biscuit. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2537895 suggests that it's from gallo and refers to a cocky man.

Thanks - but that wasn't really the main point of the post - what do you think of the grammar? (In the Spanish, not mine)

True Spanish, not only Canarian.

Three elements there:

• The verbal periphrasis "llegar a" describes the outcome of an ongoing process. It can be used hypothetically: "si llego a hacer esto", implying that there are many reasons which may render that impossible, or simply it may not happen by chance. A subjunctive substitute.
• The "presente del relato" (present account?): the speaker transfer himself to the time the story actually happen. This is not only an option in story telling but a way to reinforce the impression that some decisions would have been led to a different outcome.
• There are other ways to say it that might look more "grammatically correct" like «Si le hubiera dado el puré a mi nieto, lo hubiera matado yo misma», but this is formal, formulaic, pretty devoid of emotion and limited -and even wrong- about the information conveyed in it. A more precise render like «Si le hubiera llegado a dar el puré a mi nieto, lo hubiera matado yo misma» is, artifacticious? and what it gains in precision it loses in emotional commitment. It is extremely common that highly educated people resort to more popular uses to convey the right degree of emotion. This would be then a more complex case of structures such as "¡se me casa la nena!".

That's really interesting, thanks! So "Si llego a .." describes a past event which didn't happen, similar to "casi me mato"

Well, not always. To describe a past event you must use "presente del relato". The "didn't happen" part is not conveyed by the verbal periphrasis but by the context in the original story, but that structure is often used with the intention of pointing to purely random circumstances, the kind that is often called miracles or divine intervention:

[After an air disaster] Si no llego a quedar atrapado en ese atasco ahora estaría muerto.

But the structure is mainly used in this way:

Si llego a viajar a tu ciudad, te visito/visitaré (it's a certainty, but only "if..")
Si llego a viajar a tu ciudad, te visitaría (meaning "quizás te visite", that is, don't wait for me standing up, a sofa is better)

These uses of "si lleg* a + infinitive" are a stretch of the normal use of "llegar a + infinitive". As I told, this verbal periphrasis is used to describe a process by its outcome or goal:

Quiere llegar a ser general (do all the necessary steps to become that)

but it is also used to describe eventualities:

Y si alguien llega a preguntar dónde fui, dile que al dentista. (in the eventuality of someone asking ...)

It's within this branch of uses that a subjunctive-like use may exist.

Gallo from RAE: http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=gallo

Aparcera from RAE: http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=aparcera

Thanks again, both :thumbsup:

I have just read this:

Si lo llego a saber, no vengo

which in context can only mean

If I had known, I would not have come

Followed on the same page by:

Si él las hubiera sabido, todavía estaría vivo.

I despair sometimes. :banghead:

Think of "llegar a + verb" in a "si" clause as if it is something incipient or something eventual. When it is another kind of "si" clause, it follows general rules:

Si el las hubiera sabido (las medidas de seguridad) todavía estaría vivo.

but

Si lo llego a saber, no vengo (If I had had the slightest hint or suspition that it would be this way, I wouldn't have come/ If I have been in the known, I wouldn't have come)

What about "had I come to know that...." or is it American? :rolleyes:

It's not something I would say :thinking:

So, "we came to know that...." must be American.

Just wanted to check. Thanks.

:)