Que/ de que

[martiina]

Hey guys, could you help me with this: when do you say Estoy seguro que... ?
and when is it Estoy seguro de que... ?

what are the rules??
I`m having troubles finding out on the internet, its a mystery to me

thank you sooooooo much ))

[Vikingo]

Hi martiina, and welcome to the forum! You should always use "estoy seguro DE que". The other sentence is used, but is called "queísmo". Saludos

[CrOtALiTo]

Yes, I agree with Vikingo's answer you should to use the phrase Estoy seguro de que. This way is more correct than other one.

I bid you welcome to the forums.

[Rusty]

A female says, "Estoy segura de que ..."

[Tomisimo]

Both are fine. "estoy seguro/a (de) que". The RAE frowns on the omission of the "de", but I'll go with what hundreds of millions of native Spanish speakers say every day, not with what the academy dictates. Descriptivism FTW. If you want to read more about it, you can search for queísmo, dequeísmo, and antidequeísmo.

[CrOtALiTo]

I've one doubt about one word that in the David's answer said.

The word Frowns. I don't know what meaning it?

Please may someone gives me the meaning of the word.

According as the search that I did before the word in the dictionary from Tomisimo the word meaning Encapotar.

I'm right with that meaning.

[irmamar]

The verb to frown means "mirar con malos ojos", in the sense of "estar en desacuerdo".

I think that when you're learning a language, you should learn the rules of this language. For instance, I know that in English "wanna" and "gonna" are some common words, but I prefer use "want to" and "going to" instead the first ones. Both Spanish and English have a lot of speakers and almost each town or village speaks in a different way, we're not able to know all the ways. So, the best thing is studying the standar and the rules as they have been established. So, I agree with the RAE and I try to speak and write the best Spanish I'm able to. And I'd like to do the same with English. Well, that's my opinion, others will have another one.

[bobjenkins]

Gracias, he esperado sobre esta tambien (yo esperaba sobre este tópico de gramática tambien_

Ahora, estoy seguro de que es verdad

¿Quién es RAE?

[Vikingo]

Originally Posted by Tomisimo

Both are fine. "estoy seguro/a (de) que". The RAE frowns on the omission of the "de", but I'll go with what hundreds of millions of native Spanish speakers say every day, not with what the academy dictates. Descriptivism FTW.

Aren't you afraid of the consequences? I've looked this up in Butt & Benjamin and Torrego in addition to the RAE, and they all condemn it. B&B speak about "the colloquial tendency to omit the de", though, and aren't as harsh as the other ones.

Do you have any grammar books who find the usage without "de" correct?

In these kinds of phrases it's easy to see that the "de" is needed if we substitute the subordinate noun clause (including "que") with eso.

Estoy seguro eso? No, of course not. Not to start any big meta-discussion over prescriptivism versus descriptivism, but if you speak to educated native speakers, they're likely to notice these things. So when we know the rules involved, at least we can make an informed decision about how we want to communicate.

I totally agree with Irmamar, by the way

Take care

PS: Bob, these guys.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Originally Posted by Tomisimo

Both are fine. "estoy seguro/a (de) que". The RAE frowns on the omission of the "de", but I'll go with what hundreds of millions of native Spanish speakers say every day, not with what the academy dictates.[...]

Sorry to disagree. "Estar seguro(a)" is always followed by "de que", no matter how much a big number of Spanish speakers think they do right to omit the preposition.

I agree with irmamar that when one learns a language one must do so with the rules and standards that have been agreed on and established as the correct ones.


As for knowing when "que" and "de que" must be used, it's really hard to tell simple rules... but every language has its own particularities that have to be learnt by experience.

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by irmamar

The verb to frown means "mirar con malos ojos", in the sense of "estar en desacuerdo".

I think that when you're learning a language, you should learn the rules of this language. For instance, I know that in English "wanna" and "gonna" are some common words, but I prefer use "want to" and "going to" instead the first ones. Both Spanish and English have a lot of speakers and almost each town or village speaks in a different way, we're not able to know all the ways. So, the best thing is studying the standar and the rules as they have been established. So, I agree with the RAE and I try to speak and write the best Spanish I'm able to. And I'd like to do the same with English. Well, that's my opinion, others will have another one.

Yes I know the different and I understand the rules of the grammatic of the English, I know that the words Wanna and Gonna, are specially used in the U.S.A, I use them because I feel more comfortable with them, as according to your commentary the want to and go to are the way more correct instead of the first ones and they are more used in British.

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by CrOtALiTo

Yes I know the different and I understand the rules of the grammatic of the English, I know that the words Wanna and Gonna, are specially used in the U.S.A, I use them because I feel more comfortable with them, as according to your commentary the want to and go to are the way more correct instead of the first ones and they are more used in British.

Well, "wanna" and "gonna" are technically incorrect ("informal" at best) in American English, too. As a teacher, I require that my students say/write "want to" and "going to".....

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Well, "wanna" and "gonna" are technically incorrect ("informal" at best) in American English, too. As a teacher, I require that my students say/write "want to" and "going to".....

I know it.

[irmamar]

Originally Posted by bobjenkins

Gracias, he esperado sobre esta tambien (yo esperaba sobre este tópico de gramática tambien_

Ahora, estoy seguro de que es verdad

¿Quién es RAE?

La RAE es la Real Academia Española, una institución que vela por el uso de la lengua española. Pertenece a la Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, repartidas por todos los países de habla hispana. Tienes más información en:

http://www.rae.es

Por otro lado, pienso que cuando uno consigue en un idioma extranjero una habilidad cercana, si no similar, al suyo, entonces es capaz de sumergirse en las hablas reales de una comunidad o, incluso, de varias, pero no durante el momento del aprendizaje, en que cualquier regla aprendida incorrectamente puede ser un lastre que puede pesar durante el resto del mismo.

Pondré un ejemplo. Nací en Andalucía, donde se habla un dialecto del castellano. Cuando era pequeña, me vestían de "gitana" para las fiestas y de las orejas me colgaban "salsillos". Bueno, pues era ya un poco más mayorcita y un día leyendo un libro leí la palabra "zarcillo" y, al no conocer su significado, la busqué en un diccionario y más o menos la definía como "pendiente". Durante muchos años, yo llevaba pendientes, los zarcillos eran sinónimos de pendientes que de vez en cuando leía en los libros pero que no usaba en mi vocabulario habitual. De golpe y porrazo, un día me di cuenta de que "salsillos", los pendientes de mi traje de gitana que tanto había llevado yo, eran los "zarcillos" castellanos. Aún me cuesta decir "zarcillo" en lugar de "salsillo". Durante años pensé que eran cosas parecidas pero no la misma cosa.

[Tomisimo]

Originally Posted by Vikingo

Do you have any grammar books who find the usage without "de" correct?

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

Sorry to disagree. "Estar seguro(a)" is always followed by "de que", no matter how much a big number of Spanish speakers think they do right to omit the preposition.

My only point is that in my opinion, the majority of speakers define what is "right", not a very small minority of erudite scholars. Language is a living organism and it changes over time. Historically, languages evolved very quickly with words coming and going and grammatical structures changing from generation to generation. Since the invention of printing, this has slowed dramatically. I am not against having rules. Indeed language could not exist without grammar (rules), but my point is that the speakers of a language-- not an artificial governing body-- define what the rules are. Of course, I respect everyone else's opinion as well.

Originally Posted by CrOtALiTo

Yes I know the different and I understand the rules of the grammatic of the English, I know that the words Wanna and Gonna, are specially used in the U.S.A, I use them because I feel more comfortable with them, as according to your commentary the want to and go to are the way more correct instead of the first ones and they are more used in British.

The words "wanna" and "gonna" are very, very rarely used in written English in America. They would mostly only be used in writing to emphasize extremely colloquial speech. In spoken English, it's a continuum and there is really no way of distinguishing between "wanna" and "want to".

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by Tomisimo

The words "wanna" and "gonna" are very, very rarely used in written English in America. They would mostly only be used in writing to emphasize extremely colloquial speech. In spoken English, it's a continuum and there is really no way of distinguishing between "wanna" and "want to".

GREAT point, David. Although I might say "wanna" or "gonna", I would never ever write either one of them.

[CrOtALiTo]

Got it.

Although I know the use to them, I think that either is bad use them.