la diferencia entre los verbos venir e ir

[gramatica]

Hola a todos:

¿Me pueden decir si esto está correcto, por favor?

-Ven acá=Come here
-Ya voy=I'm coming y no ya vengo ni vengo pero otra persona puede decir "ya viene"=she's coming y no se diría "ya va" ¿no?

Dos personas hablan(están hablando) en persona

-¿Puedes venir al evento?=Can you come/go to the event?/¿Vienes al evento?=Are you coming/going to the event?
-No, perdón, pero no creo que pueda (venir)=No, sorry, but I don't think I can come

Dos personas hablan(están hablando) por teléfono

-¿Puedes ir al evento?/¿Vas al evento?=Can you go to the event?/Are you going to the event?
-No, no puedo ir (al evento)=No, I can't go (to the event)

(en persona)
-¿Puedes venir/ir a la escuela o estás demasiado enfermo?=Are you going to school or are you too ill/sick?

¿Hay una regla de cuándo se usa "venir" y cuándo se usa "ir" en casos así?

Fue al evento/vino al evento=She went to the event/she came to the event

Muchas gracias

[Tomisimo]

Originally Posted by gramatica

-Ven acá=Come here
-Ya voy=I'm coming y no ya vengo ni vengo pero otra persona puede decir "ya viene"=she's coming y no se diría "ya va" ¿no?

Dos personas hablan(están hablando) en persona

-¿Puedes venir al evento?=Can you come/go to the event?/¿Vienes al evento?=Are you coming/going to the event?
-No, perdón, pero no creo que pueda (venir)=No, sorry, but I don't think I can come

If they're talking in person, and they are not at the location where the event will take place, it would be:

¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento? No creo que pueda ir.

If the two people where talking on the phone, and the person doing the inviting was at the location where the event will take place, then they would say:

¿Puedes venir? ¿Vas a venir?

But the other person would still say:

No creo que pueda ir.

Originally Posted by gramatica

¿Hay una regla de cuándo se usa "venir" y cuándo se usa "ir" en casos así?

There´s actually a really simple rule for ir and venir:

When the location of the person doing the talking is not the same as the destination being discussed, they should use ir.
When the location of the person doing the talking is the same as the destination being discussed, they should use venir.

1. Someone knocks on the door and I shout from the other room "I'm coming". I need to use ir because my location (the person speaking) is not the same as the destination (the door), so I say "Ya voy".

2. I'm at home and I call someone to invite them over. Use venir because my location (the person who's speaking) is the same as the destination being discussed (my home). ¿Quieres venir a mi casa? Te invito a mi casa.

3. I'm in my car and someone calls me from their home, inviting me to come to their house. The invitation would be with venir, because the person doing the speaking (inviting) is at the location being discussed. they would say: ¿Quieres venir a mi casa? I would respond with ir, since the destination is not the same as my present location (since I'm now doing the speaking). "Si, voy a tu casa.".

I hope that clears it up.

This exact same rule works for llevar / traer as well.

When speaker's location = destination being discussed, the speaker will use venir & traer, otherwise they will use ir & llevar.


NOw you can try out this rule on a bunch of examples and post them here, and we'll see if you get them all right. Once you get your head around this rule, it's really not that hard.

[gramatica]

Thank you very much

¿Te parecen bien estos ejemplos?

In person:
(informal)-¿Me puedes traer un paquete de servilletas, por favor?
(formal)-Sí, ya se las traigo.

In person:
-¿Qué llevas al evento?/¿Qué quieres llevar al evento?/¿Qué vas a llevar al evento?
-(Llevo cualquier cosa,) no me importa. ¿Qué quieres que lleve?

(en otro sitio aparte de él del evento)
-¿Vas al evento?
-Sí (yo voy)

(en casa, a punto de irse al evento o en el carro enfrente del evento)
-Ya es muy tarde, ¿vienes?
-Sí, ya voy

-¿Qué lleva/trae la pizza/le ponen a la pizza?
-Lleva/trae

Thank you very much

[Alfonso]

Tomísimo, I think yours is a superb explanation and a great attempt to find a rule, but it lacks the idea of companionship that these two verbs, venir and traer, can convey.

Originally Posted by Tomisimo

If they're talking in person, and they are not at the location where the event will take place, it would be:
¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento? No creo que pueda ir.

Actually, in the same context, you can use either one of these, but they convey different meanings:

• ¿Puedes venir al evento? ¿Vienes al evento?
• ¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento?

(In Spanish it's neither common nor colloquial the word evento, although not incorrect).

And the difference between these phrases is not the place in which the person who is doing the talking is, but the fact that if he or she is going to the event or not.

• Vienes a la fiesta? (Yo también voy).
• Vas a la fiesta? (Yo no voy).

The same works for traer / llevar.

[Marsopa]

Thanks for the additional comment on ir/venir a la fiesta. It was a great addition to David's really great rule.

It seems like it has to do with where the speaker is imagining himself to be--either at the party (vienes?) or at home (vas?)

That is a really subtle and interesting difference.

thanks,

Marsopa

[gramatica]

Muchas gracias a todos

En este caso, es igual de correcto preguntar ¿Qué lleva el sándwich? que ¿Qué trae el sándwich?

Alfonso,

A few small corrections:

Tomísimo, I think yours is a superb explanation and a great attempt to find a rule, but it lacks the idea of a connection between these two verbs, venir and traer (that can be conveyed/expressed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisimo
If they're talking in person, and they are not at the location where the event will take place, it would be:
¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento? No creo que pueda ir.

Actually, in the same context, you can use either one of these, but the have/convey different meanings:

• ¿Puedes venir al evento? ¿Vienes al evento?
• ¿Puedes ir al evento? ¿Vas al evento?

(In Spanish it's neither common nor colloquial the word evento, although not incorrect).

And the difference between these phrases is not the place in which the person who is doing the talking is, but the fact that if he or she is going to the event or not.

• Vienes a la fiesta? (Yo también voy).
• Vas a la fiesta? (Yo no voy).

The same works for traer / llevar.

Muchas gracias

saludos

[Alfonso]

Marsopa, yes it's a subtle difference, but it's everyday Spanish. Any Spanish speaker will use it that way without thinking about it.
I agree with you, it's got something to do with where the speaker imagines to be.

Gramática, thanks a lot for your corrections! I understand all of them, except this one: but it lacks the idea of a companion between these two verbs, venir and traer that can be conveyed.

I guess from your correction that you can not only choose between two things, but also add between two things.

And I guess it's also possible: it lacks the idea of a companion these two verbs can convey. But I don't know why is it neccesary the article a for an abstract noun.

What would you say? To convey the idea of Love or to convey the idea of a Love? (I'm referring to Love in general terms, as an abstract).

Originally Posted by gramatica

En este caso, es igual de correcto preguntar ¿Qué lleva el sándwich? que ¿Qué trae el sándwich?

Yes, both of them are correct. But they convey subtlety different meanings, mainly depending on intonation and context (pragmatics).
I would say that ¿Qué trae el sandwich? is more easily converted into an ironic sentence. You're not very sure you will like the sandwich, or you are sick and tired of eating always the same thing. Of course, the same sentence said with a sincere and frank smile will not have any sarcastic meaning.

Corrections are welcomed.

[gramatica]

Hi,

Gramática, thanks a lot for your corrections! I understand all of them, except this one: but it lacks the idea of a connection between these two verbs, venir and traer that can be conveyed.

I guess from your correction that you can not only choose between two things, but also add between two things.

And I guess it's also possible: it lacks the idea of a companion these two verbs can convey. But I don't know why is it neccesary the article a for an abstract noun.

Corrections are welcomed=corrections are welcome

Isn't it the same in Spanish? ¿No se dice "le falta la idea de una conotacion/conexcion entre estos dos verbos (que se puede expresar)"=it lakes the idea of a connotation/connection between these two verbs (that can be expressed/conveyed)

Espero que te sirva

Regards

[Alfonso]

Thanks a lot, Gramática, but I didn't say anything about connection between two verbs, but about the idea of companion that these two verbs can convey.

Originally Posted by gramatica

Isn't it the same in Spanish? ¿No se dice "falla en la idea de una (connotación/) conexión entre estos dos verbos (que se puede expresar)"= it lakes the idea of a connotation/connection between these two verbs (that can be expressed/conveyed)

Espero que te sirva

Regards

So, what I meant, I don't know if rightly expressed or not, is that both verbs can convey the same idea of companion, what is the lack I found in David's rule.

The phrase you wrote in Spanish would be: [La regla] falla en la idea, que se puede expresar, de conexión entre estos dos verbos, but it doesn't make too much sense to me.

Anyway, I think I found the way of the sentence: the rule lacks the idea of companion that these two verbs can convey. Is it right?

[Rusty]

Perhaps this would work: The rule lacks the idea of companionship that these two verbs can convey. That there are two people involved, in a companionship (one accompanying the other), is what I think you're trying to say.

[Alfonso]

You've got it, Rusty!

So, if I say companion instead of companionship the phrase is not correct nor clear?

Is there a better way to say ... it lacks the idea of companionship that these two verbs can convey to make it more clear?

You'v got the idea, how would you express it?

Thanks a lot!

[Rusty]

Correct. Companion cannot stand alone in your sentence. It isn't clear.

Right now I can't think of a better way to say what you said about the two verbs.

[Alfonso]

Thanks a lot, Rusty and Gramática. Now I think it's really clear for me.

[Tomisimo]

Alfonso,

Thanks for your additional explanation, I really appreciate it.

[canyonff]

this is just my 2 cents.

I think what alfonso's trying to convey might be better described as a state of mind, rather than using ones imagination.

in his example he used two different verbs, which could/should mean two different things, to convey the same meaning/action.

what i mean to say is, in english sometimes we do this too, and evidently in spanish speakers aswell. let me explain, i think this is what he was trying to say.

let's say there is a party, or a destination, that you KNOW you will go to or be at. In this state of mind, since you know you're going to attend or are going, you would consider yourself there. sort of like imagining, but more a state of mind since you KNOW it rather that THINK it.

now you leave your house, get by your car and another friend pulls up. this friend doesn't know about the party or isn't sure if they're going. You could say
"Man i'm going to this killer party, you want to come?" or you could say
"man i'm going to this killer party, you want to go?"

either way, in this context, the listener is going to know what you mean. so in this case, come and go actually mean the same thing as they are expressing the same action: moving location. But the speaker, has the option to use either because of a state of mind.


also in the same conversation that friend, who is now the speaker, could say either:
"Sure i'll come." or
"sure i'll go."

and both would be correct as they both express the same action [moving location].


so it's really dependent on your mindset. another example could be:

in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to come with us? or
in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to go with us?

again two different verbs, two different 'meanings,' conveying the same action.


i think that's what he meant to say. So pretty much I would say tomisimo's rule is a viable rule, and i was taught that rule in spanish 101, but under certain specific conditions the speaker may use either/or. i.e. when go and come will convey the same action regardless of time or location.

[Alfonso]

Hmmm, Canyonff, not exactly...

I think what you call verbs are better called tenses.

You make a difference between state of mind and imagination. I can only say that in Spanish imaginación works perfectly for what I mean. I'm not getting into connotations about these two words in English, so you can choose which one is the best to translate the Spanish imaginación.

Originally Posted by canyonff

let's say there is a party, or a destination, that you KNOW you will go to or be at. In this state of mind, since you know you're going to attend or are going, you would consider yourself there. sort of like imagining, but more a state of mind since you KNOW it rather that THINK it.

now you leave your house, get by your car and another friend pulls up. this friend doesn't know about the party or isn't sure if they're going. You could say
"Man i'm going to this killer party, you want to come?" or you could say
"man i'm going to this killer party, you want to go?"

either way, in this context, the listener is going to know what you mean. so in this case, come and go actually mean the same thing as they are expressing the same action: moving location. But the speaker, has the option to use either because of a state of mind.

Actually, in Spanish, to choose venir o ir in this context makes a difference:

• Voy a la fiesta, ¿quieres venir? It's coherent.

• Voy a la fiesta, ¿quieres ir? Here there is a contradiction. The other person can ask: ¿No has dicho que vas a la fiesta? ¿Por qué me preguntas que si voy yo? ¿Es que tú no vienes? Or, at least, the first person is not encouraging the other to go the party. The second one will understand that he has to go by himself. There is not idea of companionship.

Originally Posted by canyoff

also in the same conversation that friend, who is now the speaker, could say either:
"Sure i'll come." or
"sure i'll go."

and both would be correct as they both express the same action [moving location].

In this case it's impossible to translate it literally into Spanish, since there is only one possibility:

• Claro que voy. Either with you or by myself.

Originally Posted by canyoff

so it's really dependent on your mindset. another example could be:

in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to come with us? or
in the fall, we're going on a cruise. would you like to go with us?

again two different verbs, two different 'meanings,' conveying the same action.

Again you can get the same contradiction already explained:

• En Inviernno nos vamos de crucero. ¿Te gustaría ir con nosotros?

Either there is a contradiction (ir con nosotros instead of venir con nostros) or the one who speaks is not really inviting the other to go on a cruise. Sure, it's only a compliment.

Originally Posted by canyoff

i think that's what he meant to say. So pretty much I would say tomisimo's rule is a viable rule, and i was taught that rule in spanish 101, but under certain specific conditions the speaker may use either/or. i.e. when go and come will convey the same action regardless of time or location.

What I think about this is that you've been taught a rule you will have very soon to forget to improve your Spanish. You can think it's a beginner's rule... I don't think so. It's more confusing than clarifying. It's an abstract with no relationship with reality. Sure, you can learn the rule and think it's really easy. No, it's not. Of course, it's easy to use venir and ir, but other way out, apart from the usage you do in English of to go and to come.

I'm not saying that all Spanish speakers use venir and ir the way I'm saying. But the mainstream does.

[mxchana]

Hi - I learn so much just from trying to follow your discussions, everyone - but I just have to ask re:

¿Qué lleva el sándwich? que ¿Qué trae el sándwich?

Does this mean, what is the sandwich made of? Thanks~

[Alfonso]

You're right, Mxchana.

[Iris]

I would say " ¿ Qué lleva el sandwich?" , but not "¿Qué trae?

[Alfonso]

Of course, Iris, I would also say ¿Qué lleva el sandwich? and hardly ¿Qué trae el sandwich? if I'm not trying to be ironic. We made that distinction upper or lower (depending on how you've got configured your interface).
But, it's also possible. In ¿qué trae el sandwich? there are some connotation easily conveyed: I'm sick and tired of eating always the same stuff; I'm sure I will not like the sandwich.
Of course, there can be other usages depending on the speaker, the context and the intonation. In general terms, as the Spanish speaker that you are, do you agree with me? Pls, tell me!