Subjunctive bedbugs

[aleCcowaN]

Super mal, especialmente con ese "un" delante. Al menos si dijera "el novio..." uno pensaría que uno llegó tarde y se perdió toda la historia, incluyendo la carta.

Con respecto al pretérito "había escrito" y "escribió" son igual de perfectivos porque las acciones se dan por completadas cuando la otra comienza. Con "había escrito" uno comprende la situación con la inteligencia gramatical; con "escribió" la comprende con la inteligencia ... la llamaré lógica, pues no le conozco el nombre (que allí repara en lo perfectivo de "escribió"). En definitiva, de una u otra forma entendemos que la carta estaba escrita al momento en que el novio no se estaba enterando de su existencia y que esa situación se extendió sin remedio hacia el futuro.

Esas diferentes "inteligencias" (funciones cerebrales) son clave en este tema del subjuntivo. Uno puede hacer un experimento utilizándose como sujeto, siempre que entienda bien las instrucciones y obre de buena fe. Las tres siguientes frases contienen errores (no las lean aún) que se corrigen rápido. Las instrucciones son leer las frases superficialmente y prestar mucha atención a cuánto tiempo tardan en "enmendar la frase" -no en detectar el error-. Las frases son éstas:

1) Éste es tuyo libro.
2) Puse agua dentro del bazo.
3) Puse el vaso sobre la mesa y luego bebí la mesa.

Con la primer frase, que contiene errores gramaticales, no terminamos aún de leer la frase que ya está enmendado el pronombre (inteligencia gramatical). La segunda frase tiene un error obvio que tarda un poco más en corregirse (inteligencia semántica). La tercera contiene errores lógicos y tardamos más aún en corregirlos, es la inteligencia lógica que incluso tiene que repasar la frase para confirmar la versión corregida.

Bueno, los hispanohablantes usamos la inteligencia 1 para articular el subjuntivo. Los anglohablantes -o hablantes de lenguas germánicas occidentales- usan una inteligencia entre la 2 y la 3 -las triggering phrases con cierto grado de parentesco con collocations-, y cuando encuentran ejemplos que se "caen" usan la 3. Los hablantes no conscientes de 1 usamos la misma mezcla para explicarlo y cuando no entendemos usamos la 2 y lo peor, algunos usan otras que están fuera de la lista (y así el subjuntivo parece aparecer por motivos simbólicos emparentados con la mitología; algo parecido a la interpretación de los sueños). El resultado es una ensalada de tamaño monumental.

Si todo suena enmarañado es porque es más fácil caminar que explicar en detalle cómo uno camina. Todo esto lo presento, no como verdad sino como disparador de la reflexión. La solución, si la hay, es que los estudiantes acepten que van a haber muchos conflictos durante el estudio y que no tienen que conciliar todos los ejemplos (it takes time for everything to boil to 1 ¿lo dije bien?), y para los hablantes nativos, aceptar que no se puede explicar todo y evitar las explicaciones simbólicas, especialmente porque un tercio de las veces el subjuntivo oculta, apaga o desenfatiza de algún modo la información y nosotros al sobreanalizarlo le ponemos una luz potente y llegamos a conclusiones equivocadas.

[chileno]

O sea que "El cuento se trata de un novio...." también está mal...

Gracias por contestar tan masivamente, que para muchos sería evasivo.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by JPablo

By these definitions, después de que no se supiera de ellos the mood has to do with a subjective knowledge of the situation

I hear this, but I'm not sure I know what subjective knowledge is.

Originally Posted by JPablo

like in English, the subjunctive occurs too in some established or idiomatic expressions: So be it. Heaven help us. God rest ye merry, gentlemen.

To me, there is nothing remotely puzzling about these expressions - they are hortative subjunctives expressing a wish, so obviously not indicative. English uses a subjunctive because it does not have an optative mood.

Originally Posted by JPablo

Were in the phrase as it were, meaning “in a way,” is a subjunctive: His apology, as it were, sounded more like an insult.

Maybe in English one would tend to say "as it was"?

You could say "such as it was" meaning it was not much of an apology.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Esas diferentes "inteligencias" (funciones cerebrales) son clave en este tema del subjuntivo.

.
.
(it takes time for everything to boil down to 1 ¿lo dije bien?)

A fascinating insight into the differences between Germanic and Spanish attitudes to the subjunctive.

I am quite capable of accepting that the use of the subjunctive is not something to be learned as a set of rigid rules. Was does annoy me though is that every single statement made by a grammar book seems to claim that this is how it works, without the slightest suggestion that these are guidelines or generalizations, and that the reality can be more complicated.

Thanks again to all for these long explanatory posts.

[JPablo]

You're welcome. Thank you for your insights and views. (It make us, or at least me, think about something that somewhat I have 'on automatic'.) Many of the verb usages and moods, come to me 'naturally' from having read and used Spanish in my 'subjective way'.

Subjective knowledge, I'd define it in relation to an 'objective knowledge'. In the final analysis, "my" knowledge and "your" knowledge are subjective, "our own". There may be an "objective knowledge" about the "Subjunctive in Spanish" of which we can 'fully comprehend' and making it ours, or just have a glimpse.

In an accident, there is the "objective" accident, and then there is the "subjective" accident seen and experienced by each individual... from their own point of view... (not just their opinion, but literally the physical point from which the accident is seen...)

"...después de que no se supiera de ello" is a "subjective" knowledge by the impersonal people, but it is the "viewpoint" of these Tenerife people... (In other places, were they were experiencing bedbugs, they well knew about them...)

Just going through this thread, I remembered the "historic present" and (I don't know if that exists as a linguistic term, but I'd say a "historic" "subjunctive".)
That is, "Los Reyes Católicos conquistan Granada en 1492" ("Conquistan" is present, but it means "conquistaron" of course.)
By the same token, you have a common 'historic' subjunctive,
"Después de que los Reyes Católicos conquistaran Granada en 1492, emprenderían la conquista del Nuevo Mundo".
In a "logical" style, we would say,
"Después de que los Reyes Católicos conquistaron Granada en 1492, emprendieron la conquista del Nuevo Mundo".

While both sentences are correct, the first one is most likely what I would find in a history book. (At least in Spain.)

I just give you these examples, as a means of "inspiration" or to give you some more views on how Spanish uses the subjunctive.

Interestingly enough I am translating something right now with many subjunctives in English, and given that goes with the subject... I give you a real translation example here,

We couldn’t imagine that this had happened.
No podíamos ni imaginar que esto hubiera pasado.

(This is a mother whose kid was put on psychiatric drugs and he committed suicide.) The fact that that happened was and is an OBJECTIVE reality in the real world. Yet, her SUBJECTIVE reality is that she couldn't even think, imagine, that this could have happened.

I believe that "know" "think", these activities we, Homo Sapiens, do "subjectively" may be prone to accept "subjunctive modes" in Spanish language... (Or at least I would tend to think that's my subjective humble opinion...)

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

I am quite capable of accepting that the use of the subjunctive is not something to be learned as a set of rigid rules. Was does annoy me though is that every single statement made by a grammar book seems to claim that this is how it works, without the slightest suggestion that these are guidelines or generalizations, and that the reality can be more complicated.

If you cross out the words "always" and "never" and circumscribe the rules to the logical family of available examples, almost all articles and literature ranges from pretty good to excellent. The reason to strike those words is they are often used regarding the narrow logical family of examples, but the reader is tempted into applying them to any word chain containing the trigger. Unfortunately, explaining more or telling "this doesn't happen always" is a no-no in the commercial world. Besides, all material is supposed to help students guided by human teachers (or a forum clique). The bottom line is that Spanish subjunctive is darn difficult and for grammar articles on it "lo mejor es enemigo de lo bueno".

As an example, on that linked article, my own approach:

Adverbial conjunctions of time: synchronized events, simultaneous, real or usual, both indicative

La policía los iba deteniendo a medida que los sospechosos iban saliendo.
Aquí no paramos para almorzar; picamos algo mientras trabajamos.
Y lo recibimos siempre que se presentó sobrio.

synchronized events, relay, real or usual, both indicative

Habló después (de) que terminó de masticar y tragó.
Ese ladrón siempre toca el timbre con insistencia hasta que le abren la puerta.

You find subjunctive when the events are not real nor usual (what includes future and rules), or are not synchronized

No me molesta que se quede mientras solucione algo.
Atenderemos a medida que vayan llegando.
Lo recibiríamos de nuevo siempre que dejara de beber.
Eso ocurrió después de que lo despidieron/an
No dejará de tocar el timbre hasta que le abras.

Sometimes, the events are meant to be synchronized but haven't happen yet (or one has and the other hasn't), so, an atomic bomb could prevent them from happening or synchronization to complete---> subjunctive.

Sometimes, they are clearly not synchronized (que se quede mientras solucione algo), sometimes they are not offered by its "synchronic" value, but as a reference:

Comenzó a trabajar aquí dos meses después de que lo despidieron de su trabajo anterior. Así que estuvo dos meses sin trabajo.

Se caso después de que la novia se recibió de abogada. No querían mezclar el estudio con la vida matrimonial.

La caida del muro de Berlín fue después de que mi primer hijo naciera. Te confundiste con mi sobrino.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by JPablo

We couldn’t imagine that this had happened.
No podíamos ni imaginar que esto hubiera pasado.

(This is a mother whose kid was put on psychiatric drugs and he committed suicide.) The fact that that happened was and is an OBJECTIVE reality in the real world. Yet, her SUBJECTIVE reality is that she couldn't even think, imagine, that this could have happened.

I believe that "know" "think", these activities we, Homo Sapiens, do "subjectively" may be prone to accept "subjunctive modes" in Spanish language...

Thanks - that is a good example of what you understand by subjectivity. I was going to argue that there is no such thing as objective truth, but the example given (the death) is about as objective as it gets.

(BTW modo is mood, not mode )

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Unfortunately, explaining more or telling "this doesn't happen always" is a no-no in the commercial world. Besides, all material is supposed to help students guided by human teachers (or a forum clique). The bottom line is that Spanish subjunctive is darn difficult and for grammar articles on it "lo mejor es enemigo de lo bueno"..

Good point - my failure is to take these tests at face value. I can see that I would be no use at writing a commercially viable grammar book, because I would not be content with what I would call cheating.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Sometimes, the events are meant to be synchronized but haven't happen yet (or one has and the other hasn't)

Now this gives a clue to a problem I have - I'm beginning to suspect you are using "synchronized" in a way unfamiliar to me. My definition is a simple and unambiguous 'at the same time', so that by definition, no synchronization is possible with an expression like después de que...

I am finding this interchange very constructive, by the way. Thank you both for the effort you are putting in.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Now this gives a clue to a problem I have - I'm beginning to suspect you are using "synchronized" in a way unfamiliar to me. My definition is a simple and unambiguous 'at the same time', so that by definition, no synchronization is possible with an expression like después de que...

"Synchronized" can be "at the same time" or "operating in unison" or "occurring at the same rate" both in English and Spanish. You synchronized subtitles in a movie so you can link all you watch and hear but semantics with a wording in the language of your choice, because all of it comes together. I used "synchronized" in the wider sense available, as sometimes things happen simultaneously (...a medida que iban saliendo) or there is a relay -like in a relay race- (...hasta que abran la puerta).

This loose use of concepts, yet precise ones, seems to be the main feature of "inteligencia gramatical" that needs to sort all things out in a fifth of a second and favours choice based in 'colour' and not based in essential content. If you accept this use of synchronized-unsynchronized you may understand that in "comemos mientras trabajamos" and "no me molesta mientras solucione algo" the conjunction "mientras" has the same exact meaning but subjunctive or indicative are the agent that forces different interpretation, and that's a key difference between English and Spanish. Spanish uses grammatical means ('mientras' + indicative / 'mientras' + subjunctive/ 'mientras' + no verb at all) where English uses lexical means ('while'/'as long as'/'as (being) a'/...). The problem for the English native learning Spanish as an adult is not that he or she doesn't know what s/he means but they don't know where from to mean it -within the brains, not the intelligence-.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

"Synchronized" can be "at the same time" or "operating in unison" or "occurring at the same rate" both in English and Spanish. ....I used "synchronized" in the wider sense available,... or there is a relay -like in a relay race- (...hasta que abran la puerta). -.

And therein lies the problem I had, because without a doubt, the normal English use of synchronous does not permit this "wider" sense. At least, it most certainly does not in physics, which is where I normally apply it. If you say this stone will continue to fall vertically downwards until it hits the earth the events of falling and hitting the ground are not synchronous. They are causally related, in that one action is ended by the other. Presumably though, Spanish would use a subjunctive as in hasta que abran la puerta.

Knowing how disciplines have their own concepts, I wonder whether linguists do use "synchronized" in English to describe events which overlap or touch chronologically or are causally connected. Perhaps pjt could comment here.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

If you accept this use of synchronized-unsynchronized you may understand that in "comemos mientras trabajamos" and "no me molesta mientras solucione algo" the conjunction "mientras" has the same exact meaning but subjunctive or indicative are the agent that forces different interpretation, and that's a key difference between English and Spanish.

If I read "causally connected/causally unconnected" for your "synchronized-unsynchronized " then this makes total sense.

My confusion then was based on either a specialist linguistic use of synchronous or yet another false cognate.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

My confusion then was based on either a specialist linguistic use of synchronous or yet another false cognate.

It's free use, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. "Synchronized" suggest an angle to observe, a 'colour' -though "synchronous" would be better, I found many people not having a clue about it-. The fact is that there won't be exact words to describe what the 'grammatical brain' uses to characterize and process the message. After all -another instance of 'después de' not meaning time- grammar and words are in different planes.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

After all -another instance of 'después de' not meaning time- grammar and words are in different planes.

I have no idea whether it would be considered pedantic here to challenge the assertion that there are occasions when 'después de' does not mean time, such as when used in the sense of 'after all' (= in view of, considering). Any causation is necessarily a time sequence, so 'in view of' or 'considering' refers to something in the past or present causing a logical decision or consequence (cf. Latin consequi to follow closely).

Regardless of that, I am beginning to understand what you say, and it's a very interesting way of looking at things.

I'm neither philosopher nor linguist, so feel free to demolish the above....

[aleCcowaN]

I'm really enjoying this conversation because it shows how English benefits from lexical precision and a pretty synthetic grammar while Spanish benefits from lexical elasticity and quite analytic grammar -and everybody become richer people by learning the other language-.

As we can relate events or follow steps within a process, we may find causality everywhere -and there is plenty of it-. But I referred by 'synchronous' that somewhat one event can be taken as a clock or time control for the other. When I say 'suena el timbre hasta que le abren' I mean the door bell will stop ringing the very moment the door start to open. But when I say 'después de todo no hay reglas sobre el subjuntivo que ahorren el esfuerzo de aprenderlo' I don't intend that the effort start nor stop by saying that, neither the previous ideas work as a clock for the second part to be true. We must remember that a consequence and a conclusion are pretty different. Though causality can cause a debate by its own, we humans daily reach the wrong conclusions by identifying the wrong causes, while I don't know of a wrong cause causing a wrong consequence.

[JPablo]

Bueno, después de todo, y después de ponerme al día con los últimos 'posts' de este 'thread', y después de valorar y apreciar el enriquecedor diálogo, debo confesar que a veces uno se puede sentir como el ciempiés al que le preguntan como coordina su paso, y en el momento en que se pone a pensarlo, tropieza.

Me he acordado también del viejo proverbio chino: "Los dioses han creado la vida, no para descubrir su significado, sino para vivirla intensamente". Pero eso no quita que "vivir la vida" también incluya un buen debate sobre el uso del subjuntivo en español...

Si dentro de un año hablamos de este 'thread' podríamos decir: "Alec y JPablo no dejarían el tema, hasta saber que Perikles lo tenía más claro" o quizá: "Alec y JPablo no iban a dejar el tema, hasta que no supieran que Perikles lo tuviera claro" O quizá estemos "indicativizados" y sería: "Alec y JPablo no dejaron el tema, hasta que no supieron que Perikles lo tenía claro".
(Ahora no quiero liarla con el ejemplo del negativo... pero creo que los ejemplos son ilutrativos.)

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by JPablo

"Alec y JPablo no iban a dejar el tema, hasta que no supieran que Perikles lo tuviera claro"

[JPablo]

Hombre, Perikles, me alegro que de que te guste el ejemplo... digo, ¡¡me alegro de que te gustara!!

[aleCcowaN]

Iba feliz el ciempiés
caminando por el campo,
y en el medio del camino
se encontró con Doña Rana.
¿Dígame, Sr. Ciempiés?
-preguntole la curiosa-
¿cuál pata mueve primero
y cuál pata mueve después?
Y tanto se puso a pensar
en su centenar de patas
que caminó distraído
y se cayó en una zanja.

Yo siempre lo uso para explicar por qué los hispanohablantes somos malos explicando el subjuntivo.

[Perikles]

Thanks both. Clearly, using the subjunctive is rather like flying an airplane. No problem at speed, but if you slow down, you drop out of the sky.

[JPablo]

You're welcome, Perikles! (I like your simile... metaphor or allegory... or whatever it is!)

Yup! Alec, that "poem" es "todo un poema"... (Creo que hay una versión en inglés por ahí con un "centipede"...)

[Perikles]

Acabo de darme cuenta del problema que tiene la gente de mi pueblo siempre que habla conmigo. Habla muy rápido y con acento tan fuerte que es prácticamente imposible entenderla. Hasta mi vecino, un madrileño, no entiende nada. Bueno – cuando pido a la gente que se repita y hable lentemente, siempre repite con exactamente la misma rapidez, y eso dos o tres veces. Evidentemente la gente no entiende nada ella misma cuando piense en lo que esta hablando. Como el ciempiés.

[chileno]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Acabo de darme cuenta del problema que tiene la gente de mi pueblo siempre que habla conmigo. Habla muy rápido y con acento tan fuerte que es prácticamente imposible entenderla. Hasta mi vecino, un madrileño, no entiende nada. Bueno – cuando pido a la gente que se repita y hable lentamente, siempre repite con exactamente la misma rapidez, y eso dos o tres veces. Evidentemente la gente no entiende nada ella misma cuando piense en lo que esta hablando. Como el ciempiés.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by chileno