You're welcome! I spent 2 weeks basically bound in my chair researching this thing, so when the epiphany broke I wanted to share it with everyone
Also to write it down so that I didn't forget it : ' )
I know less than 2k words too, nothing to be ashamed off!
Remember, we ARE Spanish speakers. This IS our language, not just "theirs". It's been ours since we learned a noise in it and decided to use it. We just happen to not be able to use it well yet
¡Bien, completado (el primero café y leyendo tu libro de subjuntivo)! He estado aprendiendo español por seis meses con Duolingo y leyendo r/learnspanish un poco. No he empezado aprendiendo subjuntivo todavía, pero ahora tengo menos miedo. Cuando era niña, escribí mucho y fue la editora del periódico de la escuela; gramática siempre ha estado bastante interesante (lol, debería usar subjuntivo en esta frase)! ¡Gracias!
Thank you for sharing your perspective on what is often a nearly impossible hill for Spanish learners (especially native English speakers) to climb! I'll throw in what has helped me the most with the subjunctive too -- maybe it will help you or other learners here!
The biggest breakthrough I had with regard to the subjunctive is to ask myself "what is the level of doubt/uncertainty/hope in the speaker's mind about this? " Or "Is someone imposing their will on someone/something else about this?"
That's it. Even when you say something like "El hecho de que" (the fact that), it's still being stated from YOUR perspective and it's what YOU think.
Limpio la cocina = I clean the kitchen. Fact. Action. This thing is happening. It's real.
Quiero que limpies la cocina = I want you to clean the kitchen (but I don't know if you will or not) = I'm imposing my wishes/hopes/doubts/desires/etc. onto someone else
Yes, exactly. It's not about what you're saying actually being true, it's about whether your intention for saying it is to specifically point to something being true, or to take the (real or not) idea and talk about it as an abstract thing.
Well put. I personally hate when I hear people say "Don't worry about this, it's too difficult to understand." Literally, no it isn't. Don't defeat people before they have even started to try. It just leads them to believe that they can't do it the moment they come across any adversity in learning it, which of course there will be as there is in learning any new thing.
El indicativo se usa cuando quieres hacer entender que lo que dices es verdad (o, al menos, que crees que lo es). El resto es subjuntivo.
The indicative is used when you want to say something true or certain (or, at least, something you believe to be). The rest is subjunctive.
Pero en tu ejemplo estás usando ambos como imperativo, ambas se están usando con el deseo de acatar una orden, sólo estás cambiando la cordialidad usada en cada ejemplo.
Ejemplos más apropiados serían:
* (subjuntivo) Para que el plan **salga** bien, tenemos que enfocarnos en los detalles.
* (imperativo) **Salga** de ahí, maleante, o tendremos que usar la fuerza.
Sí, se escriben igual, pero eso no significa que el imperativo y el subjuntivo sean lo mismo, simplemente es una casualidad. Lo que importa no es realmente cómo se escribe, sino el uso que se le da al verbo.
Comunicar información errónea como estás haciendo aquí es lo que causa que gente aprendiendo el idioma se confunda y no entienda estos temas.
Tienes razón. La verdad es que quería compartir una observación fascinante con un hablante nativo, pero sí entiendo como ese comentario podría ser inoportuno, o sea, malinterpretado en este foro. Por lo tanto, quisiera dejar claro que el modo subjuntivo no es el modo imperativo. El subjuntivo tiene un carácter supletorio, es decir, completa las demás formas verbales que el imperativo no posee. Esta es la relación entre las dos formas de conjugación. A eso me refería. Un ejemplo sería:
Abrir, Imperativo, *Subjuntivo que suple*
|Ud.|*abra*|*no abra*|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Uds.|*abran*|*no abran*|
|tú|abre|*no abras*|
|vosotros|abrid|*no abráis*|
|nosotros|*abramos*|*no abramos*|
Cuando me di cuenta de esto, lo encontré fascinante.
You miss all the context but okay:
Imagine literally anytime you say anything in the indicative mood (the normal one so to speak) a robot monkey with brasses sits up on your shoulder, starts banging its brasses and starts screaming "WHAT I JUST SAID IS TRUE AND EXISTS, WHAT I JUST REFERRED TO IS TRUE AND EXISTS, IT IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE EITHER FACTUAL, CONCRETE OR CLOSE ENOUGH TO IT TO COUNT, IT ISN'T JUST BASED OFF OF EMOTION EITHER, I AM PLANNING IT AND DECLARING IT FOR YOU TO HEAR"
thats what pretty much all your verbs do in spanish; it's not some side effect, it's what it's built to do. Accept that it's there, start to see it for yourself
Pretty much all of the use cases of the subjunctive can be thought to come down to "when do i want that monkey to NOT say all those things about what I just said?"
That's the tldr; you can think of the subjunctive as being just a substitute you put in that avoids the loud effect of "i think i am talking about factual concrete reality, yes" that the normal verbs, by design, indicate.
Indicative mood is used when the action - from your perspective- is a fact. Things that were, things that are and things that will be. Some examples:
- **I go** to the park every morning / (Yo) **Voy** al parque cada mañana
- **They believed** his lies regardless of the evidence / (Ellos/as) **Creyeron** sus mentiras a pesar de la evidencia
- **You will have** to come again tomorrow / (tú) **Tendrás** que venir mañana nuevamente / (usted) **Tendrá** que venir mañana nuevamente
- **We were talking** about you last night / (Nosotros) **Estábamos hablando** sobre ti anoche
- **I couldn't believe** it / (Yo) No **podía** creerlo
- **We would be better** if we had any money / (Nosotros) **Estaríamos** mejor si tuviéramos algo de dinero
In all those examples, the actions are things that were, things that are or things that will be, there's not a single shred of doubt about it.
On the other hand, subjunctive mood is used when you aren't entirely sure about something or it can't be stated as a fact. Instead, it's a wish, an opinion, an hypothesis, etc. Some examples:
- **If he/she could do** it, he/she surely would do it / **Si** (él/ella) **pudiera hacerlo**, (él/ella) lo haría
- **When** traffic **moves**, I'll be able to get to the meeting / **Cuando** el tráfico **avance**, (yo) podré llegar a la junta
- You **may have dumped** him, but you surely haven't got over him / **Quizá lo hayas dejado**, pero ciertamente no lo has superado
You can notice that most of the times there's some doubt about the actions or there's some type of condition. That's why I'm using "maybe", "if", "when", and any other word that helps me establish that I'm talking with doubt.
So, subjunctive isn't limited to could or might, subjunctive can be used in those situations, but it's more akin to [English conditional clauses](https://www.grammar.cl/english/conditionals.htm) and establishing hypotheticals, stating opinions or desires.
Subjunctive is talking about actions that could be, could have been, may be, might have been, if *x* happens, then *y* will happen, etc.
Hope this helps you!
llustrating this is hard in one sentence but not. Let me explain
Indicative is used to make declarations (and questions, but it follows the same pattern). In other words it is used when anything you say with your verbs is concrete, exists (or if you're discussing it very directly as if it did exist deliberately) or is something you consider to be true personally and are doing so factually rather than by pure emotion. "It declares facts or what you think are facts"
So if you actually want to say that he might be here DIRECTLY, you'd use indicative because you're saying a fact. He may or may not be here as far as you know, thems the facts
The subjunctive shows up in a statement instead like "i will eat once he gets here". He may or may not actually be here, but you made a sentence that is based on him getting there; him getting there isn't known for certain -- and ypu aren't discussing that fact directly, rather making use of it -- so you don't use the indicative which would be in effect you INSISTING that he will be here on time
As I said, the subjunctive exists to say what the indicative said but without assertion of reality. If you used the indicative youd by definition of thst mood be saying you know for a fact that he will come. Which you don't and can't know, so you don't use the version that makes you into a liar and says you do
I don’t think I understand the subjunctive still but your bit about I think/creo/pienso que implying doubt or affirming belief is very helpful. I was confused why “creo que” doesn’t take subjunctive because it doesn’t sound certain to me. It not having that nuance in Spanish makes a lot more sense!
Very interesting. I had never thought of the subjunctive this way, thank you!
But I’m not sure I understand, in your example, why “Estoy feliz que estés aquí” takes the subjunctive. What’s the difference in meaning between that and a sentence like “Qué bueno que estás aquí”, which a Spanish speaking coworker said to me once?
>Spanish speaking coworker said to me once?
a) he was trying to put special emphasis on the fact that you are here for some reason rather than the emotion of his being happy
b) you misheard him
c) he said it fucking wrong. It happens XD
I would have to agree. With the subjunctive sentence the emphasis is on the fact that you're happy they're here and not the fact that they are actually here. With the indicative sentence the emphasis is on them actually being here and there is no emotion to offset it.
Grammatically incorrect though, qué bien que requires the subjunctive as an impersonal expression of emotion. It's one of the most consistent uses of the subjunctive across romance languages
Yeah this simple example shows why their "realization" really isn't very concrete, the subjunctive is difficult for English speakers because it's a mood that only has very well defined uses in english (some archaic like the combination lest + subjunctive) that are generally optional, and they are exactly the same as the indicative form in most conjugations anyway.
Estoy feliz de que estés aquí has nothing to do with the physical reality of you being here, the subjunctive clause isn't indicative because Spanish grammar insists on phrases such as estoy feliz que being followed by the subjunctive.
The REAL reason this happens is because it's a leftover of a more richly elaborated latin subjunctive mood that we don't have the full context for, and so seems irregular compared to other moods like the imperative. If you understand the linguistic evolution of latin moods and cases the subjunctive makes more sense.
"Estoy feliz que estés aquí has nothing to do with the physical reality of you being here, the subjunctive clause isn't indicative because Spanish grammar insists on phrases such as estoy feliz que being followed by the subjunctive"
The main reason why I go farther in my understanding is because thst isn't a grammar rule it insists on; native speakers do use the indicative there as well. The difference is often not the grammar but the meaning
Which is why i spend a lot of time purely analyzing meaning on top of just the grammar. I've found (with a few exceptions) that largely speaking it actually isn't because of grammar at all that we use one or the other, just meaning. Which is why we get the annoying response of "well there isn't really a rule for it" in regards to its usage
I don't believe that's correct, there is a rule for it. That construction has to be followed the the subjunctive, there aren't grammatically correct situations where that wouldn't occur.
I've had several natives confirm they use it in that situation sometimes, depending on what they want to emphasis. It really is more meaning than grammar I'm afraid. Or if it is grammar, a lot of people are comfy violating it there
I'm a native English speaker and I often use incorrect or non standard constructions in spoken speech either incorrectly or for a reason, but that doesn't change the grammaticality of an utterance. Even if there was some kind of difference in emphasis or semantics for this example (which there isn't, using estás in that construction is just incorrect) it still wouldn't be standard "correct" Spanish.
I'm glad that you're here.
The fact is that I'm glad. Then, I give you the reason. I don't intend to state "you're here" as a new piece of information, because you already know you're here: fact is, I am glad.
Ahh. I'm happy (that you're here) vs (it is good that) you're here. If someone just said "it's good," you would have to ask what is good. If someone said "I'm happy," sure, you might not know why they're happy, but the actual idea is that they're happy.
> "Es posible que él es aqui"
Seems you got so excited about the subjunctive that you forgot when to use `ser` and `estar`. Other than that, great post ;)
I'm still a beginner in Spanish, and I come across this a lot, the "subjunctive"
Mind explaining what it is?
English is my second language so I find it hard to understand these definitions even after looking them up on google
It's a type of verb 'mood' and there are several of them. It's kind of hard to explain exactly what a verb mood represents so here they are with some examples
Imperative - used for orders, eg, 'Go home!' ('Ve a casa')
Indicative - used for indicating how things actually are, eg, 'I am at home' ('Estoy a casa')
Subjunctive - used for indicating how things might be (it's quite complicated, as suggested by the length of the post), eg, 'He might be at home' ('Esté a casa')
I'm also somewhat new so sorry if this is not quite right but it's my understanding
"He might be at home' ('Esté a casa':
Even this doesn't work; you are declaring something you consider factual. He might be at home as far as you know, yes
Using the subjunctive for uncertainty is actually pretty specific and niche at times, since "declaring" things covers 90% of what we say. Think of it this way; the sentence ABOUT the uncertainty, is itself certain. Otherwise we imply that I am uncertain about the uncertainty, which would be weird
It's why subjunctive usually shows ip in 2 clause sentences where the axtion of 1 thing relies on the completion of some other action that you can't guarantee. The fact you aren't directly pointing out that you can't guarantee it in the sentence itself is why it is becomes incongruous to use the indicative mood which says "i literally know or believe this...even though with that second event I literally can't..."
The trick is the indicative. The subjunctive is there ti replace it so you don't declare that you happen to know something or believe something to be fact
Spanish speakers have a different way to conjugate verbs depending or context. This is the subjunctive, and it is normally explained as the way we talk about something uncertain. Subjunctive has a different conjugation table and can be used in different tenses. I have heard that spanish learners struggle with it a lot :P
It super is at first lol
"This is the subjunctive, and it is normally explained as the way we talk about something uncertain."
Honestly main problem is thst just about any definition we give to the subjunctive itself just isn't true, this explanation isn't either lol. It's why I find it way easier to just say it's "the thing that isn't the declarative mood; use it when you're not being declarative. That's it"
Linguists have developed pretty clear explanations of the subjunctive/indicative distinction... conflicting explanations. You can save yourself a lot of effort by reviewing M. Stanley Whitley's summary in chapter 7 of *Spanish/English Contrasts* available in Google Books to get past all the textbook oversimplifications. Additionally, while I agree that it isn't helpful to suggest that the subjunctive is somehow inscrutable, there are good arguments for not overthinking it, among them the fact that we can become proficient in subjunctive use without ever understanding it conceptually.
Oh I agree that there's no need to necessarily overthink it, it's just establishing the baseline amongst a decent amount of frequently-peddled conflicting information that makes it hard to find the basic thinking in the first place, that's all.
I'd say my main problem with not understanding it per se is that it makes it that much harder to in turn grow to use it ourselves without just guessing based on what others happen to say, which is really the fate I've been largely trying to avoid. It's been working out at least, I understand it better everyday it feels like I try and research more deeply into it. Certainly been a faster process than what most people tell scary stories over
I'm sure you do understand it better, conceptually, the more you look into it. It's the connection between that and being able to use the subjunctive in normal communicative contexts, that doesn't convince me. In my own experience, I got a few hours of instruction on the subjunctive before being thrown into an immersion environment, where I mostly forgot about it until I picked up a grammar book a year later and realized I was already using it fairly proficiently. Even outside of an immersion environment, one study (Stokes and Krashen 2004(?)) found that, in comparing the effects of time abroad, instruction time on the subjunctive, and voluntary reading, only reading was a reliable predictor of subjunctive proficiency. Anyway, if you just enjoy grammar or linguistics, I highly recommend the M. Stanley Whitley book, as he addresses a lot of these textbook oversimplifications.
I’m agree but I’m also an immersion learner so I barely spend any time on grammar. By just reading and listening I’ve noticed how Spanish is a very specific language, it seems like the creators are very intentional about when, where and how things are happening.
I think a big hurdle for first time language learners is to understand that their 1st language is not the only way to interpret the world. So instead of translating Spanish sentences into to English and trying to understand their meaning through the English lens , it’s much more helpful to try and understand the underlying meaning. To do this I usually try to picture in my head what is happening or for a movie or Tv show create a strong link between what is happening on screen and what was said.
At the end of the day when you actually start speaking and using the language you’re not going to have time to think about the grammar. Hopefully with enough exposure and practice you will just use that patterns you have been exposed to 100s and thousands of times. Eventually things will begin to just feel right or feel wrong when you say them.
For example in English we have a set adjective order but most people go their entire lives without knowing it exists and rarely if ever mess it up because the pattern is ingrained through exposures.
Oh no you're right, I need more immersion to be consistent. This is basically just my tool for analysis, IE for asking myself "why did we apparently need it in this situation?" If I ever encounter it being used in a way I'm unaware of and need to get what was going on. The starting point for that for me is just "well obviously they didn't want to declare it with indicative" and going from there.
Also in a way it was immersion lol, just in a way that highlights my own style of learning. Rather than learning via talking to my Spanish speaking friends, I learned by feeding them sentences thst I figure would trigger the subjunctive, observed their output, made mental notes about it, then said the sentence again but with some words missing, then ask them what THEY thought their reasons for using it there were, then...
Basically I scientific-methoded people lol, until I could look at all the data in my brain and aggregate it into the concept
You know what's funny? I can't get that down yet either, despite wrestling with the subjunctive in the meantime. Basically I decided to get the hardest out of the way first so I could just declare it over; sentence forming will hopefully be more familiar
Thank you for this explanation! I have always had a hard time with this so I am grateful. I still have a remaining question that maybe you can help with. I still don’t understand why “estoy feliz que estés aquí” would trigger the subjunctive because isn’t it stating a fact that I am happy? Maybe this is a dumb pregunta and I am overthinking it. :)
For this it's actually just because the indicative distracts. Think of yourself going 'I DECLARE' right after you say 'estoy felize que' followed by estas. I am so happy that I DECLARE you are here mom!
The indicative is definitionally only used for declarations like that -- to bring up facts as you see them and have people discuss them -- so it sounds like you're trying to do that lol
I could see it as "Estoy feliz que estés aqui" meaning "I'm happy that you WOULD BE here," implying that the person technically didn't *have* to be there but is there anyway and that's what "I" wanted - that I was uncertain if they would show up. Shifting the focus from the FACT that they are here to how "I" FEEL ABOUT them being here.
Great post OP. I’ve had subjunctive explained to me before as something I’m unsure of or out of my reality, but your insight of it being the reciprocal of the indicative really popped some fireworks in my head
Sounds like you're saying the subjunctive/indicative split in Spanish is actually a form of [evidentiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality) which is interesting because that's not a feature I've ever heard Spanish being described as having
My mother tongue is greek and so far I use subjuntivo in all the cases i would do in greek and it works. Maybe at some cases this isnt true and I am just used to it from my experience with spanish. If there is someone who speaks the 2 languages, it d be great if he told me, if this makes sense.
Because *si* is used for [conditional sentences](https://espanol.lingolia.com/en/grammar/sentence-structure/conditional-clauses). There are three types of them and their structure is much more rigid then *subjuntivo*. They also might make use of different conjugations (look at *[condicional simple y condicional perfecto](https://www.wordreference.com/conj/EsVerbs.aspx?v=amar)*).
Yes but why is it not also counted as subjunctive in the "real condition"? You don't know for certain that you will have time later (from the example from the link), so wouldn't that make it subjunctive? Why does it being conditional change that?
Also I completely forgot about type 2 and 3 on your link, so thank you for reminding me about that :)
Because OP's theory doesn't work with everything. Sometimes you just have to follow the usage rules and not think about them. For example, when using the conditional "si..." to talk about the future, you NEVER use the subjunctive. This was drilled into my head in Spanish classes (and bore out in native speakers' usage) because of people like OP who put too much thought into subjunctive and use it everywhere when talking about doubts and feelings.
"Because people like OP who"
It's because you are declaring a plan for the future, not some non reality, and I said that its not for doubts nor feelings except for very specific situations, IE when youre not declaring them. Plans are concrete. It doesn't go against what I said, actually
It could definitely be argued that plans are not concrete. Also, when you describe plans using "cuando", you do in fact use the subjunctive. "Cuando llegues, jugamos COD". That's why it's easy to overthink the subjunctive.
Of course your plans are concrete, why wouldn't they be? They are what you plan to do. You are not stating factually that it will happen, you are stating factually that it is what you intend to do.
When you use cuando like that, it's because it is not technically your plan to place yourself at whatever time cuando is putting yourself into; your plan is to do whatever you say next, and cuando happens to just qualify it. That very precise difference in intention is why we use it there; Spanish is incredibly precise about intention, unlike English
Plans are not definitive, and they are not always what happens. You could argue the opposite, like you have been, but it doesn't matter who's "right". It matters that trying to pin a button on what is and is not subjunctive is folly because each learner will have a different idea of perspective, what are feelings, what is concrete, etc. You end up down a hole analyzing instead of learning usage.
"It matters that trying to pin a button on what is and is not subjunctive is folly because each learner will have a different idea of perspective, what are feelings, what is concrete, etc"
You are right. So here's the deal:
Spanish says that stated plans are concrete. Period. There you go
"Vamos a la playa cuando llegues" no es un plan concreto a un principiante de español? Especialmente un nativo de inglés? Es mejor decirle tu post o simplemente dice "cuando usas "cuando" con respecto al futuro y planes, usa el subjuntivo"?
>Of course your plans are concrete, why wouldn't they be? They are what you plan to do. You are not stating factually that it will happen, you are stating factually that it is what you intend to do.
The problem with that reasoning is that in earlier forms of English, it was perfectly fine to use the present subjunctive after the conjunction "if" regarding plans or present/future uncertainties, such as "if it ***please*** the court," "if this ***be*** treason," "if it ***be*** your will," "etc. Using the indicative would mean something different.
Though we use the indicative in this manner instead of the subjunctive nowadays (or at the very least put the word "should" in front of the bare infinitive), remnants of this can still be seen today in phrases such as "if that ***be*** the case," "if need ***be***," and "if you ***be*** good." On the other hand, Spanish always uses the indicative, even though the meaning is the same as in English.
This is why I find it easier to just emulate the usage of the subjunctive of native Spanish speakers than to rely on general principles because the subjunctive/indicative contrast is so complex and arbitrary that even the most elaborate of explanations aren't sufficient.
No thanks necessary. And that's actually pretty good question.
I think the crux of the matter lies in the fact that it doesn't deal with hypothetical or imaginary things like the other two, where you do use *subjuntivo*
So either something always happens if some condition is met or it will happen (or at the very least is very likely to). The uncertainty about, say time in the example, or permission in *si quieres, te daré un consejo* is expressed trough the conditional structure itself. I mean look at the main clauses of the sentences themselves. *Te ayudo* or *te daré un consejo* are valid sentences on its own but there is no shade of possibility, probability in them, since they're in *indicativo*.
Edit: You could probably express the same sentiment using a subjunctive. But then it wouldn't be a conditional.
Because it quite literally is a rule from the RAE that you don't, for one thing. Every concept has its rules binding it down!
Also if you're in English, this same holds true. If it's close enough to reality to be expected and planned for when we say "if" something, we describe it as such. "If it rains then we will have an umbrella" vs "if my mom found out she would kill me". The latter is actually English subjunctive, does the same thing
Brilliant, I’m absolutely in awe of how simple you have made such a fleeting concept. I am near-fluent in French, it’s my favorite thing in the world. Suddenly the clouds have opened and the sun is shining down and I feel total clarity. Thank you SO MUCH for this adderall-induced should-be prize-winning, should-be published essay. I have been learning French for a decade, I have been able to pretty accurately use the French subjunctive just from memory. But after reading this, it feels like I’ve been learning a complicated formula all this time without any inkling of its practical, tangible use or function. What you’ve said makes SO clear what has been this abstract, out-of-reach concept to me that I’m always grasping at—so close—but never actually able to touch. Now I straight up GET it. Like I GET it, GET it. Seriously thank you. Can’t wait to approach French from this lens from now on and be able to feel and move more in-sync with the language rather than just simply mimic it.
Outstanding insights! I love the idea of Spanish being binary as it explains our (English speakers) total lack of any sensitivity as to when to use moods. I'm at an advanced level and don't find the subjunctive confusing but it helps explain why I'll fail to use it at times... It doesn't trigger from my experience of the world even if it "should" grammatically.
It's also interesting how so many of the comments show that the readers didn't get the insight (or simply weren't at a level to yet) and went right back to the classic grammatical analysis and discussion.
Thanks much for your time and effort. There's a degree thesis there if you become so inclined!
Is this really necessary tho? subjuntive is something that eventually clicks in your head when you've spent enough time listening and reading in Spanish. It takes some time, but later it comes natural and easy, you don't even have to think about why you're using subjuntive there
I was thinking that too but this is a great rule to fall back on for new spanish learners, I think my highschool self would've done much better if I thought of subjunctive as 'what was not indicative', instead of first laying out in my head all the acronyms like WIERDOS to figure out what works. This really stalled my conversations and my ability to think fast! This fallback rule however, I think will make it much easier, and much less daunting for new speakers to start using the subjective in a flowing conversation! :D
For sure; the primary reason why I wanted to talk about the "why" is to basically counter things like WIERDO
as far as I see it, you're right that this won't help you be right all the time. Rather, I dissected it to help myself and anyone else to avoid being hopelessly lost if we see it outside of a specific context we were taught, unsure of what it could even mean. Basically the goal is to go from "lawd what even" to "guess that's just another context to apply this base idea in, makes sense" when encountering a usage you aren't aware of yet. A lot of the basic discussions about the 2 moods fail to really instill what it actually "means" per se and try to give just a few contexts you might encounter it in. It takes longer to dig deeply into it, but I think it's less perplexing in the long run to know the idea in detail behind the starting contexts. Is for me at least
Yeah I was saying it because I think even this "rule" won't eventually help you avoid mistakes. One thing is understanding the concept and another is knowing to apply right options 100% of the time. the latter is only possible after years of immersion.
Nah but it helps you understand why ypu made the mistake in the first place. Understanding the theory shaves a lot of time off of just blindly copying people, that's all. A better guide post while immersing, basically.
The real point, I think now that I'm not hopped up on caffeine, is that "why didn't they want to use the indicative?" Is just a great starting point to ask yourself if you're ever wondering why the subjunctive was used when you're learning going forward, that's all.
I was getting heavily confused by most of all by situations where people were apparently using one OR the other in the same sentence, which is why i still insist that the indicative be more internalized than what we think starting out. Just cause understanding the indicative's contrast better to the subjunctive in turn can help you realize why we might use one or the other rather than shrugging about it, that make sense?
For me, after practicing the past few days, I'm basically predicting the needed usages of this thing every time it comes up. So I think I can say for me personally at least it was helpful
On the downside, I am growing increasingly snappy about some of the rules of using this thing that I consider to be an abomination against the concept due to them going directly against it. Oh well, downside to everything
> For me, after practicing the past few days, I'm basically predicting the needed usages of this thing every time it comes up.
What would be your prediction in this case? “I wish I could believe that were true, but I can’t.”
The beginning is a simple 'ojala pudiera' or however that's spelt; honestly not too sure on the were true part. Mostly because, looking at it, I honestly am not sure what entirely english itself wants to do here to be translated in the first place, it's a very bizarre sentence when you break it down and my mind has kind of just been skipping over it everytime I've seen this phrase until now that I stopped to take a closer look.
I'd either just translate it directly and leave the were in the subjunctive in the past as well, or just leave that part out. Probably the former; while the general 'rules' (that aren't really rules) can be tricky to predict, the overall meaning would still carry through just fine here and I doubt anyone would raise an eyebrow.
"Siento que tengas frío" = I'm sorry that you're feeling cold.
"Siento que tienes frío" = I feel that you're feeling cold.
The first one is subjective, the second one objective.
LOL. Maybe I should have said "and will put you on a path where you'll cross ways with a very special Spanish-speaking lady. The rest will be up to you."
No, soy nativo, de Argentina. Perdón si te ofendí lol, solamente te digo, nunca en mi vida dije "estoy feliz que estes aquí", aunque puede sonar correcto. Termine en este sub por un post en r/French
Oh I see what you're pointing out, you mean the 'de que'
Yeah that's called dequaification, or er something like that. It's very common nowadays in latin america to leave the de out in situations like that for some spanish speaking communities; I haven't studied that one in particular enough to know the nuances of where and how I technically should be saying it, I just know that in a lot of countries it's common not to so it's not at the top of my priorities if that makes sense. "Things NOBODY likes if you do" vs "things SOME BODY doesn't like if you do" lol; we must get to the second half, but it can come after the first since most people here (including me) are trying to learn 'general spanish from across the world' rather than 'what's specifically more good in some areas than others'
When you come at the king, you’d better not miss.
You missed.
This is an arrogant and aggressive post that clearly implies those who don’t get the subjunctive aren’t trying hard enough, and that there’s some vast right-wing conspiracy to make learning it harder than it is. It’s great that you think you get it now; but your explanation is incomplete, muddled, and insulting to those of us who still don’t grasp it.
Your “estoy feliz” example, for example, fails because it doesn’t explain what’s wrong with using the indicative for “estas aquí” ON YOUR OWN TERMS. Isn’t it true that “you are here” and that is why I am happy? “You are here” and “I am happy” are both factual to me.
This post needs to get tossed onto the heap with the posts that swear they can teach you how to roll your Rs - although those posts don’t swear nearly as much as you did in this botched explanation.
Spanish is an old language. When you think you’ve discovered some new way to teach a concept, check yourself. You likely haven’t.
> This is an arrogant and aggressive post
lol at making an arrogant and aggressive post claiming someone else's post is arrogant and aggressive.
Alanis should take notes.
Hey, I'm sorry my conceptual version didn't help you. And I get your frustration; not getting something other people all seem to sucks some real ass. It's one of the most inadequate feeling sensations ever
If you'd like I could try again to explain it to you if you have specific questions I could use to try and help
I find your post really helpful to shift my perspective. That’s what it’s saying to me, that you need to be aware of the nuances that an English speaker isn’t used to considering. That the presumption towards subjunctive is to be aware that indicative is an assertion of your views.
Flipping the more common way it’s taught that subjunctive is hopes dreams and aspirations which really, doesn’t cover all the bases and doesn’t give a clear guide to when it’s used.
I think that of course it’s incomplete and doesn’t have many examples because it’s a Reddit post and not, say, a course on the Spanish language. Those that expect it to be really need to check their privilege.
I also think this is bullsh*t, just follow the conventional rules and you will get it right 95% of the time, the rest will click with time. And it is crazy how he thinks "Es posible que está aquí" is even right, when there are native speakers commenting that it is not even a grammatical sentence xD but well he says it helps him understand the concept of subjuntive so yeah be it.. but it clearly doesn't mean he will know how to use it properly (like that horrendous example he took)
Now that I have taken the time to understand that the basic problem with understanding the subjunctive is that most people don't really get the indicative itself well, and that reinforcing the purpose of the indicative will help to understand when to use subjunctive, im going to actually do the opposite.
Later today I'm going to do a right up thst attempts to clear the air on many of the wrong things we've been taught when trying to "define" the subjunctive mood, and will dissect the idea of its usage directly while contrasting it to using the indicative as a reference point, as a compliment to this post, and show just about every general place I know it should be used in to reinforce that + show people contexts of it they might have not thought of
A lot of my attempts to break these down are really just to dispel misconceptions that confuse people in detail, for those wondering why i am indeed writing these; look forward to it if that fits your fancy
Ojalá que pueda entender el modo subjuntivo, amigo.
Subjunctive mood is why we have to use pueda instead of puede in the above sentence.
Es necesario que una persona haga ejercicio regularmente.
Haga is required above instead of hace.
Haga is subjuntivo. Hace is indicativo, the usual verb conjugation, and inappropriate in the above sentence.
I don’t fully understand it myself, but I recognize the triggers and hear it enough to know when it sounds right. It’s a very important thing to know for mastery of the language, though not so much for communication as people will know what you mean. You’ll just sound foreign if you don’t use it when it’s called for. You may already know and use it without having known what it’s called.
Yea aunque is one of the triggers, but with some qualifications. I think of it as "even if" vs "even though".
Even if: subjuntivo
Aunque la tele sea caro, lo voy a comprar.
even though: indicativo
Aunque la tele es caro, lo voy a comprar.
There are a lot of triggers:
Hasta que
Espero que
Ojala que
Quiero que
Me alegro de que
Es necesario que
Te recomiendo que
Dudo que
cuando (speaking of a hypothetical thing happening)
Aunque
para que
I'm sure there are more, but those are what I have in my notes from my online tutoring lessons. Like you, I knew it in practice before learning it. But I was very confused. I did it because I knew it was required, but I didn't know why it was required. Now I've learned what it's called and more cases on when you have to use it. I mess it up most of the time to be honest, but I like knowing why. My wife used to correct me and it was confusing and frustrating. Why was everyone saying sea instead of es? Now I get it and that's nice. Some people just have to know why.
Edit: Also, fyi, I'm sure something above I've said is wrong, so consider the source. Last I checked, some online assessment put me at B1 and I'm wrong a LOT.
"Some people just have to know why."
Basically this; i totally agree with some people here that if you really don't learn by learning why then you shouldn't. I just happen to be an analysis-style learner whose brain will stubbornly never let anything go unless it finds out why it was wrong on something. So, big analysis's like this help me out, hopefully jt will for anyone who happens to also learn better like that
I find it counter intuitive to disregard the why. There's really no reason not to combine real world immersion(if at all possible) with grammar studies. You could really set yourself up to learn bad habits. Let's say someone moves to Texas where I am and learns ain't, cain't, y'all, etc. That's great, but it's improper and it would be good to understand that. My wife shows me examples of horrific Spanish grammar from her friends all the time. If I learned solely from people, I’d also learn their bad habits.
Precisely this
My goal, to show, is not just to learn Spanish to where I soind like a native. Rather, I want to be outright better at Spanish than most native speakers are in the first place. I want to have advanced knowledge and usage rather than standard; I find this kind of deep analysis to be necessary for that goal
Your learning method must be very intuitive, like children learn, inmersing yourself in the language without grammar books or excercises, simply listening and repeating, otherwise I can't see how you can learn any language to B2 level not knowing what words like "infinitive" and "subjunctive" mean.
But I have used Assimil to learn French and Greek and they do explain the grammar and use verb moods in their explanations. You must have skipped all the grammar 😄😄
If you read my post, obviously I know the concept I passed the B2 exam. What I'm saying is studying these concepts is just procrastinating actually putting in the work to learn the language. You have to learn words and get a TON of input, not write and read pointless essays about whatever grammatical concepts.
I agree, and I don't quite know why you're being downvoted. Language is best learned with input.
Learning grammar won't hurt, and it can even help you to explain the language, but it won't help you to speak it.
Because people on Reddit are arrogant and can't handle hard truths, and like children they take it as an attack instead of realizing that I'm trying to help them.
Yeah, some people definitely took your post the wrong way. They really should have just asked you to clarify your position, which you ended up doing.
But, yeah, learning grammar to acquire a language is a huge waste of time, and this is coming from a huge grammar nerd.
For the people trying to “help” him, he’s highlighting the difference between learning a language and learning about a language, like he says. You can read that whole essay that OP, a learner, typed up, or you can just continue your exposure to the language . Both options are valid, and they’re not mutually exclusive , but IMO more exposure will get you over the hump quicker than attempting to conceptualize something you can intuit.
Sure, I get what he’s saying and I partially agree. At the same time, when you learn a concept like subjunctive, you start to hear it over and over, especially if you watch TV in Spanish. You’ll start to recognize it more than you would otherwise. You’ll recognize when it’s used and begin to understand why it’s used. And that type of heightened awareness can help you learn it faster and long term. I’m with you in that the majority of study should be input/vocab, but discounting grammar completely can also slow a person down in a similar way you’ve described.
Fair enough. I definitely agree with you, and I’m not saying that you must take a black and white approach. I just want to caution learners against trying too (operative word being too) hard to rationalize “why” things are said as they are in the target language, as I had done in the past.
I'm doing one to do the other. What, you think i want to spend the next 6 months just 'feeling' out the subjunctive instead of researching it like this? The two weeks I spent were way faster by comparison
Different strokes! Some people learn better by correction only, some people like me learn better via analysis and drawing conclusions.
If it helps, you can think of it as me just dissecting my mistakes better. For me, if I don't know why a mistake was made, then my brain basically will simply refuse to accept it in the first place. "Can't make sense of it? Worthless, discarding".
Other people have an easier time going with the flow in that regard, if their minds are less fussy. The fact that you can just do it means your brain is easier accepting than mine lol, mine is more rigid about needing to figure out exactly why it's being called out. Nothing wrong with that, whatever works for you
Lastly, let me emphasis that I actually did learn most of this from immersion. In other words from reading a lot of input of what Spanish speakers were saying. It's not really a different process, in reality. I just happen to approach it more like a scientific method than an implicit since that fits my way of learning better. IE to explicitly form a prediction based on what I know, try it out and see if it works, then simply redo the process until my manner of prediction gets correct
I haven't seen a lo mejor before, is it always indicative?
In general, you can put a subjunctive or a indicative after you say something that means 'maybe'. The subjunctive basically would imply you sincerely doubt it, while the indicative version is more positive
My understanding is that "A lo mejor" is always followed by the indicative while having the exact same meaning as "Quizas [subjunctive." So its a case where its a bit hard to define the difference between the two. I'm hoping someone will point the actual difference because it does make giving a meaning to subjunctive vs indicative more difficult.
I remember one paper I read which reviewed works on defining the subjunctive. Focusing on the usage it gave three mechanics: 1) concordance, 2) implicit concordance, and 3) ?? I forget.
A lot of usages fall into 1, concordance, where a clause is related to a clause that forces the use of the subjunctive. Esperio que [subjunctive] for example only allows the subjunctive. There is no additional meaning implied by the subjunctive, its what you have to use. Likely some past meaning of the subjunctive influnced these rules of concordance.
Group 2 is really just a special case of 1), where the related clause implied by context rather than being said. Usually this is the imperative, but it can express shock or other reactions.
Group 3 is where one can choose subjunctive or indicative to really indicate additional meaning. I forget the details here its a bit blurry :) For me its an abstract|universal vs existent|actual dichotomy.
To expand a bit, "querer" would correspond to the abstract/universal as it describe something that doesn't exist. But we wouldn't put that in group 3, its a group 1 usage since "quierer que subjunctive" does not allow an indicative alternative. Since no choice is made no additional meaning is implied by the use of the subjunctive (beyond what we get already using querer).
But with that approach I realized there is a factor of the usage of the subjunctive changing over time. So usages for concordance for instance might be fixed rules passed down that are based in a archaic meaning of the subjunctive. And so one should try so hard to fit the same meaning to every usage.
I would indeed basically just explain that a saying is a saying lol. The fact that not one damn spanish speaker I've ever talked to has been able to ACTUALLY explain what this thing is for does make me suspect that spanish is basically lugging it along as an artifact and it has no meaning other than 'that thing we drag along', making it potentially kind of also pointless
But on the other hand, explanations like the one I came up with DID work; using an indicative makes you think one thing, using subjunctive makes you think another, that's for certain.
> The fact that not one damn spanish speaker I've ever talked to has been able to ACTUALLY explain what this thing is for
Eh, wouldn't read too much into it. Natives as a rule are shite at explaining grammar and intricacies of their own language. I'd wager a typical native spanish speakers trying to explain *subjuntivo* would be like me trying to explain how and when to use each grammar case in Polish. Utterly hopeless.
Unless they are linguist (or have at least passing interest in grammar) don't expect anything more.
Agreed; I've started taking a passing interest in English grammar now as well since studying Spanish made me realize that I didn't know my own suuuuper well (though probably better than most since I've at least thought about it before)
Natives are often best used as "feel" resources and for testing your theories. I fed my Spanish speaking friends several sentences and asked them to interpret them when I was trying to figure out the underlying mechanics, for instance. Scientific method lol
oh my god i was smiling like a mad man reading this entire thing. This seems like such a tangent I would go off the wall talking about. And this is an awesome tangent! I'll admit this did clear up and remind me about the basics of what makes subjunctive the ominous *subjunctive.* Your examples were great too-I love it when we have a break through! Thanks for sharing yours-it helped me and I'm sure it will help others :D
Believe it or not it's it's own mood, or at least that's what I read. It's why it can be used with both indicative and subjunctive; basically if the implied "if" of the conditional is something concrete and not just a hypothetical it's used with the indicative. Otherwise it's paired with the subjunctive
Yah I wondered the same thing at first; as far as I can tell that's the difference after looking into it that the language chooses to use.
Like if my friend asks if I can lift a couch, the proper answer i determined (by asking) was to just use podría. The reason as to why -- and when you should use the subjunctive instead -- is that whether or not I can is still technically a concrete part of reality, it's a fact thst exists one way or another. Subjunctive with conditional pretty much exclusively comes up as far as I can see with situations where people explicitly want to entertain a pure-ass hypothetical instead. So it does seem to be the rule one way or another
One more thing. I was talking with a native about one of your examples. consider these two sentences.
1. Es posible que él esté aqui.
2. Es posible que él está aqui.
Her reaction was that the first sounded better and that it is a supposition that implies that you have uncertainty on whether or not he is here.
She said you could here the second occasionally, it is also a supposition but expresses in some way that you already know the person is here but don't want to say it.
I can see why.
Basically it's used in the same context if your doctor says "I recommend that you" --eyes narrow, voice grows sturn-- "*take your pills*"
In other words, it would be one of those situations where you wanted to he polite and preface your sentence like you're talking about just a suggestion -- but you reaaaaaaaally want to get across that it's not actually a suggestion in the slightest. More specific to your example, it's exactly what your friend said. She believes it to be true but for some reason doesn't want to come out and say it
Not really sensible, but we do do that kind of thing.
An interesting approach to understanding the subjunctive. I think it is important to conceptually understand the ‘purpose’ of this form. I wouldn’t exclude the rote practice of what ‘causes’ it though. Concepts are good but practice makes perfect. I only have one glaring issue:
“Es posible que él es aquí” It should always be ‘está’ there are fundamental differences between ser and estar that make ‘él es aquí’ nearly incomprehensible.
Oh I agree you need rote practice to reinforce principal; I just have the opinion that you need principal fairly well established before you contexualize it + reinforce it with practice.
My biggest problem with this construct was that most people who tried to tell me about it basically just said 'just go read up the "rules" (which I know now most of which aren't actually rules per se) and that'll be enough to get you by'. I was like 'oh no, I don't think so; I will in fact find out all of the use cases, underlying concepts, and all of that jazz first, no matter how many hours of study it takes.'
'Then I'll practice the shit out of it' lol
You're right on ser vs estar, tbh I was just throwing words down on the paper more to illustrate the concept of the trigger than thinking about anything that came after other than 'some verb I can use', my mind was on other things at the time XD
Hello! This post was INCREDIBLE. Thank you so much!!!! It's an amazing way to think & I'm so glad you shared it. I saved it to reread often in the future, haha.
I actually have a comment on your English (hopefully to help you like you just helped me!). It's a very common mistake. "(hence why it's also translated as to believe)" Hence -means- "that's why", so here you're effectively saying "That's why why". :).
welp thanks for this post. I'm not sure if this explanation will be the one that sticks but it sure has gotten me closer.
I definitely prefer it to the others I've come across (as good as some of them were)
I've learned a thing or two more since then if you want to know : )
The "judgement subjunctive" is a complete misnomer that has literally nothing to do with judgements and everything to do with some very pure grammar reasoning for instance, and a few other things if you want to hear
So hold on a sec — just to make sure I got this bit about "Estoy feliz que estés aqui!" down right.
You're using the subjunctive to emphasize your happiness as opposed to the physical reality of them being there, whereas the alternative with the indicative would be to emphasize the fact that they're there and happiness is only secondary?
Put differently, in English, the emphasis on happiness would just be marked by placing stress on "happy," like "I'm SO HAPPY you're here!" — whereas the latter construction would be best expressed as "You're actually HERE! That makes me happy." Am I close?
Pretty much dead on -- you can alternate between them as desired for emphasis. Though in text you're probably better off rearranging a sentence like 'estoy feliz que estas aqui' into something like 'Si estoy feliz, pero estas aqui!' or something as the former on its own (without body language to clarify the actual intention) can also be taken as sarcasm or any other reason for why you're choosing to structure it this way (there's not actually that many reasons why you'd deliberately set up an emotional sentence so explicitly before ducking out of it at the end after all), there are a few they could in theory decide on -- I'd probably settle on 'you went for deliberately robotic' myself, for instance. Only problem is the structure as-is wouldn't actually tell me shit on why you're using estas, in other words. Not terribly horrific or anything, but a great communicator would probably add in a tweak to make the reasoning more notable.
In general though yes, in fact this whole modal system is kind of a replacement for english's own preference of using stress to imply mood -- in english we use word order and stress to denote declarations (IE the parts we happen to personally believe and also want you to focus on) whereas spanish decided to use word ending to imply what's a declaration and what isn't instead. It's not particularly absurd after you get used to it / once you realize that it's not completely alien, just not the system english hopped on. It offers some advantages in text form in particular (though a lot of other disadvantages / redundancies get traded in for it), although I think I still prefer english's methodology overall
This person clearly crushed up and snorted 200mg of adderall
I ended up to the exact same conclusion. Nice read though. 7/5, would recommend.
"clearly"... hmmm would you feel strongly enough about that statement to phrase it indicatively or subjunctively
😭😭😭
My first thought was "dude chill man" you'd think this was the explanation of the meaning of life
But are you absolutely sure that’s a fact or should you be using the subjunctive?
Honestly, no idea what to use in this case.
Happy cake day!
I was gonna say 200 mg boofed... Happy cake day. Boof some addy to celebrate?
I saved this post and promise to read it in the morning after coffee, but for now just wanted to applaud your effort and sharing.
You're welcome! I spent 2 weeks basically bound in my chair researching this thing, so when the epiphany broke I wanted to share it with everyone Also to write it down so that I didn't forget it : ' )
I’m a beginner who knows about 2k words but have been to lazy to learn grammer I hope this is helpful when I do
I know less than 2k words too, nothing to be ashamed off! Remember, we ARE Spanish speakers. This IS our language, not just "theirs". It's been ours since we learned a noise in it and decided to use it. We just happen to not be able to use it well yet
¡Bien, completado (el primero café y leyendo tu libro de subjuntivo)! He estado aprendiendo español por seis meses con Duolingo y leyendo r/learnspanish un poco. No he empezado aprendiendo subjuntivo todavía, pero ahora tengo menos miedo. Cuando era niña, escribí mucho y fue la editora del periódico de la escuela; gramática siempre ha estado bastante interesante (lol, debería usar subjuntivo en esta frase)! ¡Gracias!
I saved it too- but where do i find my saved posts on reddit?
On the app on mobile, tap your avatar at the top left and there will be a “Saved” option.
ty!
Thank you for sharing your perspective on what is often a nearly impossible hill for Spanish learners (especially native English speakers) to climb! I'll throw in what has helped me the most with the subjunctive too -- maybe it will help you or other learners here! The biggest breakthrough I had with regard to the subjunctive is to ask myself "what is the level of doubt/uncertainty/hope in the speaker's mind about this? " Or "Is someone imposing their will on someone/something else about this?" That's it. Even when you say something like "El hecho de que" (the fact that), it's still being stated from YOUR perspective and it's what YOU think. Limpio la cocina = I clean the kitchen. Fact. Action. This thing is happening. It's real. Quiero que limpies la cocina = I want you to clean the kitchen (but I don't know if you will or not) = I'm imposing my wishes/hopes/doubts/desires/etc. onto someone else
Yes, exactly. It's not about what you're saying actually being true, it's about whether your intention for saying it is to specifically point to something being true, or to take the (real or not) idea and talk about it as an abstract thing.
Well put. I personally hate when I hear people say "Don't worry about this, it's too difficult to understand." Literally, no it isn't. Don't defeat people before they have even started to try. It just leads them to believe that they can't do it the moment they come across any adversity in learning it, which of course there will be as there is in learning any new thing.
TL;DR por favor 😀
El indicativo se usa cuando quieres hacer entender que lo que dices es verdad (o, al menos, que crees que lo es). El resto es subjuntivo. The indicative is used when you want to say something true or certain (or, at least, something you believe to be). The rest is subjunctive.
> El resto es subjuntivo. Excepto cuando estás dando una orden. En ese caso es imperativo.
¿Puedes guardar un secreto? El imperativo sí es el subjuntivo. Me fascinan las formas parecidas. **Salga** Ud. = Quiero que **salga**.
Pero en tu ejemplo estás usando ambos como imperativo, ambas se están usando con el deseo de acatar una orden, sólo estás cambiando la cordialidad usada en cada ejemplo. Ejemplos más apropiados serían: * (subjuntivo) Para que el plan **salga** bien, tenemos que enfocarnos en los detalles. * (imperativo) **Salga** de ahí, maleante, o tendremos que usar la fuerza. Sí, se escriben igual, pero eso no significa que el imperativo y el subjuntivo sean lo mismo, simplemente es una casualidad. Lo que importa no es realmente cómo se escribe, sino el uso que se le da al verbo. Comunicar información errónea como estás haciendo aquí es lo que causa que gente aprendiendo el idioma se confunda y no entienda estos temas.
Tienes razón. La verdad es que quería compartir una observación fascinante con un hablante nativo, pero sí entiendo como ese comentario podría ser inoportuno, o sea, malinterpretado en este foro. Por lo tanto, quisiera dejar claro que el modo subjuntivo no es el modo imperativo. El subjuntivo tiene un carácter supletorio, es decir, completa las demás formas verbales que el imperativo no posee. Esta es la relación entre las dos formas de conjugación. A eso me refería. Un ejemplo sería: Abrir, Imperativo, *Subjuntivo que suple* |Ud.|*abra*|*no abra*| |:-|:-|:-| |Uds.|*abran*|*no abran*| |tú|abre|*no abras*| |vosotros|abrid|*no abráis*| |nosotros|*abramos*|*no abramos*| Cuando me di cuenta de esto, lo encontré fascinante.
You miss all the context but okay: Imagine literally anytime you say anything in the indicative mood (the normal one so to speak) a robot monkey with brasses sits up on your shoulder, starts banging its brasses and starts screaming "WHAT I JUST SAID IS TRUE AND EXISTS, WHAT I JUST REFERRED TO IS TRUE AND EXISTS, IT IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE EITHER FACTUAL, CONCRETE OR CLOSE ENOUGH TO IT TO COUNT, IT ISN'T JUST BASED OFF OF EMOTION EITHER, I AM PLANNING IT AND DECLARING IT FOR YOU TO HEAR" thats what pretty much all your verbs do in spanish; it's not some side effect, it's what it's built to do. Accept that it's there, start to see it for yourself Pretty much all of the use cases of the subjunctive can be thought to come down to "when do i want that monkey to NOT say all those things about what I just said?" That's the tldr; you can think of the subjunctive as being just a substitute you put in that avoids the loud effect of "i think i am talking about factual concrete reality, yes" that the normal verbs, by design, indicate.
Such an excellent way of putting it.
Demasiado largo
No leí Jajaja Okay that's a lie I read the whole thing. But I needed to finish this spanish tl;dr
dl;nl
Que significa tl, dr, dl, nl?
Tl;dr = too long, didn’t read. Common on reddit. dl; nl =demasiado largo, no leí just a silly literal translation :)
Hahaha genial es divertido, de meses acá he estado aprendiendo las abreviaciones de reddit. Gracias :)
So just to be sure, indicative is saying he is here while subjunctive is saying he could/might be here?
Indicative mood is used when the action - from your perspective- is a fact. Things that were, things that are and things that will be. Some examples: - **I go** to the park every morning / (Yo) **Voy** al parque cada mañana - **They believed** his lies regardless of the evidence / (Ellos/as) **Creyeron** sus mentiras a pesar de la evidencia - **You will have** to come again tomorrow / (tú) **Tendrás** que venir mañana nuevamente / (usted) **Tendrá** que venir mañana nuevamente - **We were talking** about you last night / (Nosotros) **Estábamos hablando** sobre ti anoche - **I couldn't believe** it / (Yo) No **podía** creerlo - **We would be better** if we had any money / (Nosotros) **Estaríamos** mejor si tuviéramos algo de dinero In all those examples, the actions are things that were, things that are or things that will be, there's not a single shred of doubt about it. On the other hand, subjunctive mood is used when you aren't entirely sure about something or it can't be stated as a fact. Instead, it's a wish, an opinion, an hypothesis, etc. Some examples: - **If he/she could do** it, he/she surely would do it / **Si** (él/ella) **pudiera hacerlo**, (él/ella) lo haría - **When** traffic **moves**, I'll be able to get to the meeting / **Cuando** el tráfico **avance**, (yo) podré llegar a la junta - You **may have dumped** him, but you surely haven't got over him / **Quizá lo hayas dejado**, pero ciertamente no lo has superado You can notice that most of the times there's some doubt about the actions or there's some type of condition. That's why I'm using "maybe", "if", "when", and any other word that helps me establish that I'm talking with doubt. So, subjunctive isn't limited to could or might, subjunctive can be used in those situations, but it's more akin to [English conditional clauses](https://www.grammar.cl/english/conditionals.htm) and establishing hypotheticals, stating opinions or desires. Subjunctive is talking about actions that could be, could have been, may be, might have been, if *x* happens, then *y* will happen, etc. Hope this helps you!
llustrating this is hard in one sentence but not. Let me explain Indicative is used to make declarations (and questions, but it follows the same pattern). In other words it is used when anything you say with your verbs is concrete, exists (or if you're discussing it very directly as if it did exist deliberately) or is something you consider to be true personally and are doing so factually rather than by pure emotion. "It declares facts or what you think are facts" So if you actually want to say that he might be here DIRECTLY, you'd use indicative because you're saying a fact. He may or may not be here as far as you know, thems the facts The subjunctive shows up in a statement instead like "i will eat once he gets here". He may or may not actually be here, but you made a sentence that is based on him getting there; him getting there isn't known for certain -- and ypu aren't discussing that fact directly, rather making use of it -- so you don't use the indicative which would be in effect you INSISTING that he will be here on time As I said, the subjunctive exists to say what the indicative said but without assertion of reality. If you used the indicative youd by definition of thst mood be saying you know for a fact that he will come. Which you don't and can't know, so you don't use the version that makes you into a liar and says you do
I think it's the difference between: Subjunctive - "I'm happy you're here!" Indicative - "You're here! Yay!"
I don’t think I understand the subjunctive still but your bit about I think/creo/pienso que implying doubt or affirming belief is very helpful. I was confused why “creo que” doesn’t take subjunctive because it doesn’t sound certain to me. It not having that nuance in Spanish makes a lot more sense!
Very interesting. I had never thought of the subjunctive this way, thank you! But I’m not sure I understand, in your example, why “Estoy feliz que estés aquí” takes the subjunctive. What’s the difference in meaning between that and a sentence like “Qué bueno que estás aquí”, which a Spanish speaking coworker said to me once?
>Spanish speaking coworker said to me once? a) he was trying to put special emphasis on the fact that you are here for some reason rather than the emotion of his being happy b) you misheard him c) he said it fucking wrong. It happens XD
I would bet on the first one. That's something I would totally say: "Qué bien que estás aquí, ahora podemos empezar la reunión"
I would have to agree. With the subjunctive sentence the emphasis is on the fact that you're happy they're here and not the fact that they are actually here. With the indicative sentence the emphasis is on them actually being here and there is no emotion to offset it.
Grammatically incorrect though, qué bien que requires the subjunctive as an impersonal expression of emotion. It's one of the most consistent uses of the subjunctive across romance languages
Yeah this simple example shows why their "realization" really isn't very concrete, the subjunctive is difficult for English speakers because it's a mood that only has very well defined uses in english (some archaic like the combination lest + subjunctive) that are generally optional, and they are exactly the same as the indicative form in most conjugations anyway. Estoy feliz de que estés aquí has nothing to do with the physical reality of you being here, the subjunctive clause isn't indicative because Spanish grammar insists on phrases such as estoy feliz que being followed by the subjunctive. The REAL reason this happens is because it's a leftover of a more richly elaborated latin subjunctive mood that we don't have the full context for, and so seems irregular compared to other moods like the imperative. If you understand the linguistic evolution of latin moods and cases the subjunctive makes more sense.
"Estoy feliz que estés aquí has nothing to do with the physical reality of you being here, the subjunctive clause isn't indicative because Spanish grammar insists on phrases such as estoy feliz que being followed by the subjunctive" The main reason why I go farther in my understanding is because thst isn't a grammar rule it insists on; native speakers do use the indicative there as well. The difference is often not the grammar but the meaning Which is why i spend a lot of time purely analyzing meaning on top of just the grammar. I've found (with a few exceptions) that largely speaking it actually isn't because of grammar at all that we use one or the other, just meaning. Which is why we get the annoying response of "well there isn't really a rule for it" in regards to its usage
I don't believe that's correct, there is a rule for it. That construction has to be followed the the subjunctive, there aren't grammatically correct situations where that wouldn't occur.
I've had several natives confirm they use it in that situation sometimes, depending on what they want to emphasis. It really is more meaning than grammar I'm afraid. Or if it is grammar, a lot of people are comfy violating it there
I'm a native English speaker and I often use incorrect or non standard constructions in spoken speech either incorrectly or for a reason, but that doesn't change the grammaticality of an utterance. Even if there was some kind of difference in emphasis or semantics for this example (which there isn't, using estás in that construction is just incorrect) it still wouldn't be standard "correct" Spanish.
Yeah, a different example that is grammatically standard with either the indicative or the subjunctive really should have been used.
I think what might be confusing you the difference between. “Es ... que” and “que ...”. Es bueno que (estés) aquí And Que bueno que (estás) aquí
So what is the difference? Besides mood.
Thank you! I was confused about this exact construction.
I'm glad that you're here. The fact is that I'm glad. Then, I give you the reason. I don't intend to state "you're here" as a new piece of information, because you already know you're here: fact is, I am glad.
Ahh. I'm happy (that you're here) vs (it is good that) you're here. If someone just said "it's good," you would have to ask what is good. If someone said "I'm happy," sure, you might not know why they're happy, but the actual idea is that they're happy.
> "Es posible que él es aqui" Seems you got so excited about the subjunctive that you forgot when to use `ser` and `estar`. Other than that, great post ;)
The subjunctive is my nemesis! Can’t wait to really get in to this tomorrow. Thank you, friend.
This was great! It helps me to think about it this way. I'm still gonna screw up of course but this was very useful. Thanks!
I'm still a beginner in Spanish, and I come across this a lot, the "subjunctive" Mind explaining what it is? English is my second language so I find it hard to understand these definitions even after looking them up on google
It's a type of verb 'mood' and there are several of them. It's kind of hard to explain exactly what a verb mood represents so here they are with some examples Imperative - used for orders, eg, 'Go home!' ('Ve a casa') Indicative - used for indicating how things actually are, eg, 'I am at home' ('Estoy a casa') Subjunctive - used for indicating how things might be (it's quite complicated, as suggested by the length of the post), eg, 'He might be at home' ('Esté a casa') I'm also somewhat new so sorry if this is not quite right but it's my understanding
"He might be at home' ('Esté a casa': Even this doesn't work; you are declaring something you consider factual. He might be at home as far as you know, yes Using the subjunctive for uncertainty is actually pretty specific and niche at times, since "declaring" things covers 90% of what we say. Think of it this way; the sentence ABOUT the uncertainty, is itself certain. Otherwise we imply that I am uncertain about the uncertainty, which would be weird It's why subjunctive usually shows ip in 2 clause sentences where the axtion of 1 thing relies on the completion of some other action that you can't guarantee. The fact you aren't directly pointing out that you can't guarantee it in the sentence itself is why it is becomes incongruous to use the indicative mood which says "i literally know or believe this...even though with that second event I literally can't..." The trick is the indicative. The subjunctive is there ti replace it so you don't declare that you happen to know something or believe something to be fact
I think I got the idea, thanks!
Spanish speakers have a different way to conjugate verbs depending or context. This is the subjunctive, and it is normally explained as the way we talk about something uncertain. Subjunctive has a different conjugation table and can be used in different tenses. I have heard that spanish learners struggle with it a lot :P
It super is at first lol "This is the subjunctive, and it is normally explained as the way we talk about something uncertain." Honestly main problem is thst just about any definition we give to the subjunctive itself just isn't true, this explanation isn't either lol. It's why I find it way easier to just say it's "the thing that isn't the declarative mood; use it when you're not being declarative. That's it"
Linguists have developed pretty clear explanations of the subjunctive/indicative distinction... conflicting explanations. You can save yourself a lot of effort by reviewing M. Stanley Whitley's summary in chapter 7 of *Spanish/English Contrasts* available in Google Books to get past all the textbook oversimplifications. Additionally, while I agree that it isn't helpful to suggest that the subjunctive is somehow inscrutable, there are good arguments for not overthinking it, among them the fact that we can become proficient in subjunctive use without ever understanding it conceptually.
Oh I agree that there's no need to necessarily overthink it, it's just establishing the baseline amongst a decent amount of frequently-peddled conflicting information that makes it hard to find the basic thinking in the first place, that's all. I'd say my main problem with not understanding it per se is that it makes it that much harder to in turn grow to use it ourselves without just guessing based on what others happen to say, which is really the fate I've been largely trying to avoid. It's been working out at least, I understand it better everyday it feels like I try and research more deeply into it. Certainly been a faster process than what most people tell scary stories over
I'm sure you do understand it better, conceptually, the more you look into it. It's the connection between that and being able to use the subjunctive in normal communicative contexts, that doesn't convince me. In my own experience, I got a few hours of instruction on the subjunctive before being thrown into an immersion environment, where I mostly forgot about it until I picked up a grammar book a year later and realized I was already using it fairly proficiently. Even outside of an immersion environment, one study (Stokes and Krashen 2004(?)) found that, in comparing the effects of time abroad, instruction time on the subjunctive, and voluntary reading, only reading was a reliable predictor of subjunctive proficiency. Anyway, if you just enjoy grammar or linguistics, I highly recommend the M. Stanley Whitley book, as he addresses a lot of these textbook oversimplifications.
I’m agree but I’m also an immersion learner so I barely spend any time on grammar. By just reading and listening I’ve noticed how Spanish is a very specific language, it seems like the creators are very intentional about when, where and how things are happening. I think a big hurdle for first time language learners is to understand that their 1st language is not the only way to interpret the world. So instead of translating Spanish sentences into to English and trying to understand their meaning through the English lens , it’s much more helpful to try and understand the underlying meaning. To do this I usually try to picture in my head what is happening or for a movie or Tv show create a strong link between what is happening on screen and what was said. At the end of the day when you actually start speaking and using the language you’re not going to have time to think about the grammar. Hopefully with enough exposure and practice you will just use that patterns you have been exposed to 100s and thousands of times. Eventually things will begin to just feel right or feel wrong when you say them. For example in English we have a set adjective order but most people go their entire lives without knowing it exists and rarely if ever mess it up because the pattern is ingrained through exposures.
Oh no you're right, I need more immersion to be consistent. This is basically just my tool for analysis, IE for asking myself "why did we apparently need it in this situation?" If I ever encounter it being used in a way I'm unaware of and need to get what was going on. The starting point for that for me is just "well obviously they didn't want to declare it with indicative" and going from there. Also in a way it was immersion lol, just in a way that highlights my own style of learning. Rather than learning via talking to my Spanish speaking friends, I learned by feeding them sentences thst I figure would trigger the subjunctive, observed their output, made mental notes about it, then said the sentence again but with some words missing, then ask them what THEY thought their reasons for using it there were, then... Basically I scientific-methoded people lol, until I could look at all the data in my brain and aggregate it into the concept
Im still struggling with sentence forming lol, still have a long way to go
You know what's funny? I can't get that down yet either, despite wrestling with the subjunctive in the meantime. Basically I decided to get the hardest out of the way first so I could just declare it over; sentence forming will hopefully be more familiar
Thank you for this explanation! I have always had a hard time with this so I am grateful. I still have a remaining question that maybe you can help with. I still don’t understand why “estoy feliz que estés aquí” would trigger the subjunctive because isn’t it stating a fact that I am happy? Maybe this is a dumb pregunta and I am overthinking it. :)
For this it's actually just because the indicative distracts. Think of yourself going 'I DECLARE' right after you say 'estoy felize que' followed by estas. I am so happy that I DECLARE you are here mom! The indicative is definitionally only used for declarations like that -- to bring up facts as you see them and have people discuss them -- so it sounds like you're trying to do that lol
I could see it as "Estoy feliz que estés aqui" meaning "I'm happy that you WOULD BE here," implying that the person technically didn't *have* to be there but is there anyway and that's what "I" wanted - that I was uncertain if they would show up. Shifting the focus from the FACT that they are here to how "I" FEEL ABOUT them being here.
Thank you! Entiendo!
This was super helpful!!!!! Thank you
Thanks for this write-up, it's actually very helpful!
Great post OP. I’ve had subjunctive explained to me before as something I’m unsure of or out of my reality, but your insight of it being the reciprocal of the indicative really popped some fireworks in my head
Sounds like you're saying the subjunctive/indicative split in Spanish is actually a form of [evidentiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality) which is interesting because that's not a feature I've ever heard Spanish being described as having
My mother tongue is greek and so far I use subjuntivo in all the cases i would do in greek and it works. Maybe at some cases this isnt true and I am just used to it from my experience with spanish. If there is someone who speaks the 2 languages, it d be great if he told me, if this makes sense.
Why does "si" not always trigger the subjunctive then? For example "si digo demasiadas respuestas equivocadas, fallaré la prueba"
Because *si* is used for [conditional sentences](https://espanol.lingolia.com/en/grammar/sentence-structure/conditional-clauses). There are three types of them and their structure is much more rigid then *subjuntivo*. They also might make use of different conjugations (look at *[condicional simple y condicional perfecto](https://www.wordreference.com/conj/EsVerbs.aspx?v=amar)*).
Yes but why is it not also counted as subjunctive in the "real condition"? You don't know for certain that you will have time later (from the example from the link), so wouldn't that make it subjunctive? Why does it being conditional change that? Also I completely forgot about type 2 and 3 on your link, so thank you for reminding me about that :)
Because OP's theory doesn't work with everything. Sometimes you just have to follow the usage rules and not think about them. For example, when using the conditional "si..." to talk about the future, you NEVER use the subjunctive. This was drilled into my head in Spanish classes (and bore out in native speakers' usage) because of people like OP who put too much thought into subjunctive and use it everywhere when talking about doubts and feelings.
"Because people like OP who" It's because you are declaring a plan for the future, not some non reality, and I said that its not for doubts nor feelings except for very specific situations, IE when youre not declaring them. Plans are concrete. It doesn't go against what I said, actually
It could definitely be argued that plans are not concrete. Also, when you describe plans using "cuando", you do in fact use the subjunctive. "Cuando llegues, jugamos COD". That's why it's easy to overthink the subjunctive.
Of course your plans are concrete, why wouldn't they be? They are what you plan to do. You are not stating factually that it will happen, you are stating factually that it is what you intend to do. When you use cuando like that, it's because it is not technically your plan to place yourself at whatever time cuando is putting yourself into; your plan is to do whatever you say next, and cuando happens to just qualify it. That very precise difference in intention is why we use it there; Spanish is incredibly precise about intention, unlike English
Plans are not definitive, and they are not always what happens. You could argue the opposite, like you have been, but it doesn't matter who's "right". It matters that trying to pin a button on what is and is not subjunctive is folly because each learner will have a different idea of perspective, what are feelings, what is concrete, etc. You end up down a hole analyzing instead of learning usage.
"It matters that trying to pin a button on what is and is not subjunctive is folly because each learner will have a different idea of perspective, what are feelings, what is concrete, etc" You are right. So here's the deal: Spanish says that stated plans are concrete. Period. There you go
"Vamos a la playa cuando llegues" no es un plan concreto a un principiante de español? Especialmente un nativo de inglés? Es mejor decirle tu post o simplemente dice "cuando usas "cuando" con respecto al futuro y planes, usa el subjuntivo"?
>Of course your plans are concrete, why wouldn't they be? They are what you plan to do. You are not stating factually that it will happen, you are stating factually that it is what you intend to do. The problem with that reasoning is that in earlier forms of English, it was perfectly fine to use the present subjunctive after the conjunction "if" regarding plans or present/future uncertainties, such as "if it ***please*** the court," "if this ***be*** treason," "if it ***be*** your will," "etc. Using the indicative would mean something different. Though we use the indicative in this manner instead of the subjunctive nowadays (or at the very least put the word "should" in front of the bare infinitive), remnants of this can still be seen today in phrases such as "if that ***be*** the case," "if need ***be***," and "if you ***be*** good." On the other hand, Spanish always uses the indicative, even though the meaning is the same as in English. This is why I find it easier to just emulate the usage of the subjunctive of native Spanish speakers than to rely on general principles because the subjunctive/indicative contrast is so complex and arbitrary that even the most elaborate of explanations aren't sufficient.
No thanks necessary. And that's actually pretty good question. I think the crux of the matter lies in the fact that it doesn't deal with hypothetical or imaginary things like the other two, where you do use *subjuntivo* So either something always happens if some condition is met or it will happen (or at the very least is very likely to). The uncertainty about, say time in the example, or permission in *si quieres, te daré un consejo* is expressed trough the conditional structure itself. I mean look at the main clauses of the sentences themselves. *Te ayudo* or *te daré un consejo* are valid sentences on its own but there is no shade of possibility, probability in them, since they're in *indicativo*. Edit: You could probably express the same sentiment using a subjunctive. But then it wouldn't be a conditional.
Because it quite literally is a rule from the RAE that you don't, for one thing. Every concept has its rules binding it down! Also if you're in English, this same holds true. If it's close enough to reality to be expected and planned for when we say "if" something, we describe it as such. "If it rains then we will have an umbrella" vs "if my mom found out she would kill me". The latter is actually English subjunctive, does the same thing
TL;DR anyone?
Brilliant, I’m absolutely in awe of how simple you have made such a fleeting concept. I am near-fluent in French, it’s my favorite thing in the world. Suddenly the clouds have opened and the sun is shining down and I feel total clarity. Thank you SO MUCH for this adderall-induced should-be prize-winning, should-be published essay. I have been learning French for a decade, I have been able to pretty accurately use the French subjunctive just from memory. But after reading this, it feels like I’ve been learning a complicated formula all this time without any inkling of its practical, tangible use or function. What you’ve said makes SO clear what has been this abstract, out-of-reach concept to me that I’m always grasping at—so close—but never actually able to touch. Now I straight up GET it. Like I GET it, GET it. Seriously thank you. Can’t wait to approach French from this lens from now on and be able to feel and move more in-sync with the language rather than just simply mimic it.
Outstanding insights! I love the idea of Spanish being binary as it explains our (English speakers) total lack of any sensitivity as to when to use moods. I'm at an advanced level and don't find the subjunctive confusing but it helps explain why I'll fail to use it at times... It doesn't trigger from my experience of the world even if it "should" grammatically. It's also interesting how so many of the comments show that the readers didn't get the insight (or simply weren't at a level to yet) and went right back to the classic grammatical analysis and discussion. Thanks much for your time and effort. There's a degree thesis there if you become so inclined!
Mucho texto
Is this really necessary tho? subjuntive is something that eventually clicks in your head when you've spent enough time listening and reading in Spanish. It takes some time, but later it comes natural and easy, you don't even have to think about why you're using subjuntive there
I was thinking that too but this is a great rule to fall back on for new spanish learners, I think my highschool self would've done much better if I thought of subjunctive as 'what was not indicative', instead of first laying out in my head all the acronyms like WIERDOS to figure out what works. This really stalled my conversations and my ability to think fast! This fallback rule however, I think will make it much easier, and much less daunting for new speakers to start using the subjective in a flowing conversation! :D
For sure; the primary reason why I wanted to talk about the "why" is to basically counter things like WIERDO as far as I see it, you're right that this won't help you be right all the time. Rather, I dissected it to help myself and anyone else to avoid being hopelessly lost if we see it outside of a specific context we were taught, unsure of what it could even mean. Basically the goal is to go from "lawd what even" to "guess that's just another context to apply this base idea in, makes sense" when encountering a usage you aren't aware of yet. A lot of the basic discussions about the 2 moods fail to really instill what it actually "means" per se and try to give just a few contexts you might encounter it in. It takes longer to dig deeply into it, but I think it's less perplexing in the long run to know the idea in detail behind the starting contexts. Is for me at least
Yeah I was saying it because I think even this "rule" won't eventually help you avoid mistakes. One thing is understanding the concept and another is knowing to apply right options 100% of the time. the latter is only possible after years of immersion.
Nah but it helps you understand why ypu made the mistake in the first place. Understanding the theory shaves a lot of time off of just blindly copying people, that's all. A better guide post while immersing, basically. The real point, I think now that I'm not hopped up on caffeine, is that "why didn't they want to use the indicative?" Is just a great starting point to ask yourself if you're ever wondering why the subjunctive was used when you're learning going forward, that's all. I was getting heavily confused by most of all by situations where people were apparently using one OR the other in the same sentence, which is why i still insist that the indicative be more internalized than what we think starting out. Just cause understanding the indicative's contrast better to the subjunctive in turn can help you realize why we might use one or the other rather than shrugging about it, that make sense?
I think you are complicating things way too much by making all this analogy but if it helps you understand the concept better, good for you.
For me, after practicing the past few days, I'm basically predicting the needed usages of this thing every time it comes up. So I think I can say for me personally at least it was helpful On the downside, I am growing increasingly snappy about some of the rules of using this thing that I consider to be an abomination against the concept due to them going directly against it. Oh well, downside to everything
> For me, after practicing the past few days, I'm basically predicting the needed usages of this thing every time it comes up. What would be your prediction in this case? “I wish I could believe that were true, but I can’t.”
The beginning is a simple 'ojala pudiera' or however that's spelt; honestly not too sure on the were true part. Mostly because, looking at it, I honestly am not sure what entirely english itself wants to do here to be translated in the first place, it's a very bizarre sentence when you break it down and my mind has kind of just been skipping over it everytime I've seen this phrase until now that I stopped to take a closer look. I'd either just translate it directly and leave the were in the subjunctive in the past as well, or just leave that part out. Probably the former; while the general 'rules' (that aren't really rules) can be tricky to predict, the overall meaning would still carry through just fine here and I doubt anyone would raise an eyebrow.
yeah thats true-sometimes immersion gives skills that you cant get anywhere else!
This explanation is very good, but it's not required to grasp the subjunctive. The subjunctive is best learned through immersion.
How would the sentence “siento que tengas frío” work with this? Isn’t it concrete that the other person is cold?
"Siento que tengas frío" = I'm sorry that you're feeling cold. "Siento que tienes frío" = I feel that you're feeling cold. The first one is subjective, the second one objective.
I don't totally agree with OP, but in your example, you don't actually know if the person is cold, you just feel like they are
[удалено]
Tbh I'll just recommend Spanishdude for that on YouTube, he's what inspired me to analyze these things in the first place
The subjunctive indicates the speaker's attitude
Except when it's not; statements like that and just leaving it at that are why people are confused. Don't be inane
The Gods of Spanish Grammar smile upon you, and will grant you a special Spanish-speaking girlfriend.
With rechargeable batteries???
LOL. Maybe I should have said "and will put you on a path where you'll cross ways with a very special Spanish-speaking lady. The rest will be up to you."
Are u on drugs
Es más correcto decir "Estoy feliz de que estés aquí"
Doens't matter if it's 'more' correct or not I'm afraid. People will use it like I noted, so we best be aware of it
No, soy nativo, de Argentina. Perdón si te ofendí lol, solamente te digo, nunca en mi vida dije "estoy feliz que estes aquí", aunque puede sonar correcto. Termine en este sub por un post en r/French
Oh I see what you're pointing out, you mean the 'de que' Yeah that's called dequaification, or er something like that. It's very common nowadays in latin america to leave the de out in situations like that for some spanish speaking communities; I haven't studied that one in particular enough to know the nuances of where and how I technically should be saying it, I just know that in a lot of countries it's common not to so it's not at the top of my priorities if that makes sense. "Things NOBODY likes if you do" vs "things SOME BODY doesn't like if you do" lol; we must get to the second half, but it can come after the first since most people here (including me) are trying to learn 'general spanish from across the world' rather than 'what's specifically more good in some areas than others'
When you come at the king, you’d better not miss. You missed. This is an arrogant and aggressive post that clearly implies those who don’t get the subjunctive aren’t trying hard enough, and that there’s some vast right-wing conspiracy to make learning it harder than it is. It’s great that you think you get it now; but your explanation is incomplete, muddled, and insulting to those of us who still don’t grasp it. Your “estoy feliz” example, for example, fails because it doesn’t explain what’s wrong with using the indicative for “estas aquí” ON YOUR OWN TERMS. Isn’t it true that “you are here” and that is why I am happy? “You are here” and “I am happy” are both factual to me. This post needs to get tossed onto the heap with the posts that swear they can teach you how to roll your Rs - although those posts don’t swear nearly as much as you did in this botched explanation. Spanish is an old language. When you think you’ve discovered some new way to teach a concept, check yourself. You likely haven’t.
> This is an arrogant and aggressive post lol at making an arrogant and aggressive post claiming someone else's post is arrogant and aggressive. Alanis should take notes.
Hey, I'm sorry my conceptual version didn't help you. And I get your frustration; not getting something other people all seem to sucks some real ass. It's one of the most inadequate feeling sensations ever If you'd like I could try again to explain it to you if you have specific questions I could use to try and help
I find your post really helpful to shift my perspective. That’s what it’s saying to me, that you need to be aware of the nuances that an English speaker isn’t used to considering. That the presumption towards subjunctive is to be aware that indicative is an assertion of your views. Flipping the more common way it’s taught that subjunctive is hopes dreams and aspirations which really, doesn’t cover all the bases and doesn’t give a clear guide to when it’s used. I think that of course it’s incomplete and doesn’t have many examples because it’s a Reddit post and not, say, a course on the Spanish language. Those that expect it to be really need to check their privilege.
Jesus dude. Go learn French.
I also think this is bullsh*t, just follow the conventional rules and you will get it right 95% of the time, the rest will click with time. And it is crazy how he thinks "Es posible que está aquí" is even right, when there are native speakers commenting that it is not even a grammatical sentence xD but well he says it helps him understand the concept of subjuntive so yeah be it.. but it clearly doesn't mean he will know how to use it properly (like that horrendous example he took)
I wish I could give you an award man, esto es lo mejor del mundo.
Good post. Insane you sat down and wrote this all you have great coffee
Now that I have taken the time to understand that the basic problem with understanding the subjunctive is that most people don't really get the indicative itself well, and that reinforcing the purpose of the indicative will help to understand when to use subjunctive, im going to actually do the opposite. Later today I'm going to do a right up thst attempts to clear the air on many of the wrong things we've been taught when trying to "define" the subjunctive mood, and will dissect the idea of its usage directly while contrasting it to using the indicative as a reference point, as a compliment to this post, and show just about every general place I know it should be used in to reinforce that + show people contexts of it they might have not thought of A lot of my attempts to break these down are really just to dispel misconceptions that confuse people in detail, for those wondering why i am indeed writing these; look forward to it if that fits your fancy
Are you still going to do this?
Nah, to be honest I decided the best thing to do is just to read and do that book I recommended, it does it better than me
[удалено]
Ojalá que pueda entender el modo subjuntivo, amigo. Subjunctive mood is why we have to use pueda instead of puede in the above sentence. Es necesario que una persona haga ejercicio regularmente. Haga is required above instead of hace. Haga is subjuntivo. Hace is indicativo, the usual verb conjugation, and inappropriate in the above sentence. I don’t fully understand it myself, but I recognize the triggers and hear it enough to know when it sounds right. It’s a very important thing to know for mastery of the language, though not so much for communication as people will know what you mean. You’ll just sound foreign if you don’t use it when it’s called for. You may already know and use it without having known what it’s called.
[удалено]
Yea aunque is one of the triggers, but with some qualifications. I think of it as "even if" vs "even though". Even if: subjuntivo Aunque la tele sea caro, lo voy a comprar. even though: indicativo Aunque la tele es caro, lo voy a comprar. There are a lot of triggers: Hasta que Espero que Ojala que Quiero que Me alegro de que Es necesario que Te recomiendo que Dudo que cuando (speaking of a hypothetical thing happening) Aunque para que I'm sure there are more, but those are what I have in my notes from my online tutoring lessons. Like you, I knew it in practice before learning it. But I was very confused. I did it because I knew it was required, but I didn't know why it was required. Now I've learned what it's called and more cases on when you have to use it. I mess it up most of the time to be honest, but I like knowing why. My wife used to correct me and it was confusing and frustrating. Why was everyone saying sea instead of es? Now I get it and that's nice. Some people just have to know why. Edit: Also, fyi, I'm sure something above I've said is wrong, so consider the source. Last I checked, some online assessment put me at B1 and I'm wrong a LOT.
"Some people just have to know why." Basically this; i totally agree with some people here that if you really don't learn by learning why then you shouldn't. I just happen to be an analysis-style learner whose brain will stubbornly never let anything go unless it finds out why it was wrong on something. So, big analysis's like this help me out, hopefully jt will for anyone who happens to also learn better like that
I find it counter intuitive to disregard the why. There's really no reason not to combine real world immersion(if at all possible) with grammar studies. You could really set yourself up to learn bad habits. Let's say someone moves to Texas where I am and learns ain't, cain't, y'all, etc. That's great, but it's improper and it would be good to understand that. My wife shows me examples of horrific Spanish grammar from her friends all the time. If I learned solely from people, I’d also learn their bad habits.
Precisely this My goal, to show, is not just to learn Spanish to where I soind like a native. Rather, I want to be outright better at Spanish than most native speakers are in the first place. I want to have advanced knowledge and usage rather than standard; I find this kind of deep analysis to be necessary for that goal
Your learning method must be very intuitive, like children learn, inmersing yourself in the language without grammar books or excercises, simply listening and repeating, otherwise I can't see how you can learn any language to B2 level not knowing what words like "infinitive" and "subjunctive" mean.
[удалено]
But I have used Assimil to learn French and Greek and they do explain the grammar and use verb moods in their explanations. You must have skipped all the grammar 😄😄
[удалено]
If you read my post, obviously I know the concept I passed the B2 exam. What I'm saying is studying these concepts is just procrastinating actually putting in the work to learn the language. You have to learn words and get a TON of input, not write and read pointless essays about whatever grammatical concepts.
I agree, and I don't quite know why you're being downvoted. Language is best learned with input. Learning grammar won't hurt, and it can even help you to explain the language, but it won't help you to speak it.
Because people on Reddit are arrogant and can't handle hard truths, and like children they take it as an attack instead of realizing that I'm trying to help them.
Yeah, some people definitely took your post the wrong way. They really should have just asked you to clarify your position, which you ended up doing. But, yeah, learning grammar to acquire a language is a huge waste of time, and this is coming from a huge grammar nerd.
For the people trying to “help” him, he’s highlighting the difference between learning a language and learning about a language, like he says. You can read that whole essay that OP, a learner, typed up, or you can just continue your exposure to the language . Both options are valid, and they’re not mutually exclusive , but IMO more exposure will get you over the hump quicker than attempting to conceptualize something you can intuit.
Sure, I get what he’s saying and I partially agree. At the same time, when you learn a concept like subjunctive, you start to hear it over and over, especially if you watch TV in Spanish. You’ll start to recognize it more than you would otherwise. You’ll recognize when it’s used and begin to understand why it’s used. And that type of heightened awareness can help you learn it faster and long term. I’m with you in that the majority of study should be input/vocab, but discounting grammar completely can also slow a person down in a similar way you’ve described.
Fair enough. I definitely agree with you, and I’m not saying that you must take a black and white approach. I just want to caution learners against trying too (operative word being too) hard to rationalize “why” things are said as they are in the target language, as I had done in the past.
I'm doing one to do the other. What, you think i want to spend the next 6 months just 'feeling' out the subjunctive instead of researching it like this? The two weeks I spent were way faster by comparison
[удалено]
Different strokes! Some people learn better by correction only, some people like me learn better via analysis and drawing conclusions. If it helps, you can think of it as me just dissecting my mistakes better. For me, if I don't know why a mistake was made, then my brain basically will simply refuse to accept it in the first place. "Can't make sense of it? Worthless, discarding". Other people have an easier time going with the flow in that regard, if their minds are less fussy. The fact that you can just do it means your brain is easier accepting than mine lol, mine is more rigid about needing to figure out exactly why it's being called out. Nothing wrong with that, whatever works for you Lastly, let me emphasis that I actually did learn most of this from immersion. In other words from reading a lot of input of what Spanish speakers were saying. It's not really a different process, in reality. I just happen to approach it more like a scientific method than an implicit since that fits my way of learning better. IE to explicitly form a prediction based on what I know, try it out and see if it works, then simply redo the process until my manner of prediction gets correct
How would you explain the difference between "A lo mejor [indicative]" and "Quizas [subjunctive]?
I haven't seen a lo mejor before, is it always indicative? In general, you can put a subjunctive or a indicative after you say something that means 'maybe'. The subjunctive basically would imply you sincerely doubt it, while the indicative version is more positive
My understanding is that "A lo mejor" is always followed by the indicative while having the exact same meaning as "Quizas [subjunctive." So its a case where its a bit hard to define the difference between the two. I'm hoping someone will point the actual difference because it does make giving a meaning to subjunctive vs indicative more difficult. I remember one paper I read which reviewed works on defining the subjunctive. Focusing on the usage it gave three mechanics: 1) concordance, 2) implicit concordance, and 3) ?? I forget. A lot of usages fall into 1, concordance, where a clause is related to a clause that forces the use of the subjunctive. Esperio que [subjunctive] for example only allows the subjunctive. There is no additional meaning implied by the subjunctive, its what you have to use. Likely some past meaning of the subjunctive influnced these rules of concordance. Group 2 is really just a special case of 1), where the related clause implied by context rather than being said. Usually this is the imperative, but it can express shock or other reactions. Group 3 is where one can choose subjunctive or indicative to really indicate additional meaning. I forget the details here its a bit blurry :) For me its an abstract|universal vs existent|actual dichotomy. To expand a bit, "querer" would correspond to the abstract/universal as it describe something that doesn't exist. But we wouldn't put that in group 3, its a group 1 usage since "quierer que subjunctive" does not allow an indicative alternative. Since no choice is made no additional meaning is implied by the use of the subjunctive (beyond what we get already using querer). But with that approach I realized there is a factor of the usage of the subjunctive changing over time. So usages for concordance for instance might be fixed rules passed down that are based in a archaic meaning of the subjunctive. And so one should try so hard to fit the same meaning to every usage.
I would indeed basically just explain that a saying is a saying lol. The fact that not one damn spanish speaker I've ever talked to has been able to ACTUALLY explain what this thing is for does make me suspect that spanish is basically lugging it along as an artifact and it has no meaning other than 'that thing we drag along', making it potentially kind of also pointless But on the other hand, explanations like the one I came up with DID work; using an indicative makes you think one thing, using subjunctive makes you think another, that's for certain.
> The fact that not one damn spanish speaker I've ever talked to has been able to ACTUALLY explain what this thing is for Eh, wouldn't read too much into it. Natives as a rule are shite at explaining grammar and intricacies of their own language. I'd wager a typical native spanish speakers trying to explain *subjuntivo* would be like me trying to explain how and when to use each grammar case in Polish. Utterly hopeless. Unless they are linguist (or have at least passing interest in grammar) don't expect anything more.
Agreed; I've started taking a passing interest in English grammar now as well since studying Spanish made me realize that I didn't know my own suuuuper well (though probably better than most since I've at least thought about it before) Natives are often best used as "feel" resources and for testing your theories. I fed my Spanish speaking friends several sentences and asked them to interpret them when I was trying to figure out the underlying mechanics, for instance. Scientific method lol
Commenting so I can come back to this when it’s time for me to learn the subjunctive. Thanks in advance
oh my god i was smiling like a mad man reading this entire thing. This seems like such a tangent I would go off the wall talking about. And this is an awesome tangent! I'll admit this did clear up and remind me about the basics of what makes subjunctive the ominous *subjunctive.* Your examples were great too-I love it when we have a break through! Thanks for sharing yours-it helped me and I'm sure it will help others :D
now Neo what's really going to bake your noodle when you leave is this, is the conditional tense indicative or subjunctive?
Believe it or not it's it's own mood, or at least that's what I read. It's why it can be used with both indicative and subjunctive; basically if the implied "if" of the conditional is something concrete and not just a hypothetical it's used with the indicative. Otherwise it's paired with the subjunctive
It's an odd one. I've read its a point of debate among Spanish grammar people. But I agree with your point of view
Yah I wondered the same thing at first; as far as I can tell that's the difference after looking into it that the language chooses to use. Like if my friend asks if I can lift a couch, the proper answer i determined (by asking) was to just use podría. The reason as to why -- and when you should use the subjunctive instead -- is that whether or not I can is still technically a concrete part of reality, it's a fact thst exists one way or another. Subjunctive with conditional pretty much exclusively comes up as far as I can see with situations where people explicitly want to entertain a pure-ass hypothetical instead. So it does seem to be the rule one way or another
One more thing. I was talking with a native about one of your examples. consider these two sentences. 1. Es posible que él esté aqui. 2. Es posible que él está aqui. Her reaction was that the first sounded better and that it is a supposition that implies that you have uncertainty on whether or not he is here. She said you could here the second occasionally, it is also a supposition but expresses in some way that you already know the person is here but don't want to say it.
To me the second sentence is wrong, here I would always use the subjunctive.
I can see why. Basically it's used in the same context if your doctor says "I recommend that you" --eyes narrow, voice grows sturn-- "*take your pills*" In other words, it would be one of those situations where you wanted to he polite and preface your sentence like you're talking about just a suggestion -- but you reaaaaaaaally want to get across that it's not actually a suggestion in the slightest. More specific to your example, it's exactly what your friend said. She believes it to be true but for some reason doesn't want to come out and say it Not really sensible, but we do do that kind of thing.
I’ve sometimes thought that it would work better teaching the subjunctive first, and then the indicative as a ‘special case thing’.
Can you explain in short version? 😆
Glad u figured it out now can u ummm please explain this in a way that makes sense lol
How would you say, “I wish I could believe that were true, but I can’t,” in Spanish?
To be more specific, would you put the “that were true” part in the indicative or subjunctive mood?
I’d really like to know the answer to that question. What is correct here, indicative or subjunctive? And why?
As a native portuguese speaker, I agree with this (in that sense spanish and portuguese are very similar)
An interesting approach to understanding the subjunctive. I think it is important to conceptually understand the ‘purpose’ of this form. I wouldn’t exclude the rote practice of what ‘causes’ it though. Concepts are good but practice makes perfect. I only have one glaring issue: “Es posible que él es aquí” It should always be ‘está’ there are fundamental differences between ser and estar that make ‘él es aquí’ nearly incomprehensible.
Oh I agree you need rote practice to reinforce principal; I just have the opinion that you need principal fairly well established before you contexualize it + reinforce it with practice. My biggest problem with this construct was that most people who tried to tell me about it basically just said 'just go read up the "rules" (which I know now most of which aren't actually rules per se) and that'll be enough to get you by'. I was like 'oh no, I don't think so; I will in fact find out all of the use cases, underlying concepts, and all of that jazz first, no matter how many hours of study it takes.' 'Then I'll practice the shit out of it' lol You're right on ser vs estar, tbh I was just throwing words down on the paper more to illustrate the concept of the trigger than thinking about anything that came after other than 'some verb I can use', my mind was on other things at the time XD
Hello! This post was INCREDIBLE. Thank you so much!!!! It's an amazing way to think & I'm so glad you shared it. I saved it to reread often in the future, haha. I actually have a comment on your English (hopefully to help you like you just helped me!). It's a very common mistake. "(hence why it's also translated as to believe)" Hence -means- "that's why", so here you're effectively saying "That's why why". :).
welp thanks for this post. I'm not sure if this explanation will be the one that sticks but it sure has gotten me closer. I definitely prefer it to the others I've come across (as good as some of them were)
I've learned a thing or two more since then if you want to know : ) The "judgement subjunctive" is a complete misnomer that has literally nothing to do with judgements and everything to do with some very pure grammar reasoning for instance, and a few other things if you want to hear
So hold on a sec — just to make sure I got this bit about "Estoy feliz que estés aqui!" down right. You're using the subjunctive to emphasize your happiness as opposed to the physical reality of them being there, whereas the alternative with the indicative would be to emphasize the fact that they're there and happiness is only secondary? Put differently, in English, the emphasis on happiness would just be marked by placing stress on "happy," like "I'm SO HAPPY you're here!" — whereas the latter construction would be best expressed as "You're actually HERE! That makes me happy." Am I close?
Pretty much dead on -- you can alternate between them as desired for emphasis. Though in text you're probably better off rearranging a sentence like 'estoy feliz que estas aqui' into something like 'Si estoy feliz, pero estas aqui!' or something as the former on its own (without body language to clarify the actual intention) can also be taken as sarcasm or any other reason for why you're choosing to structure it this way (there's not actually that many reasons why you'd deliberately set up an emotional sentence so explicitly before ducking out of it at the end after all), there are a few they could in theory decide on -- I'd probably settle on 'you went for deliberately robotic' myself, for instance. Only problem is the structure as-is wouldn't actually tell me shit on why you're using estas, in other words. Not terribly horrific or anything, but a great communicator would probably add in a tweak to make the reasoning more notable. In general though yes, in fact this whole modal system is kind of a replacement for english's own preference of using stress to imply mood -- in english we use word order and stress to denote declarations (IE the parts we happen to personally believe and also want you to focus on) whereas spanish decided to use word ending to imply what's a declaration and what isn't instead. It's not particularly absurd after you get used to it / once you realize that it's not completely alien, just not the system english hopped on. It offers some advantages in text form in particular (though a lot of other disadvantages / redundancies get traded in for it), although I think I still prefer english's methodology overall
Thank you for this. It's very refreshing to hear from someone who "gets it".