Subjunctive in the Romance languages (Specific Languages) Language Learning Forum

Subjunctive in the Romance languages
Tags: Galician \| Catalan \| Romance Languages \| Portuguese \| Italian \| Spanish
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages

25 messages over 4 pages: 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Medulin
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Croatia
Joined 4458 days ago
1199 posts - 2192 votes

Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali

Message 17 of 25

01 May 2014 at 6:47pm | IP Logged

You can find ''Talvez ele vai'' in spoken Brazilian Portuguese too,
but it's not considered correct by most grammarians.

The only grammar which accepts this usage is ''Glossário de dificuldades Sintáticas.'' by Zélio dos Santos Jota.
published by Ed. Fundo de Cultura.

He states in his manual:

TALVEZ - O verbo fica no subjuntivo ou indicativo, conforme talvez o preceda ou a ele se posponha: ''Talvez parta hoje. Parto hoje talvez.'' /Não é erro, contudo, aparecer anteposto com indicativo: ''Talvez vou hoje.''
2 persons have voted this message useful

1e4e6
Octoglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 4080 days ago
1013 posts - 1588 votes

Speaks: English*, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, Italian
Studies: German, Danish, Russian, Catalan

Message 18 of 25

01 May 2014 at 9:01pm | IP Logged

There are some constructions that are optional with the subjunctive depending on how
likely the speaker thinks it is, but most are "non-negotiables", i.e. they must take
the subjunctive regardless of whether the speaker thinks that it is likely or not. If
they are optional, if the speaker feels for xample, 80% sure, then they can use the
indicative, if something like 20% sure (doubtful), then the subjunctive. I always
learnt «talvez» in Portuguese, at least European Portuguese, to be non-negotiable, but
I am unsure about how Brazilians might differ in this construction, i.e.

Talvez venha (Maybe he might come, not very sure--subjunctive)
Talvez venha (Most likely he would come, but non-negotiable, the subjunctive
anyway)

The optional constructions seem to occur more often in Spanish; a few:

Quizás prepare la cena (I might cook dinner, but I am undecided--subjunctive)
Quizás preparo la cena (I am fairly sure that I shall cook dinner--indicative)

Seguramente llueva (It might rain, but really no idea--subjunctive)
Seguramente llueve (Grey clouds to be seen in all directions--indicative)

Posiblemente hagamos las compras (No one is committed to go shopping--
subjunctive)
Posiblemente hacemos las compras (Everyone seems to be getting ready to go out--
indicative)

However, the nonnegoatiables:

Es posible que venga is the only choice regardless of how sure the speaker is;
Es posible que viene would be totally wrong, even if the speaker is 99% sure.
Same with Portuguese «É possível que venha»

In Portuguese, like Spanish, the only option for the indicative in subordinated clauses
preceded by "que" are those of surity:
É seguro/certo/verdade/sem dúvida que mandate the indicative since they are
surities. Their negative equivalents mandate the subjunctive.
É melhor/bom/pior/mau/possível and others aforementioned require the subjunctive
and are non-negotiable.

An indicative with the optional construction might also indicate that the speaker wants
it to be true:

Tal vez nos toca la lotería (We might win the lottery, surely, it shall happen)
Tal vez nos toque la lotería (We might win the lottery I hope, but all of our
numbers are wrong, and are probably not even get a free ticket)

One that can be used for example, during an national or international chess team event:

Posiblemente nuestro compañero gana la partida (Has a good advantage, cannot
lose or draw this, or should not)
Posiblemente nuestro compañero gane la partida (S/he just blundered a piece,
position is almost busted, but maybe might have some luck hopefully)

It must be mentioned, that there are uses of the indicative where it fits into neither
category:
Aunque llueve, me voy "Although it rains, I am off"; Since this is a fact, it
takes the indicative
Aunque lleuva, me voy "Even though it might rain, I am off

However:
Aunque me lo dijeses, no lo tendré en cuenta could have two meanings: "Although
you might have told me, I shall not keep it in mind" which could indicate doubt, but
also could be, "Although you told me, I shall not keep it in mind" which is fact, but
«aunque» requires the subjunctive when the following clause is something that has been
repeated in the past, even if it has happened, i.e. "Although you told me in the past,
I shall not keep it in mind" is another possible meaning. This extends to «a pesar de
que», «bien que», etc., although in the others, the subjunctive is non-negotiable: «bem
que», «bien que», «benche» in PT/FR/IT the subjunctive follows always.

Edited by 1e4e6 on 02 May 2014 at 12:36am
4 persons have voted this message useful

Medulin
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Croatia
Joined 4458 days ago
1199 posts - 2192 votes

Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali

Message 19 of 25

02 May 2014 at 12:35am | IP Logged

In Brazilian Portuguese, É bom (or another adjective) + subjunctive is not the preferred form:

''É bom você ter vindo!'' ( 221,000 hits on Google )
''Que bom que você veio! ''(599,000 hits on Google )

both are much more frequent than ''É bom que você tenha vindo'' (which is comparatively rare -only 10 hits on Google ).

(While the absolute number of Google hits is not important, ratios / relative preferences are).

PS
I just asked a native speaker of B.P and to her ''É bom que você tenha vindo'' sounded like a snarky comment
rather than a neutral expression, as in ''good for you''.

Edited by Medulin on 02 May 2014 at 12:39am
2 persons have voted this message useful

s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 5220 days ago
2704 posts - 5425 votes

Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish

Message 20 of 25

06 May 2014 at 3:15pm | IP Logged

1e4e6 wrote:

...

In French, there is an inverted word-order that can substitute the pluperfect
subjunctive: "Had it not rained..."/"Were it not for the rain..." using an inverted
pluperfect indicative: N'eût-il plu... instead of, S'il n'eût pas plu...
or S'il n'avait plu pas..., likewise for the imperfect subjunctive: Ne plût-
il... for S'il ne plût pas... or S'il ne pleuvait pas....

Also in French, most wishes require the subjnctive, but «esperer que», which logically
should require it, is an exception. It makes no sense, but it simply needs to be
memorised as an exception.

To use the subjunctive in conversation is extremely common,I would not be surprised if
on average was used 10 times in a converstion that lasts four or five minutes. The
problem is that I think that it is taught too late--the indicative for very long, then
suddenly the subjunctive, which makes no sense compared to what was previously learnt.
The subjunctive is not advanced, rather it iused on a basic level of communication in
everyday life.

To learn the use the subjunctive only after for example, years of the indicative only,
I feel causes confusion. It would be like learning differential equations and only
learning ODEs for years and then suddenly discovering partial differential equations
(PDEs), and then being confused about such a new idea. Or ordering fish and chips, and
only being brought the fish first, and the chips two hours later, or buying shoes, but
only one instead of a pair. The indicative and subjunctive need to be mixed during
learning, because one cannot do without the other, they complement each other in basic,
intermediate, and advanced.

Once you have mastered the subjunctive, a reflex should have already been developed to
be prepared to use the subjunctive in subordinated clauses with automaticity, depending
on if necessary or not. Also, if you see or hear the indicative instead of the
subjunctive, it should sound very disgusting or odd without even contemplation, i.e.,
if someone says something like, «No creo que vienes» instead of the correct
vengas, it sounds absolutely horrible to me. It would be at least an equivalent
of someone using in English the imperfect subjunctive incorrectly, i.e. "If I was..."
or messing up a strong verb preterite, "Last night I goed home late".

I'm in awe of the amount of work that went into this post and the many other contributions on this rather
intractable subject of the subjunctive in the Romance languages.

I can't comment on Spanish or Portuguese but French is up my alley. A couple of points. In modern spoken
French, only the present subjunctive is used. Also those complex conjugations have totally disappeared or are
used in very special circumstances, i.e. making fun of a pretentious person.

In written French, the imperfect of the subjunctive can be found but I think it is giving way to the present.
Indeed, the whole thing reminds me of the passé simple that has disappeared from spoken French but is to be
found in the written language.

I don't know about the other languages, but there is considerable debate in French linguistics about the exact
role of the subjunctive. For some observers, it is purely a grammatical constraint to be used in certain word
contexts and has no intrinsic meaning. This idea of the subjunctive being associated with doubt, hope, wishes,
desires, uncertainty, etc. is rather shaky and does not really explain why the subjunctive is used.

The real reason the subjunctive is used is that by convention certain words or grammatical constructions are said
to require the subjunctive. It's just an arbitrary rule. For example, Je crois que,,, 'I believe that...' does not take
the subjunctive but je ne crois pas que 'I don't believe that...' does take the subjunctive. Fine. But why does je ne
pense pas que..."I don't think that..." not take the subjunctive? What is it the difference between "believe' and
"think"?

Similarly, we can ask why did all those complex subjunctive forms disappear if there was some distinction of
meaning in the various forms. How can the present subjunctive replace all the other forms unless the
subjunctive is just some kind of catch-all category without any specific meaning?

The other school of thought, which I won't elaborate in detail, says that the subjunctive corresponds to some
intellectual or cognitive processes. We can therefore convey precise nuances of meaning through proper use of
the subjunctive.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that in French, and certainly in Spanish, the subjunctive mood is closely
linked to the imperative mood. Certain conjugated forms are identical, and we have the que + present
subjunctive construction for giving orders.

3 persons have voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6387 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Finnish^C1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

Message 21 of 25

07 May 2014 at 1:05am | IP Logged

Well I've been reading the relevant parts of a book about Romance philology and it says that in Latin, the subjunctive almost completely lost its semantic purpose and became a purely grammatical/syntactical tool. But in the modern Romance languages it got this semantic use back, as it was replaced by the indicative in most contexts where the predicate denotes a real fact. It says that at least sometimes there's a semantic opposition depending on the degree of confidence, like the Spanish "creo que viene" vs "creo que venga" or in Italian "credo che viene"/"credo che venga".
2 persons have voted this message useful

s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 5220 days ago
2704 posts - 5425 votes

Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish

Message 22 of 25

07 May 2014 at 4:05pm | IP Logged

Serpent wrote:

Well I've been reading the relevant parts of a book about Romance philology and it says that in
Latin, the subjunctive almost completely lost its semantic purpose and became a purely grammatical/syntactical
tool. But in the modern Romance languages it got this semantic use back, as it was replaced by the indicative in
most contexts where the predicate denotes a real fact. It says that at least sometimes there's a semantic
opposition depending on the degree of confidence, like the Spanish "creo que viene" vs "creo que venga" or in
Italian "credo che viene"/"credo che venga".

I think this is correct. The subjunctive can render semantic nuances and is often more than a syntactic constraint.
But it is interesting to note that for most French verbs there is no difference in pronunciation between
the indicative and the present subjunctive with certain pronouns. For example, here are subjunctives that sound
exactly like their indicative counterparts:

Il faut que je vous parle
Il faut qu'elle courre
Il faut que tu voies
Il faut qu'ils partent

As you can see, in certain cases the indicative and the subjunctive have exactly the same form. In other cases the
form may differ but the pronunciation is the same. The conclusion is that maybe the subjunctive form is really
not that distinctive after all. In the examples above, the really important part is the "il faut que..."

Edited by s_allard on 07 May 2014 at 4:55pm
1 person has voted this message useful

Medulin
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Croatia
Joined 4458 days ago
1199 posts - 2192 votes

Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali

Message 23 of 25

07 May 2014 at 7:47pm | IP Logged

Serpent wrote:

You may be right.

Differences may be:
a) between subjunctive and indicative: não acho que se trata disso (I don't think it's about that) ~ não acho que se trate disso (I don't think it could/would be about that)
b) nuances of subjunctive: tomara que ela esteja aqui (wish including some possibility of realization) ~ tomara que ela estivesse aqui (wish with no possibility of realization)

Edited by Medulin on 07 May 2014 at 7:50pm
2 persons have voted this message useful

s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 5220 days ago
2704 posts - 5425 votes

Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish

Message 24 of 25

07 May 2014 at 10:20pm | IP Logged

Serpent wrote:

Well I've been reading the relevant parts of a book about Romance philology and it says that in
Latin, the subjunctive almost completely lost its semantic purpose and became a purely grammatical/syntactical
tool. But in the modern Romance languages it got this semantic use back, as it was replaced by the indicative in
most contexts where the predicate denotes a real fact. It says that at least sometimes there's a semantic opposition
depending on the degree of confidence, like the Spanish "creo que viene" vs "creo que venga" or in Italian "credo che
viene"/"credo che venga".

I know that no creer in Spanish takes the subjunctive, but I'm curious as to the distinction between "creo que viene"
and "creo que venga". Is the latter a way of saying that "I believe that he might come"?

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 25 messages over 4 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.5000 seconds.