Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Future subjunctive was Re: Something for we to discuss!

Expand Messages
  • Padraic Brown
    ... A Spanish guy once told me that Spanish is very difficult for foreigners to learn, ... know how to use it.   ... author, who used many ... after the
    Message 1 of 63 , Oct 4, 2013
      David wrote:

      > Indeed.
      A Spanish guy once told me that "Spanish is very difficult for
      foreigners to learn,
      > because of the future subjunctive. Even I don't
      know how to use it."
      > The only time I ever met it, was in books by some historical romance
      author, who used many
      > archaisms (like putting weak personal pronouns
      after the conjugated verb: "Hablole" --
      > "He spoke to him" --- in normal
      Spanish it would be "Le habló").

      I always liked that hablole construction. I recall learning that the personal pronouns can be
      added to a gerund (hablandole) and imperative even in modern Spanish. I see it in older Spanish,
      perhaps into the 17th century, and I've read that it was not uncommon in 19th century literature.

      And then, it crops up in modern Spanish as well, if I understand right: "EL primer sustu distemelo
      al decir hace 27 años que te conocí" (http://www.ciao.es/Mi_pareja__Opinion_568430)

      And: "Vaya soso eres hijo, dijisteme Kirsten Dunst, no Kristen Stewart"

      And this: "En Asturias es de uso común la colocación del complemento tras el verbo;
      lo usan a diario
      y aunque suene a renacentista todos lo entendemos. En
      el resto de España ese uso no es común."
      Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:

      > Still alive in Portuguese:
      > "Se fores a Roma, faz como vires." (tu)
      > "Se for a Roma, faça como vir." (você)
      > = "Em Roma, faça como os romanos." (more common)
      >> As for the conjugation: fuere, fueres, fuere, fuéremos, fuereis, fueren.
      > for, fores, for, formos, fordes, forem

      Neat. Does Ptg. regularly keep the dental in the 2pl (where Spanish has
      lost it)?

    • And Rosta
      ... Aversion to positing items present in sentence syntax but not sentence phonology is widespread, even among grammarians, but I think that aversion has no
      Message 63 of 63 , Oct 6, 2013
        James Kane, On 06/10/2013 19:55:
        > You do make some valid points about negation and tense, but I'm still
        > very unwilling to accept a _silent_ auxiliary. It's not just that I
        > think it adds words that aren't there but also that it goes from
        > simply saying 'use the bare stem of the verb in subjunctive
        > subclauses' to 'use an inverted auxiliary that then disappears for no
        > apparent reason'.

        Aversion to positing items present in sentence syntax but not sentence phonology is widespread, even among grammarians, but I think that aversion has no rational basis, being merely a kind of instinctual conservatism. If silent words are abundant then an unwillingness to accept a silent auxiliary here would not make much sense. The auxiliary doesn't "disappear for no apparent reason", since it doesn't disappear, but its silence is, like inflection in general, for no apparent reason: its failure to correspond to a chunk of sentence phonology is an arbitrary inflectional fact, like the alternation between _am_ and _are_, or the alternation between auxiliaries HAVE, BE, DO -- in English (and all languages) the inflectional correspondences between bits of sentence syntax and bits of sentence phonology are "without apparent reason".

        > It seems unnecessary and I don't think deductible from the syntax of
        > the sentence.

        Grammatical analysis is abductive rather than deductive; it proceeds by seeking, via leaps of the imagination, the simplest rule set that accounts for the observed facts. (It's kind of like science; I consider it one of the few remaining branches of natural philosophy.)

        > Anyway, here's some interesting usage I heard a friend say to another
        > friend yesterday: 'did you make any friends at law school and they
        > not get in?'. This is freshly picked from real world speech. I can't
        > tell if that [not get] is a subjunctive, or if it's somehow borrowing
        > the [did] from the start of the question, which English often does
        > but seems weird in this instance as 'did you make any friends at law
        > school and did they not get in?' is asking something else.

        That is a wonderful datum! I take it that it is simple coordination:
        Did {[you make any friends at law school] and [they not get in]}
        with the "and" within the scope of the interrogativity, so that, as you observe, the sentence is not synonymous with "Did you make any friends at law school and did they not get in", where the interrogativity is within the scope of the "and". I was thinking a lot about this construction earlier this year; it had seemed to me that, mysteriously, it was not grammatical, and I was racking my brains for an explanation for why on earth it should not be grammatical. Now your splendid datum liberates me from that brain-racking, since it demonstrates that the construction is in fact possible (as my theory so strongly predicted it should be).

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.