suponerse and deber
Leslie Stringer
que deben encontrarse con María". I believe that this translates as, " They
are supposed to meet María".
Why is it necessary to use both suponerse and deber? Why can I not just say,
"Se suponen encontrarse con María"? or even "Deben de encontrarse con
María".
I do not understand the need for both verbs.
I would be very grateful if someone could clarify this for me.
Les
Lloyd Zusman
Well, "suponerse" means "to assume", "to presume", or "to imagine", and
therefore, the translation is more or less literally thus:
1. Se supone que deban encontrarse con María.
(I believe that it should take "deban" [subjunctive] instead of
"deben").
It is assumed (presumed/imagined) that they have to meet María.
That verb can also be translated as "to suppose", but normally, only
when that means to assume/presume/imagine.
As for your other possibilities, they are translated as follows:
2. Se suponen encontrase con María.
They assume (presume/imagine) that they will meet with María.
Here, both occurrences of "they" refer to the same people. If you
are talking about two "they's" ... i.e., one group speaking about
another group, you would have to say this: "Se suponen que (ellos) se
encuentren con María".
3. Deben de encontrarse con María.
They are assumed (presumed, imagined) to meet with María.
The difference between number 1 and number 3 is this:
In number 1, the it is assumed that they MUST meet María, as opposed to
an assumption that they COULD meet her, or MIGHT meet her, or WANT TO
meet her, etc. In other words the thing that is being assumed is the
the obligatory nature of the meeting.
In number 3, the fact of the meeting itself is assumed. No statement is
being made about whether it is assumed to be obligatory or not.
This is a subtle difference. Nonetheless, the two language constructs
distinguish between these two cases, just as we can do in English using
different wordings.
By the way, in English, we also say "is/are supposed to" to mean "must"
or "have to". In this case, "deber" or "tener que" or "hay que" are
normally used in Spanish.
So ...
He is supposed to (i.e., assumed or presumed or imagined to)
go to work today.
Se supone que vaya hoy al trabajo.
- or -
Debe de ir hoy al trabajo.
He is supposed to (i.e., he must, he has to) go to work today.
Debe ir hoy al trabajo.
- or -
Tiene que ir hoy al trabajo.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Leslie Stringer
"Lloyd Zusman" <l...@asfast.com> wrote in message
news:m3llqly...@asfast.com...
Many thanks Lloyd. It is now perfectly clear.
I always read and digest your responses to other peoples queries. Your
explainations are always so detailed and yet so perfectly understandable.
You should write a book on the subject (you haven't, have you?).
Les
GB Blanchard
> (I believe that it should take "deban" [subjunctive] instead of
> "deben").
Neither 'suponer que' nor 'suponerse que' use subjunctive after the
'que'. The first line above is the correct one.
==
Brad Blanchard
Braser Soft - *** Learn Spanish ***
Website: http://www.braser.com
Lloyd Zusman
>> Se supone que deban encontrarse con María.
>> (I believe that it should take "deban" [subjunctive] instead of
>> "deben").
>
> Neither 'suponer que' nor 'suponerse que' use subjunctive after the
> 'que'. The first line above is the correct one.
Interesting. In English, we usually say "assume", "presume", "suppose",
etc. when we are not 100 percent certain. But I guess that subjunctive
isn't used here because we're talking about an assumed _certainty_.
What if the statement were negative? Which is correct?
No se supone que deben encontrarse con María.
- or -
No se supone que deban encontrarse con María.
Due to the negative, I assume [but I am not sure] that the second one
would be [subjunctive form of "is"] the correct one.
And what if we were talking about an assumed _incertainty_? Which
is correct?
Se supone que no deben encontrarse con María.
- or -
Se supone que no deban encontrarse con María.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Lloyd Zusman
> "Lloyd Zusman" <l...@asfast.com> wrote in message
> news:m3llqly...@asfast.com...
>> "Leslie Stringer" <leslie.s...@SPAMSntlworld.com> writes:
>>
>> > [ ... ]
>
> Many thanks Lloyd. It is now perfectly clear.
>
> I always read and digest your responses to other peoples queries. Your
> explainations are always so detailed and yet so perfectly understandable.
> You should write a book on the subject (you haven't, have you?).
>
> Les
But I'm not always correct. :)
However, I thank you very much for your words of support.
Concerning the book idea: I'm truly flattered, but I don't know that I
have the patience to write a book. And what would the theme be?
But then again, there's probably a book's worth of my contributions on
usenet since the late 1980's. So I guess I could collect them and
publish a book called "The Mad Ravings of Lloyd Zusman", or some such
thing. :)
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
GB Blanchard
> Neither 'suponer que' nor 'suponerse que' use subjunctive after the
> 'que'. The first line above is the correct one.
Sorry, I should have said " 'deban' in the first line above should be
'deben' "
GB Blanchard
> Interesting. In English, we usually say "assume", "presume", "suppose",
> etc. when we are not 100 percent certain. But I guess that subjunctive
> isn't used here because we're talking about an assumed _certainty_.
I have a theory about teaching or learning the subjunctive:
1) Many people have written loads of bullshit about the 'theory of the
subjunctive' which include the valid observation that the subjunctive
*frequently* (please note the emphasis on the word 'frequently') includes
ideas of assuming, supposing ,uncertainty, etc., etc.
The bullshit part comes in when these authors and teachers try to
extrapolate this sort of theory into practice and forget the 'frequently'
part of the explanation. This will lead students of the Spanish language
into being right sometimes and wrong lots of others.
Here's test number one: if the uncertainty theory is true, why do we say
'Si ella viene...' instead of 'Si ella venga...'? That's uncertainty if
there ever was any. And you can just go one poking holes into the 'theory
of the subjunctive' from there.
2) For my teaching, I've compiled a fairly complete list of expressions
that are always followed by the subjunctive, and I'm convinced that the
only way for someone to learn the subjunctive correctly is for a little
bell to go off in their head when one says things like 'Es necesario
que...' or 'Me gusta que...' so that eventually the student will
automatically remember to use subjunctive after those expressions. And the
only way to learn that sort of thing is constant repetition over a fairly
long period of time. By 'repetition' I mean speaking in class or outside
of class, reading and listening until it finally sinks in.
It's a rather long and complicated process. Not impossible, just long and
complicated. The only saving grace that I can see is that about 95%
percent of the time, people will understand you in Spanish whether you've
ever heard of the subjunctive or not.
Getting back to the current issue: the only reason I know that 'suponer
que' and 'suponerse que' aren't followed by the subjunctive is because
I've been listening to Spanish for the past 30 years and I've never heard
that combination. Logic and theory don't play a part.
PS: sorry for using the word 'bullshit' when referring to 'the theory of
the subjunctive', but 'worthless crap' was the only other metaphor that
came to mind and the former seemed less offensive. :)
Lloyd Zusman
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:17:59 -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>
>> Interesting. In English, we usually say "assume", "presume", "suppose",
>> etc. when we are not 100 percent certain. But I guess that subjunctive
>> isn't used here because we're talking about an assumed _certainty_.
>
> I have a theory about teaching or learning the subjunctive:
>
> 1) Many people have written loads of bullshit about the 'theory of the
> subjunctive' which include the valid observation that the subjunctive
> *frequently* (please note the emphasis on the word 'frequently') includes
> ideas of assuming, supposing ,uncertainty, etc., etc.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> PS: sorry for using the word 'bullshit' when referring to 'the theory of
> the subjunctive', but 'worthless crap' was the only other metaphor that
> came to mind and the former seemed less offensive. :)
That's OK. I would use those same expressions about the "Theory of Ser
and Estar" that is often taught: whereby allegedly (and incorrectly)
"ser" is supposed to be ("se supone") for permanent traits and "estar"
is for temporary ones.
There's a much better way to learn those verbs, without resorting to
that horseshit "permanent/temporary" theory.
But back on topic ... how about my questions? Do either of the uses of
"suponerse" with negation that I mentioned in my previous post take the
subjunctive?
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Bubi
mensaje news:s7msb.42$d55...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
supone que se encontrarán con María", or as you mentioned "Deben
encontrarse con María", but the meanings are slightly different. The
first one implies an uncertainty.
Bubi,
> Les
>
>
>
Moodesigns - Mary Barnett
Hey, those ravings of yours aren't THAT mad... Por supuesto, estoy de
acuerdo con Leslie. Lo que ha dicho es solamente la verdad... :))
P.D. He sabido por un rato que tienes (por lo menos) un hipopótamo. Ya
que evidentemente sabes donde hallar animales interesantes -- ¿tienes
la dirección de una tienda que vende osos hormigueros?
Mary
"Lloyd Zusman" <l...@asfast.com> wrote in message
news:m3ad718...@asfast.com...
GB Blanchard
> and Estar" that is often taught: whereby allegedly (and incorrectly)
> "ser" is supposed to be ("se supone") for permanent traits and "estar"
> is for temporary ones.
When talking about learning and teaching Spanish, the two things that really
get me going are The Theory of the Subjunctive and, as you mention, The Grand
Truth That Everyone Seems To Know: Ser is permanent and Estar is temporary.
GRRRRRRRRRR! I've seen students waste so much time because of those two
beliefs. What really irks me is the number of teachers and books out there who
keep on preaching them.
> But back on topic ... how about my questions? Do either of the uses of
> "suponerse" with negation that I mentioned in my previous post take the
> subjunctive?
Ok, I've settled down now. :)
> What if the statement were negative? Which is correct?
> No se supone que deben encontrarse con María.
> - or -
> No se supone que deban encontrarse con María.
When I read that, I didn't know what to think because 'No se supone que'
sounded odd to me. Went to resident expert (Spanish wife) who immediately said
'No one would say that - they would say 'No creo que deban encontrarse con
María'. I insisted and said, 'OK, but what if someone did want to say 'No se
supone...'?' to which she answered 'then it would be 'deban'.
> Due to the negative, I assume [but I am not sure] that the second one
> would be [subjunctive form of "is"] the correct one.
I agree.
> And what if we were talking about an assumed _incertainty_? Which
> is correct?
> Se supone que no deben encontrarse con María.
> - or -
> Se supone que no deban encontrarse con María.
'Suponer(se) que' doesn't use the subjunctive - doesn't matter how uncertain
you are feeling inside. It's somewhat similar to 'Creo que viene' vs. 'No creo
que venga'. Off the top of my head, the only expressions which can vary due to
the speakers' degree of uncertainty are 'Quizás' and 'Tal vez'. 'Quizás viene
hoy' shows more certainty than 'Quizás venga hoy'. The second would probably
be preceded by something like 'No sé': 'No sé...Quizás venga hoy y si no,
vendrá mañana'.
Lloyd Zusman
> When talking about learning and teaching Spanish, the two things that
> really get me going are The Theory of the Subjunctive and, as you
> mention, The Grand Truth That Everyone Seems To Know: Ser is permanent
> and Estar is temporary. GRRRRRRRRRR! I've seen students waste so much
> time because of those two beliefs. What really irks me is the number
> of teachers and books out there who keep on preaching them.
I guess it's just easier to spew forth a few pat "rules" than to deal
with the complexities of the subject. The sad part about the Ser/Estar
propaganda is that there are indeed a few pat rules that can be used to
accurately decide between these two verbs, but the incorrect
"permanent/temporary" rule often is taught in place of these.
> [ ... ]
>
>> No se supone que deben encontrarse con María.
>> - or -
>> No se supone que deban encontrarse con María.
>
> When I read that, I didn't know what to think because 'No se supone
> que' sounded odd to me. Went to resident expert (Spanish wife) who
> immediately said 'No one would say that - they would say 'No creo que
> deban encontrarse con María'. I insisted and said, 'OK, but what if
> someone did want to say 'No se supone...'?' to which she answered
> 'then it would be 'deban'.
Well, at least one aspect of the "Theory of the Subjunctive" seems to
hold here: that the subjunctive tends to be used in a subordinate clause
that describes a non-existent item or situation.
> [ ... ]
>> And what if we were talking about an assumed _incertainty_? Which
>> is correct?
>
>> Se supone que no deben encontrarse con María.
>> - or -
>> Se supone que no deban encontrarse con María.
>
> 'Suponer(se) que' doesn't use the subjunctive - doesn't matter how
> uncertain you are feeling inside. It's somewhat similar to 'Creo que
> viene' vs. 'No creo que venga'. Off the top of my head, the only
> expressions which can vary due to the speakers' degree of uncertainty
> are 'Quizás' and 'Tal vez'. 'Quizás viene hoy' shows more certainty
> than 'Quizás venga hoy'. The second would probably be preceded by
> something like 'No sé': 'No sé...Quizás venga hoy y si no, vendrá
> mañana'.
So ... the "uncertainty" rule for the subjunctive doesn't hold as
strongly in Spanish as it does in English. It's true that nowadays we
don't use the English subjunctive nearly as much as was done in past
ages, but when it is used, it tends to almost always apply to uncertain
situations.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com