Subjunctive Confusion
Mooch
Yet another question for the group:
Si + present + future as in: (or present with future meaning)
"If the contract isn't in London by tomorrow morning, the deals off."
Is this a case where there is some uncertainty as to whether that contract
will be in London in time? After all, the sentence does begin with the word
*if*. Or is this more of a statement of fact at a board of directors
meeting?
With that said, wouldn't it be :
"Si el contracto no esté en londres para mañana, no hay trato" The grammar
book has it as:
"Si el contracto no está mañana en londres, no hay trato."
Who's right and why?
Thanks in advance for all your help.
Mooch
Lloyd Zusman
Lo explico en inglés:
The present subjunctive is never used with "si" ... that's the rule
and that's just how it is. I heard of an isolated case in "El
Quixote" where Cervantes used a present subjunctive in a "si" clause,
but even back then it was a rather uncommon usage ... and nowadays
it's probably even more rare.
Therefore, "Si el contrato no está mañana en londres, no hay trato" is
the way to say it, and the version with "esté" is incorrect. [Also, a
small point: the word is "contrato", without the second "c".]
The above form is used when the future condition seems reasonably
probable, even when it isn't 100-percent certain.
Also, this form is used in an "open" condition; i.e., where the issue
of likelyhood isn't being discussed. For example:
Si el semáforo está en rojo, debes parar; si está en verde, puedes
seguir.
("If the traffic light is red, you have to stop; if it's green,
you can continue.")
However, if there is sufficient uncertainty in a "si" clause, then the
past subjunctive (never the present subjunctive) can be used in the
antecedant, and the consequent would then take the conditional. This
form tends to be used when the condition is improbable. For example:
Pedro nunca deja de mentir, pero si fuera más honrado, tendría más
amigos.
("Pedro never stops lying, but if he were more honest, he'd have
more friends.")
And there's another common form as well: if the condition describes
something that didn't happen, then the "si" clause takes the
past-subjunctive perfect (also called the "plusquamperfect"), and the
consequent takes the conditional perfect:
Si el contrato no hubiera llegado ayer en londres, no habría habido
trato.
("if the contract hadn't arrived yesterday in London, the deal would
have been off")
Also, in this case, the consequent is often and widely heard with
another instance of the past-subjunctive perfect, although it's not
technically considered to be correct by RAE types. I.e.,
Si el contrato no hubiera llegado ayer en londres, no hubiera habido
trato.
> Thanks in advance for all your help.
>
> Mooch
Con placer.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> Hiya!
>
> Yet another question for the group:
>
> Si + present + future as in: (or present with future meaning)
>
> "If the contract isn't in London by tomorrow morning, the deals off."
>
> Is this a case where there is some uncertainty as to whether
> that contract will be in London in time? After all, the sentence
> does begin with the word *if*. Or is this more of a statement
> of fact at a board of directors meeting?
>
> With that said, wouldn't it be :
>
> "Si el contracto no esté en londres para mañana, no hay trato"
> The grammar book has it as:
>
> "Si el contracto no está mañana en londres, no hay trato."
>
> Who's right and why?
>
>
> Mooch
IMHO none. Personally, I would neither say "esté" (present
subjunctive) nor "está" (present indicative), but "estuviere"
(future subjunctive). I have already initiated a discussion on
this problem a couple of months ago and found a lot of approval.
But, on the other hand, I must admit that the usage of the future
subjunctive has some old-fashioned sound. So, if you want to be
modern, use the present tense. Whether you prefer the subjunctive
(which I would do) or the indicative, depends very much on your
personal taste: as you know, de gustibus non est disputandum.
No grammar of the world can replace your personality.
BTW, I'm a lousy Spanish speaker, but I fluently speak Portuguese,
where the future subjunctive is very common and popular. I mention
this only for making my choice clearer to you. You, however, have
to make yours by yourself.
Wolfgang
VernonH
>The present subjunctive is never used with "si" ... that's the rule
>and that's just how it is. I heard of an isolated case in "El
>Quixote" where Cervantes used a present subjunctive in a "si" clause,
>but even back then it was a rather uncommon usage ... and nowadays
>it's probably even more rare.
It's heard once in awhile in Mexico.
.
Vern
McAllen & LaJoya, TX
Dave Aspinall
> subjunctive) nor "está" (present indicative), but "estuviere"
> (future subjunctive). I have already initiated a discussion on
> this problem a couple of months ago and found a lot of approval.
> But, on the other hand, I must admit that the usage of the future
> subjunctive has some old-fashioned sound. So, if you want to be
> modern, use the present tense. Whether you prefer the subjunctive
> (which I would do) or the indicative, depends very much on your
> personal taste: as you know, de gustibus non est disputandum.
> No grammar of the world can replace your personality.
I have never even been taught the future subjunctive, and I don't think it
is any of the books I have!
Alexander Deubelbeiss
Wolfgang Mueller schrieb in Nachricht <390C3527...@vossnet.de>...
>Mooch wrote:
[...]
>> "Si el contracto no esté en londres para mañana, no hay trato"
>> The grammar book has it as:
>>
>> "Si el contracto no está mañana en londres, no hay trato."
>>
>> Who's right and why?
>>
>IMHO none. Personally, I would neither say "esté" (present
>subjunctive) nor "está" (present indicative), but "estuviere"
>(future subjunctive). I have already initiated a discussion on
>this problem a couple of months ago and found a lot of approval.
>But, on the other hand, I must admit that the usage of the future
>subjunctive has some old-fashioned sound. So, if you want to be
>modern, use the present tense. Whether you prefer the subjunctive
>(which I would do) or the indicative, depends very much on your
>personal taste: as you know, de gustibus non est disputandum.
>No grammar of the world can replace your personality.
>
>BTW, I'm a lousy Spanish speaker, but I fluently speak Portuguese,
>where the future subjunctive is very common and popular. I mention
>this only for making my choice clearer to you. You, however, have
>to make yours by yourself.
>
Sorry, but in Spanish the future subjunctive is dead. People recognize it
when they see it (it's unlikely that they ever hear it), but it is not only
old-fashioned but clearly either archaic or formal legal language.
As other posters have pointed out, one thing you can rely on is that you
don't use the present subjunctive with conditional "si". (the past subj. is
very common, though - just think of irreal conditionals)
By the way, Wolfgang, what tense would you use (in Portuguese) in the main
clause with a fut.subj. in the subordinate?
CARPE DIEM
> >
> Sorry, but in Spanish the future subjunctive is dead. People recognize it
> when they see it (it's unlikely that they ever hear it), but it is not only
> old-fashioned but clearly either archaic or formal legal language.
A todos los miembros de AUS que *vieren y *entendieren este mensaje, sabed que el futuro de subjuntivo en español no está muerto.
Sí, en el lenguaje hablado. No, en textos jurídicos.
Muertas, están palabras como "facer" (hacer), "desfacer" u otras de muy alta enjundia, pero mientras quede un solo abogado o juez
por los tribunales de justicia (o un CARPE DIEM por estas "ñus"), tendremos futuro de subjuntivo para rato.
Y es que, hay tradiciones que perduran, y duran, y duran... :))
PS) "No vendas la piel del oso antes de matarlo".
--
NO OS TOMÉIS LA VIDA EN SERIO. TOTAL, NO SALDRÉIS VIVOS DE ÉSTA.
JGMY
de subjuntivo no expresa futuro, sino eventualidad (¿probabliblidad remota,
tal vez?)
Ya sabréis que el futuro de indicativo es incorrecto tras el "si"
En todo caso: en la frase de arriba, yo sólo usaría subjuntivo con "Como":
"Como el contrato no esté en Londres mañana, el negocio se va al garete."
Wolfgang Mueller
>
> En mi manual de COU (último curso antes de universidad), dice
> que el futuro de subjuntivo no expresa futuro, sino eventualidad
Y cual es la diferencia entre futuro y eventualidad? Para mi una
eventualidad pasada no existe y es impensable.
> (¿probabliblidad remota, tal vez?)
(No. Puede ser también muy verosímil.)
Wolfgang