Complement clauses

[MIGUELbM]

Hi, I'm having real troubles with these ones, what are they? what are they characteristics? how can I know if a clause is a complement clause?

[clawgrip]

A complement clause is a subordinate clause that serves as an argument for a particular verb. It does not include clauses that modify the verb for manner, frequency, purpose, etc., nor does it include clauses that modify other nouns (i.e. relative clauses).

I tried to save electricity. - complement clause
I turned the light off to save electricity. - purpose clause; not complementary

I don't know if he's coming. - complement clause
I'll come if he's coming. - conditional clause; not complementary

In these example, you can tell the difference between the complementary and non-complementary clauses by rephrasing them as questions and answers. Complement clauses can't serve as answers in the same way that non-complementary clauses can.

Non-complementary:
Q: Why did you turn the light off?
A: To save electricity.

Q: Are you coming?
A: If he's coming.

Complementary:
Q: Why did you try?
A: *To save electricity.

Q: Do you know?
A: *If he's coming.

[MIGUELbM]

Thanks, it's a bit more clear now, my grasp on this area of english is not that good

[Ser]

Note that a complement clause doesn't have to start directly after the verb (ya vi que el juego sale mañana), there can also be a preposition in the middle... Mi abuela hasta soñaba con que nosotros la visitáramos, confío en que tomarán una buena decisión, or indeed, "ya vi de que el juego sale mañana...

This contrasts with verbal periphrases, where the second verb is in a non-finite form (an infinitive or a gerund or a participle) and shares the same subject as the main verb (at least as far as English/Spanish/French grammar is concerned). Quiero cantar más. Confiamos en terminar temprano hoy. The underlined part is not normally considered a type of complement clause. Some languages don't have such a distinction, since they always use or can use normal conjugations for the second verb (Standard Arabic for example... where you can say things like "we want to we go tomorrow" "queremos que vayamos mañana"), or don't have conjugations of this sort at all...

[Thry]

or indeed, "ya vi de que el juego sale mañana...

ver de que O_o?

[Ser]

That's just some perfectly normal "dequeísmo".

[Thry]

It sounds horrible, I had never seen dequeismo with 'ver'.

[Ser]

A sort of dequeísmo that for some reason I never see discussed in grammars is the one after en with the meaning of "upon" (~"al hacer algo") or "while": en de que te vi, que te quiero / en de que te vi, que te adoro; en de que hacía la comida se suponía que fueras por pan.

[Thry]

A sort of dequeísmo that for some reason I never see discussed in grammars is the one after en with the meaning of "upon" (~"al hacer algo") or "while": en de que te vi, que te quiero / en de que te vi, que te adoro; en de que hacía la comida se suponía que fueras por pan.

Sounds vaguely... hm, not as much as familiar, but understandable yes.
I'd say "namás verte..." and I'm not sure what you mean by the second. Mientras?

There's something I do with prepositions, and I don't know if it's ideosyncratic or just wrong; Imagine you refer to somebody as "el chico a quien le dijo eso ~ al que le dijo eso" and you're talking about "la chaqueta del chico" and you end up with "la chaqueta de al que le dijo eso". By all standards I think it's wrong and it should be expanded into "la chaqueta del chico al que...", but I still find myself saying it some times. What do you think, how does it strike you?

[Ser]

I'd say "namás verte..." and I'm not sure what you mean by the second. Mientras?

Lol, "namás", I've never come across that before. I could replace it with "al nomás (verte)", now that you mentioned that.

And yeah, mientras: mientras hacía la comida se suponía que fueras por pan.

There's something I do with prepositions, and I don't know if it's ideosyncratic or just wrong; Imagine you refer to somebody as "el chico a quien le dijo eso ~ al que le dijo eso" and you're talking about "la chaqueta del chico" and you end up with "la chaqueta de al que le dijo eso". By all standards I think it's wrong and it should be expanded into "la chaqueta del chico al que...", but I still find myself saying it some times. What do you think, how does it strike you?

It strikes me as normal actually. In fact, it even follows the general principles of this sort of pronominalization! I'll show you why:

A relative pronoun doesn't have to have an antecedent, true of quien (in refranes), el/la que and lo que, which then behave as NPs (even though their structure is really like a relative clause). Al que (a+el que) in al que le dijo eso has no antecedent.

Let's examine the pronominalization of a couple nouns with a relative pronoun without an antecedent, for a comparison:

• La muñeca de la niña. La niña trabaja mucho.
  La muñeca de [la niña] {la niña trabaja mucho}
  La muñeca de [la niña] {la que trabaja mucho} Pronominalization, no movement is necessary.
  La muñeca de la que trabaja mucho. Resolution
  
  Esto es lo que queda de la ciudad. Godzilla™ destruyó la ciudad.
  Esto es lo que queda de [la ciudad] {Godzilla™ destruyó la ciudad}
  Esto es lo que queda de [la ciudad] {Godzilla™ destruyó la que} Pronominalization
  Esto es lo que queda de [la ciudad] {la que Godzilla™ destruyó} Movement
  Esto es lo que queda de la que destruyó Godzilla™. Resolution

Your example is interesting of course, because then what you're doing is to use this NP, al que le dijo eso, to modify something with a de in the middle, giving:

• La chaqueta de él. Le dijo eso a él.
  La chaqueta de [él] {le dijo eso a él}
  La chaqueta de [él] {le dijo eso al que} Pronominalization
  La chaqueta de [él] {al que le dijo eso} Movement
  (!)La chaqueta de al que le dijo eso. Resolution

I don't find it weird or ungrammatical at all, and I think I say things like this all the time. I agree that it isn't standard though.

[Thry]

I'm sure you have! namás no es namás que 'nada más' IMD. I don't have ['na.Da] often, just in more careful~standarized registers. The same way todo and toda are to and toa (with article: tol, tola, tolos, tolas).

Nomás verte sounds like... no más verte, "never see you again", lol xDDD.

Yep, I knew what I say in those instances *is* logical, but I feared it was... too elaborate? and thought it may be one of these things we overthink. It's comforting to hear you'd say it too, though.

Hm, I thought with prepositions other than "a" it would sound weirder, but these two sound acceptable:

"Estoy hablando sobre al que le pegaron"
"Hablamos de con la que le pillaron robando".

[Ser]

I'm sure you have! namás no es namás que 'nada más' IMD. I don't have ['na.Da] often, just in more careful~standarized registers. The same way todo and toda are to and toa (with article: tol, tola, tolos, tolas).

Nomás verte sounds like... no más verte, "never see you again", lol xDDD.

Uhh... I say [naa] all the time, but I don't think I ever reduce it to a simple [na]. Now that you mention that, I've come across yo no quiero ná before, but no, not namás.

Yep, I knew what I say in those instances *is* logical, but I feared it was... too elaborate? and thought it may be one of these things we overthink. It's comforting to hear you'd say it too, though.

Hm, I thought with prepositions other than "a" it would sound weirder, but these two sound acceptable:

"Estoy hablando sobre al que le pegaron"
"Hablamos de con la que le pillaron robando".

There's a reason why grammars are always very reluctant to say anything about putting subordinate sentences inside others, and pretty much always end up saying nothing. The first one really pushes the boundary of grammaticality for me. The second one is non-sensical, what does that even say?

[Thry]

Uhh... I say [naa] all the time, but I don't think I ever reduce it to a simple [na]. Now that you mention that, I've come across yo no quiero ná before, but no, not namás.

Maybe because you ellide /d/ as [D]~[] intervocally, but for me the underlying form is already ná.

"Estoy hablando sobre al que le pegaron"
"Hablamos de con la que le pillaron robando".

There's a reason why grammars are always very reluctant to say anything about putting subordinate sentences inside others, and pretty much always end up saying nothing. The first one really pushes the boundary of grammaticality for me. The second one is non-sensical, what does that even say?

hm...
Hablamos de la chica con la que le pillaron robando (a él).
We talked about the girl with who he was caught stealing.

It's not non-sensical, it's the same principle. But you see how it gets weirder?

[Ser]

Hablamos de la chica con la que le pillaron robando (a él).
We talked about the girl with who he was caught stealing.

It's not non-sensical, it's the same principle. But you see how it gets weirder?

OH! I see it now. Nope, now that's totally ungrammatical for me.

[MIGUELbM]

AHEM! AHEM!
Is the underlined part an indirect object? An injury was made by tall carl to fat frank
Ignore the fact that the sentence could be much more simple.

As for the weird sentences up there, I think the main problem is that you are pronominalizating persons as objects (using "que" instead of "quien"), if quien had been used they would have been perfectly acceptable sentences in pretty much all situations.

La chaqueta de al que le dijo eso
La chaqueta de a quien le dijo eso

La muñeca de la que trabaja mucho
La muñeca de quien trabaja mucho

Estoy hablando sobre al que le pegaron
Estoy hablando sobre a quien le pegaron

Hablamos de con la que le pillaron robando
Hablamos de con quien le pillaron robando

This way you reduce the complexity that makes it sound weird to native speakers. The only problem is that you loose the gender marking of "al" and "la"
I've never heard anyone say anything like "Hablamos de con la que le pillaron robando", it uses to many pronouns that makes it confusing, even if it's correct

[Thry]

AHEM! AHEM!
Is the underlined part an indirect object? An injury was made by tall carl to fat frank
Ignore the fact that the sentence could be much more simple.

I think it is; Una herida fue asestada por Carl el alto a Frank el gordo > Una herida le fue asestada por Carl el alto.

As for the weird sentences up there, I think the main problem is that you are pronominalizating persons as objects (using "que" instead of "quien"), if quien had been used they would have been perfectly acceptable sentences in pretty much all situations.

I think you're confusing quien for quién here, Hablamos de con quién le pillamos robando is acceptable for different reasons. Hablamos de con quien le pillaron robando may sound more acceptable because of that, though.

But nope, that's not the main problem, since my question is not about how to say it in an acceptable way, but rather whether that way was acceptable to speakers, and the problem is clearly caused by the stacked prepositions. Que does just fine pronominalizing people.

[MIGUELbM]

AHEM! AHEM!
Is the underlined part an indirect object? An injury was made by tall carl to fat frank
Ignore the fact that the sentence could be much more simple.

I think it is; Una herida fue asestada por Carl el alto a Frank el gordo > Una herida le fue asestada por Carl el alto.

As for the weird sentences up there, I think the main problem is that you are pronominalizating persons as objects (using "que" instead of "quien"), if quien had been used they would have been perfectly acceptable sentences in pretty much all situations.

I think you're confusing quien for quién here, Hablamos de con quién le pillamos robando is acceptable for different reasons. Hablamos de con quien le pillaron robando may sound more acceptable because of that, though.

But nope, that's not the main problem, since my question is not about how to say it in an acceptable way, but rather whether that way was acceptable to speakers, and the problem is clearly caused by the stacked prepositions. Que does just fine pronominalizing people.

The problem with "que" is that it needs "al" or "la" to be used that way, which adds an unnecessary pronoun that pushed the boundaries of what would otherwise be acceptable, even though it's technically correct.

And yes I tend to confuse quien and quién

[Thry]

The problem with "que" is that it needs "al" or "la" to be used that way, which adds an unnecessary pronoun that pushed the boundaries of what would otherwise be acceptable, even though it's technically correct.

Well, "que" in relative sentences doesn't take an article and it still means people:
La mujer que vi, El hombre que me saludó...
The article appears when you substantivize the whole clause:
La que vi, el que me saludó

Yep, that's curious, no matter how "technically correct" it is, it sounds weird, so I guess it's basically what Serafín says, the grammars are reluctant to discuss complex clause situations. Not that we say such things in casual speech naturally, anyway; I don't even have cuyo.

And yes I tend to confuse quien and quién