Spanish Questions

[RTLPM]

You mean when used alone like that, or in all contexts with them (not) appearing?

[TaylorS]

More likely, in casual speech I think people apply the -en perfect form to verbs that don't normally take it, like "cut -> cutten", "shut -> shutten", "bought -> boughten", "lit -> litten", "bake -> baken", etc.

You're kidding.

Eh, it's common in certain parts. I've certainly seen people from Chicago using "tooken" and "boughten" on the Internet. Didn't Travis, also from Madison WI, say he uses "boughten" too?

Spurious -en suffixes in strong verb past participles are very common in the upper-midwest. They are a normal part of my speech.

[Travis B.]

More likely, in casual speech I think people apply the -en perfect form to verbs that don't normally take it, like "cut -> cutten", "shut -> shutten", "bought -> boughten", "lit -> litten", "bake -> baken", etc.

You're kidding.

Eh, it's common in certain parts. I've certainly seen people from Chicago using "tooken" and "boughten" on the Internet. Didn't Travis, also from Madison WI, say he uses "boughten" too?

I use boughten and tooken along with a lot of other forms of this sort. I am from Milwaukee, WI, but that is close enough here.

[Lyra]

Never used Cuándo está, but I have used Dónde es maybe due to it being a Catalanism... ^^;

~Lyra

[Ser]

Never used Cuándo está, but I have used Dónde es maybe due to it being a Catalanism... ^^;

~Lyra

Nah, "¿cuándo está el doctor?"; "tienes que ir a la otra oficina" "¿y por dónde es?". And I'm from El Salvador...

[Lyra]

Never used Cuándo está, but I have used Dónde es maybe due to it being a Catalanism... ^^;

~Lyra

Nah, "¿cuándo está el doctor?"; "tienes que ir a la otra oficina" "¿y por dónde es?". And I'm from El Salvador...

Wouldn't it be: "Cándo estará el doctor?"

~Lyra

[Ser]

Wouldn't it be: "Cándo estará el doctor?"

~Lyra

Ah? Is the lack of <u> in cuándo a typo?

Cuándo estará el doctor and cuándo está el doctor are both grammatical to me, they just mean something different.

[Lyra]

Wouldn't it be: "Cándo estará el doctor?"

~Lyra

Ah? Is the lack of <u> in cuándo a typo?

Cuándo estará el doctor and cuándo está el doctor are both grammatical to me, they just mean something different.

Yeah, typo

Maybe it's an american thing. Or I just suck at Spanish.

~Lyra

[Thry]

Never used Cuándo está, but I have used Dónde es maybe due to it being a Catalanism... ^^;

~Lyra

Dónde es is perfectly legit, not a catalanism, since I use it and Catalan is hardly an influence here. All these are heard:

¿Dónde está la plaza?
¿Dónde cae la plaza?
¿Dónde queda la plaza?
Ve a la plaza. ¿Y eso dónde es?

Maybe there's a restriction to where and when the usage of "es" is appropriate - ¿Dónde es la plaza?, raw and by itself, sounds a bit less common, but in any case, I'm not conscious of the underlying rules so they can't be very strict.

¿Cuándo está? sounds to me as an abbreviation of ¿Cuándo está ... (listo)? "When will X be ready?"
There, the present tense is being used with a future meaning.

[Yng]

We had it explained to us in Spanish class that es was for permanent things and está for more transient states + locations; this was explained with some bullshit about locations being subjective distances from a location, or something, but both seem pretty sensible derivations from the original meaning of 'to stand'. Is it possible though that this understanding of ser's meaning (given to us by a Spanish speaker) makes it possible to produce sentences like ¿Dónde es la plaza? even when it's more common, because of idiom, to use estar?

[Ser]

¿Cuándo está? sounds to me as an abbreviation of ¿Cuándo está ... (listo)? "When will X be ready?"
There, the present tense is being used with a future meaning.

I think the difference is something else, you can use estar in the future, the past, present with some habitual semantics, whatever. ¿Cuándo estuvo el doctor? ¿Cuándo está el doctor generalmente?

I think you basically use ¿Cuándo es...? to ask about the time of an event (¿Cuándo es el festival de verano?), or about the time of a clause demoted with es que (¿Cuándo es que lo trajeron?).

You use ¿Cuándo está...? to ask about the time when a person will be present somewhere, or to ask about when something will be ready, as you say (¿Cuándo está el doctor?—when is the doctor (present/working)?, ¿Cuándo estuvo el doctor?—when was the doctor present/working?, ¿Cuándo estuvo la comida?—when was the food ready?, ¿Cuándo estará el pastel?—when will the cake be ready?, ¿Cuándo estaremos en Madrid?—when will be arriving/staying in Madrid?).

We had it explained to us in Spanish class that es was for permanent things and está for more transient states + locations; this was explained with some bullshit about locations being subjective distances from a location, or something, but both seem pretty sensible derivations from the original meaning of 'to stand'. Is it possible though that this understanding of ser's meaning (given to us by a Spanish speaker) makes it possible to produce sentences like ¿Dónde es la plaza? even when it's more common, because of idiom, to use estar?

I have no idea, but there is some semantic/pragmatic difference between the two. It's not true that locations are limited to estar, but at the same time there are some good restrictions as to where you can use ser. I can't quite point them out...

Mi casa es por allá. ~ Mi casa está por allá. (Semantically practically the same.)
Aquí es Vancúver. (I'm telling you we're literally in Vancouver, as if you had asked me for directions and you didn't even know what city you were in. Or said while pointing at a map.) Aquí está Vancúver. (Said while pointing at a map only.)
Aquí está Vancúver casi lista para los juegos. (I could be somewhere in Vancouver reporting for a news program transmitting from anywhere, or could be pointing at a map, or pointing at photos.)
*Aquí son mis llaves. ~ Aquí están mis llaves. (Only estar is acceptable.)
*El libro es en la mesa. ~ El libro está en la mesa. (Only estar is acceptable.)

I do think there's some association with ser as an answer to somebody asking for directions, but it really is confusing, and this explanation clearly does not work looking at the examples above. (Mi casa está por allá could perfectly work as given directions to somebody... And by "giving directions" I mean asking somebody and having them tell you where without using a map.)

[Thry]

I think the difference is something else, you can use estar in the future, the past, present with some habitual semantics, whatever. ¿Cuándo estuvo el doctor? ¿Cuándo está el doctor generalmente?

I think you basically use ¿Cuándo es...? to ask about the time of an event (¿Cuándo es el festival de verano?), or about the time of a clause demoted with es que (¿Cuándo es que lo trajeron?).

Hmm... (about the demoted clauses, that particular one sounds like something nobody here would produce) in my dialect present/future are extremely interchangeable in this context so there's really not a reason why "¿Cuándo está...?" can't be "¿Cuándo va a estar...?" or "¿Cuándo estará...?". If I were to say the other meaning, I would just use the present as well, or mark it with "¿Cuándo suele estar...?". I'm not sure now. It's a bit like "¿Cuándo vas/vienes?" - it can mean both habitual and also "When are you going/coming?".

[Niedokonany]

¿Cuándo estuvo el doctor? ¿Cuándo está el doctor generalmente?

What's the difference between fue and era (estaba/estuvo)?The perfectivization of stative verbs in Spanish can be rather tricky but mostly comprehensible, however the 'be'-verbs seem to be the trickiest of all. I thought that 'estuvo' was like 'became' (él estuvo enfermo)? I've read on the topic several times but the nature of the distinction never seems to stay with me.

[Ser]

Hmm... (about the demoted clauses, that particular one sounds like something nobody here would produce)

I've heard rumours that it's less common in Spain than elsewhere... To me it expresses some sort of incredulity or impatience. I've also read that est-ce que questions in French used to have those semantics of incredulity too, but they're almost completely lost by now.

Est-ce qu'il va venir ? is pretty much an unmarked 'Is he coming?', ¿es que él va venir? to me means something like 'is he actually coming?', or, giving it a little context:

• —¿Y Rodrigo va a venir o no?
  —Bueno... ayer le pregunté como a las dos, y me dijo que le hablara a las tres, que estaba ocupado y que no sé qué. Luego cuando le hablé, estaba todavía discutiendo con la María. Resulta que le toca trabajar bien de mañana el lunes, y...
  —¿Y entonces va a venir o no?
  —Vaya, es que mirá. Yo vine, y le dije que...
  —¿ES QUE VA A VENIR O NO?

Yeah, this sort of "impatient use". ¿Cuándo es que lo trajeron? implies this sort of things too.

in my dialect present/future are extremely interchangeable in this context so there's really not a reason why "¿Cuándo está...?" can't be "¿Cuándo va a estar...?" or "¿Cuándo estará...?".

In mine too, but this goes goes generally about any future tense, I think. Lo hago mañana ~ voy a hacerlo mañana ~ lo haré mañana are equally grammatical, but don't mean quite the same...

If I were to say the other meaning, I would just use the present as well, or mark it with "¿Cuándo suele estar...?". I'm not sure now. It's a bit like "¿Cuándo vas/vienes?" - it can mean both habitual and also "When are you going/coming?".

I don't see anything strange there though. The present can be semantically imperfective, habitual, future tense... Yep.

¿Cuándo estuvo el doctor? ¿Cuándo está el doctor generalmente?

What's the difference between fue and era (estaba/estuvo)?The perfectivization of stative verbs in Spanish can be rather tricky but mostly comprehensible, however the 'be'-verbs seem to be the trickiest of all.

To me it's mostly a boring, typical perfective-imperfective distinction. There's probably this and that other special case, but for the most part estuvo is a past tense perfective aspect, seeing the time frame where something was something as a finished, bounded event; and era a past tense imperfective aspect where such time frame is unbounded, and whether it finished or not is irrelevant, working mostly as a background to some other past action(s). Just like corrió vs. corría, etc.

This is generally tricky for English speakers, because although English generally distinguishes the two aspects well with its simple past and past progressive TAMs, there's a group of verbs (to be, to love, to see...) where the distinction between simple past and past progressive isn't aspect. I suppose Polish is the same with its copula? (Does it even have a copula with past tense...?)

I thought that 'estuvo' was like 'became' (él estuvo enfermo)? I've read on the topic several times but the nature of the distinction never seems to stay with me.

You're confusing it with French. Il a été malade would mean 'he became sick', but in Spanish él estuvo enfermo would only mean 'he was sick [+perfective]'. I can't think of any example where estuvo means 'became' actually.

It's funny you mention this example, because the only time I've noticed that French être in the passé composé can mean 'became' is when followed by malade, actually. For the most part it's the same as in Spanish, IMO. Can any French speakers here come up with more examples like this one? Can ma mère a été fâchée mean 'she got angry', for example?

[Thry]

I've heard rumours that it's less common in Spain than elsewhere... To me it expresses some sort of incredulity or impatience. I've also read that est-ce que questions in French used to have those semantics of incredulity too, but they're almost completely lost by now.

Est-ce qu'il va venir ? is pretty much an unmarked 'Is he coming?', ¿es que él va venir? to me means something like 'is he actually coming?', or, giving it a little context:

• —¿Y Rodrigo va a venir o no?
  —Bueno... ayer le pregunté como a las dos, y me dijo que le hablara a las tres, que estaba ocupado y que no sé qué. Luego cuando le hablé, estaba todavía discutiendo con la María. Resulta que le toca trabajar bien de mañana el lunes, y...
  —¿Y entonces va a venir o no?
  —Vaya, es que mirá. Yo vine, y le dije que...
  —¿ES QUE VA A VENIR O NO?

Yeah, this sort of "impatient use". ¿Cuándo es que lo trajeron? implies this sort of things too.

Thinking about this, I think we'd commonly do the distinction by intonation solely or other means, such as stopping between the words or including an aggressive tag such as , ¿O qué?. The cleft sounds literary or Latin or both.

[Niedokonany]

To me it's mostly a boring, typical perfective-imperfective distinction. There's probably this and that other special case, but for the most part estuvo is a past tense perfective aspect, seeing the time frame where something was something as a finished, bounded event; and era a past tense imperfective aspect where such time frame is unbounded, and whether it finished or not is irrelevant, working mostly as a background to some other past action(s). Just like corrió vs. corría, etc.

This is generally tricky for English speakers, because although English generally distinguishes the two aspects well with its simple past and past progressive TAMs, there's a group of verbs (to be, to love, to see...) where the distinction between simple past and past progressive isn't aspect. I suppose Polish is the same with its copula? (Does it even have a copula with past tense...?)

Polish isn't the same as its verbal copula lacks a perfective equivalent (there's pobyć which has a delimitative meaning 'be for a short time' but it's seldom used outside existential or locative clauses; a few other perfective verbs derived from być are semantically remote, e.g. nabyć 'purchase', przebyć 'cross, go through'); Polish perfective equivalents of stative verbs are typically inchoatives and delimitatives (e.g. kochać 'love' > pokochać 'fall in love'). Doesn't the perfective fue come rather close to estar in its meaning? Boundedness suggests non-permanence of some sort. It's not a problem with nominal predicatives but what about adjectival ones?

[ol bofosh]

I've seen that se is a reflexive pronoun. But it can also be used as a passive.

So, can "se ve" be reflexive (s/he/it sees her/his/itself) or will it always be passive (it is seen)?

[Thry]

I've seen that se is a reflexive pronoun. But it can also be used as a passive.

So, can "se ve" be reflexive (s/he/it sees her/his/itself) or will it always be passive (it is seen)?

Both:

El perro se vio y se dio un susto.
The dog saw himself and got frightened.

¿Se ve lo que quiero decir?
Is what I mean clear? lit. "Is what I want to say seen/evident?" (idiomatic)

Se ven bonitos paisajes.
You can see beautiful sights lit. Beautiful sights are seen.

[ol bofosh]

Thanks.

El perro se vio y se dio un susto.
The dog saw himself and got frightened.[/i]

Could that be "The dog was seen..." too?

[Thry]

Thanks.

El perro se vio y se dio un susto.
The dog saw himself and got frightened.[/i]

Could that be "The dog was seen..." too?

Yep, but the context makes it's clear it isn't... maybe in another sentence.

"El perro se vio por última vez a las tres" is a passive.
The dog was last seen at three.