Aceptar + subjunctive/indicative

Question

I'm back with yet another question, but this time it's quite shorter. In one of José Plácido Ruiz-Campillo's articles on the subjunctive, there was an example that showed the verb "aceptar" being used both with indicative and the subjunctive. The examples from his article are the following:

Acepto que VAYAS
Acepto que ESTÉS aquí
Acepto que ERES más listo que yo.

I believe that the first two examples use the subjunctive because "aceptar" seems to have an emotional overtone... why, then, does the last example use the indicative? Does that somewhat contradict the whole "commenting/mentioning" to detail your main declaration - the acceptance - or is it because in the you are declaring that you accept something and you are also declaring a non-established fact that "you are more clever than I"?

Another example from his article:

Es falso que ESTÁN escondidos.

If something is false, why would you be declaring it as fact? Maybe this was one of his examples of the wrong usage of the subjunctive, but it did not appear to be so.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

• Can you tell us more about this article, Nick? Where can we read it? I am distraught by the thought that the writer about the subjunctive would not properly explain his examples. - Janice 20 de Ago, 2009

Answer 1

Acepto que ERES más listo que yo.

This one sounds a bit better if you interpret it like:

Acepto el hecho de que ERES más listo que yo.

Here, rather than the previous "Acepto algo", where you just want to highlight your acceptance, you are both declaring it, and admitting another fact (you are smarter than me) through a second declaration. This time, you could have said:

Lo acepto: eres más listo que yo.

with exactly the same effect. In "Acepto que vayas", you are not even going as I speak, and in "Acepto que estés aquí", the other person does not exactly need to be told that he is here, hehe. In these two examples, all it matters is your views about an accepted fact (accepted by you, at least), and not your intention to inform the other guy about something you think he should know.

Es falso que ESTÁN escondidos.

Ok, this is one thing I probably neglected to mention: here, we are declaring someone else's words textually. The declaration, almost in indirect style, is "(Someone said Están escondidos", which, in my opinion (and I declare this), it is false.

"Aceptar" has at least two meanings:

1. tr. Recibir voluntariamente o sin oposición lo que se da, ofrece o encarga.
2. tr. Aprobar, dar por bueno, acceder a algo.

Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

When you receive something, it is a fact, and you can admit that it is indeed one, so you can declare it to confirm what the fact is.

When you approve something, all it matters is how you personally judge the situation, not acknowledge that it is indeed true (you don't normally go judging situations that you don't regard as being true).

Aunque viene, no lo quiero ver. (although he is coming, I don't want to see him)

Declaration 1: he is coming. Declaration 2: I don't want to see him.

Aunque venga, no lo quiero ver. (even if he comes, I don't want to see him)

Declaration (the only one): I don't want to see him. Now, is he coming? I didn't declare such a thing, so we don't know.

• For example, Nick, your author could have written all of this to explain his usage!! Well, at least I am not distraught anymore. We can always come to SpanishDict.com:-) - Janice 20 de Ago, 2009

Answer 2

On "acepto que eres...", it is fact because it is something you have personal knowledge of. You can know when someone is smarter, stronger, faster, or better-looking than you.

For "es falso que...", the thing following what is false should always be a fact, even if it is incorrect.

Why? Well think about using the subjunctive. Es false que + (a fact with doubt about it). Since you have doubt about the fact, how can you establish it is false.

Try it in English, "It is false that he may want to go the store." Which is false? That he wants to go to the store? That you are uncertain about him going to the store? In order to declare something absolutely false, you need to remove doubt first.

Answer 3

Why? Well think about using the subjunctive. Es false que + (a fact with doubt about it). Since you have doubt about the fact, how can you establish it is false.

But, let's break it up into two parts: "Es falso que ESTÁN escondidos". 1) Es falso 2) Están escondidos.

Están escondidos, eso es falso (???)

Do you want to say/declare that they are hidden? No! Why would you declare something that you then deem as false?

I think that that was one of his examples of improper usage that I didn't see marked as such.

Answer 4

I'm going to have a stab at this. Generally I find that when a verb in Spanish can take both the indicative and subjunctive using either one changes the meaning as we would view it in English.

e.g Aunque viene, no lo quiero ver. (although he is coming, I don't want to see him)

Aunque venga, no lo quiero ver. (even if he comes, I don't want to see him)

I think aceptar + indicative simply means to "accept something" whereas aceptar + subjunctivo means something like "to be pleased about something" and therefore becomes a pre-supposition thus needing the subjunctive.

Therefore:

Acepto que VAYAS= I am pleased that you are going

Acepto que ESTÉS aquí= I am pleased that you are here

Acepto que ERES más listo que yo.= I accept that you are smarter than me.

This is all supposition by the way.

• Hmmm... That could be. Very good supposition, haha. - Nick-Cortina 20 de Ago, 2009

Answer 5

In order to declare something absolutely false, you need to remove doubt first.

Also, that is not true. You can say something like this: "No estoy seguro, pero creo que van a venir". That has a whole lot of doubt with "No estoy seguro", but you still declare the "van a venir" part.

Or... "Me alegro de que estés aquí." There is no doubt that the person is there, but you use subjunctive because your main declaration is about what makes you happy, and the "estés aquí" part is only there as a comment/mention, not a declaration.

Answer 6

This one sounds a bit better if you interpret it like:

Acepto el hecho de que ERES más listo que yo.

Here, rather than the previous "Acepto algo", where you just want to highlight your acceptance, you are both declaring it, and admitting another fact (you are smarter than me) through a second declaration. This time, you could have said:

Lo acepto: eres más listo que yo.

Hmm... okay, I'm pretty sure I understand that. With that, you are declaring to the other person that he/she is smarter than you... it is not a pre-established fact that you are commenting upon... you are declaring your acceptance while informing the other person.

My "new" trick with verbs of emotion/judgement (like, enojarse, alegrarse, etc.), (and it's not really a trick, but rather an illustration of your comments about the main declaration being about the emotion), is that, if you take out the emotion/judgment part, it does not convey the same meaning as the original. For example:

Me alegro de que estés aquí. If you simply say, "Estás aquí", that in no way conveys the emotion of the original sentence. That is why you must use the subjunctive with "estés aquí"... it is not a declaration, but rather a comment necessary to detail/complete your conveyance of your emotion.

So, in... "Acepto que eres más listo que yo"... if you take away the first part, you have "Eres más listo que yo," which, although it does not convey the acceptance, it is not merely a comment about the acceptance, but also a new declaration. Would "Acepto que seas más listo que yo" be correct in the right context?

Ok, this is one thing I probably neglected to mention: here, we are declaring someone else's words textually. The declaration, almost in indirect style, is "(Someone said Están escondidos", which, in my opinion (and I declare this), it is false.

Can you go a little deeper into this? Maybe with some examples/context. So, if someone said "Están escondidos", you could reply with "Es falso que están escondidos", and not be declaring that they are hiding, but just quoting the other person? Hmm...

Thanks once again for your continued patience and detailed answers.

• Also... does my "new trick" actually work or am I overthinking things? - Nick-Cortina 23 de Ago, 2009

Answer 7

Hola, me he interesado este hilo y me gustaría dar mi opinión, pero solo puedo escribir en español. ¿Será aceptable? Yo creo que todo el problema está en el concepto de declaración, o mejor dicho, en separar claramente lo que son las MARCAS gramaticales de declaración (las causas) de lo que es el ACTO de declaración del sujeto (los efectos) que finalmente interpretamos.

La declaración o no declaración que representa el modo no se refiere siempre al sujeto hablante, sino al sujeto que es origen de esa información. Si digo "Ella piensa que soy Napoleón", el sujeto hablante no está declarando que es Napoleón, sino solo transmitiendo lo que ella piensa: es la declaración DE ELLA. Si digo "Ella no cree que yo sea yo", el sujeto hablante no evita declarar "yo soy yo" porque no lo crea, sino porque en la frase construida esa información sale "de la boca" de ella: es la no-declaración DE ELLA.

En estos casos, averiguar cuál es el sujeto real de la información subordinada es fácil, porque se da explícitamente (Ella dice, ella no cree...). En el resto de casos, habrá que contar con el contexto o con operaciones pragmáticas como la implicatura para dar sentido a las marcas modales. Es el caso de tu ejemplo:

So, if someone said "Están escondidos", you could reply with "Es falso que están escondidos", and not be declaring that they are hiding, but just quoting the other person? Hmm...

El mecanismo para interpretar esta frase puede ser como sigue: 'El hablante ha dicho que algo es falso, pero ha REPRESENTADO declarativamente ese algo. Aquí hay dos opciones: o quiere contradecirse (cosa que la gente no hace más que jugando), o es que él quiere negar, no abstractamente la idea de que pueden estar escondidos, sino directamente la propia declaración previa de otro sujeto. De ahí el carácter más fuerte de esta opción: no solo niego que estén escondidos; niego lo que has dicho. Y de ahí también las limitaciones de esta posibilidad: usada al principio de una conferencia, por ejemplo (es decir, cuando no hay discurso previo al que remitirse), el uso del indicativo no es que sea incorrecto, es que es completamente desconcertante. Compara:

• Ella lo compró y te lo dio.
• Es verdad que lo compró, pero es mentira que me lo dio. ("me lo dio")

Estimados colegas: No creo que hayan venido ustedes aquí para verme a mí, sino más bien para informarse... (suena normal)

Estimados colegas: No creo que han venido ustedes aquí... ('¡¿Quién ha dicho eso?!')

Es decir: en el segundo caso todo nativo se siente movido por el indicativo (declaración) a buscar al "dueño" de la declaración en un contexto inmediato, y la rareza proviene de no encontrarlo. En otros casos, el conocimiento compartido ayuda, y los efectos son también diferentes. En un periódico, por ejemplo, un titular como 2 se siente mucho más "reactivo" que 1:

El gobierno no cree que haya corrupción en la administración pública

(puede una reacción, o puede ser simplemente que el gobierno haya encargado unas inspecciones y esté dando sus conclusiones)

El gobierno niega que hay corrupción

(necesariamente sentimos que tiene que haber un oponente implicado: el gobierno está reaccionando contra declaraciones previas)

En fin, pedías ejemplos y espero que estos te sugieran algo. Siento escribir en español, y espero que mi próximo curso de inglés (la lengua del Imperio), dé sus frutos. Saludos.

Answer 8

Torpedete, bienvenido al foro

Interesante mensaje, sobre todo mucho trabajo.

Espero que hayas visto nuestro curso gratuito de inglés, la profesora no solo es excelente sino también muy atractiva, jeje, sin duda un plus añadido.

Aprender inglés:

http://www.spanishdict.com/learn

Answer 9

Gracias por tu bienvenida, Heidita. No sabía de la existencia de este curso. Le he echado un vistazo y me parece muy interesante, aunque quizá un tanto básico para mí (lo que me consuela). Con respecto a la profesora, tienes toda la razón en tus dos calificaciones. Eso sí, si algún día la sustituyes, la segunda habría que subirla de grado. Gracias, otra vez.