Lazarus and the Use of "Se"

Question

Well, I am new to this site (just signed on yesterday with some contextual questions re: "se"). And, while I'm not an expert in this language, I find myself even MORE confused than when I started. First of all, I understand that this person named Lazarus seems to be someone very respected on this site, that he has been quite helpful in many areas. I truly honor that. So, while risking being e-lynched for challenging what appears to be a bit of a cult of personality going on here, I have to foment a bit of discussion about the link that was sent my way by Janice wherein Lazarus explains his understanding of the why's and where's of certain "se" placement. I won't go as far as to say that his "Intransitive" contributions here are incorrect; but they are simply considerably more complicated than need be. The link of his explanations is below. Up until #8, he is doing just fine; but, with number #9 -- he appears to be sharing a bit of Spanish-as-the-Keys-of-Enoch...

http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/7876/transitive-reflexive-pronominal-verbs-and-pronouns

Put simply, there are no less than 10 or 11 different meanings/uses of the word "se", dependent upon context. It can pop up everywhere...and context is the key to understanding its meaning. The examples given by Lazarus below, which I took from his link are not being presented by him in a clear and easy manner for understanding...or, depending upon how you look at it, are simply not correct.

Hundí el barco ? I sunk the boat (transitive) El barco hundió... (wrong) ? The boat sunk... (incomplete in Spanish: what did the boat sink') El barco se hundió (correct) ? The boat sunk (now the boat is not sinking other boats) Rompí la radio ? I broke the radio (transitive) La radio rompió... (wrong) ? The radio broke... (incomplete in Spanish: what did the radio break') La radio se rompió (correct) ? The radio broke (now the radio is not breaking anything else)

Quemé la casa ? I burnt the house La casa se quemó ? The house burnt (without 'se', the house would be a pyromaniac) Se me quemó la casa ? My house burnt (without 'se', the house would be a pyromaniac)

Forget his transitive and intransitive stuff and that "the radio cannot now break other radios" or "a boat cannot sink other boats." This sort of construct makes Spanish look dumb. What is happening here in the examples he has given is referred to as "Se con eventos inesperados". A simple "se" is put before the verb when there is an event that was unexpected, that someone does not take/assume personal responsibility for.

So, yes, "I actively put a hole in it and sunk the boat" is quite different from "I was in the boat and it suddenly, unexpectedly sunk" or "I broke that darned radio by pounding on it or whatever" and "It suddenly, unexpectedly stopped working". Everything else Lazarus has written around this I feel is either intuitively strange or incorrect. Afterall, we say in English all the time, "my house burnt," "the chair broke" "the book fell" and so on and it is understood that these are happening to and/or with objects without personal volition. That is how his explanation makes language look dumb. Something breaking, terminating, dying burning, getting lost is usually somewhat unexpected unless we are acting upon that thing in the moment of its change. In this way, whether it is running out of gas, a car not working or even falling out of love, it is considered unexpected and/or not directly considered one's fault.

Lastly, as far as the examples given around "the house burning down", the first sentence says, "I burnt my house down"; the second says, "The house burnt down" with se expressing some emotional tension around an unexpected event; the third, "Se me quemó la casa" is a "se"-related construct wherein one or more of a few things are going on: the person may be making the comment is assuming a bit more responsibility for the event; or, as probably in this case, an emotional connection of some sort is being related. This construct in Spanish comes about by linking Se + Indirect Object Pronoun + a Verb that cues the "se con eventos inesperados" likelihood. Oftentimes, it will be seen like this: "A mi, se me quemó la casa." My gosh, just reading it makes me sad for the person.

Other words designating unexpected events wherein "se con eventos inesperados" are seen often include terminarse; acabarse; descomponerse; perderse; quebrarse; enfermarse; morirse; salirse; accidentarse; irse; asustarse; enamorse de; ensuciarse.

I again want to say that I honor Lazarus' many contributions to this site. Just felt a bit compelled to put out there some info I thought was being made considerably more difficult and complicated than need be. Of course, don't take my word for any of what I've written here. check out this explanation for yourself and see...especially contextually in reading and the such.

Thanks for the space to share and...most of all...HAPPY LEARNING!!!

Answer 1

HI NOmad, all opinions are respected here on this site. Grammar is often difficult to understand and I guess Lazarus tries to explain things in order for people to understand , which is not always the case. But there is always space for questions and Lazarus is always willing to answer those. We have no "cult" members, however, Lazarus is one of the most respected writers on internet on grammar issues and on this forum he has a priviledged postion.

• Hi Heidita. I understand the respect that Lazarus has earned on this site and, as I wrote, I honor that. - 1nomad 23 de Ago, 2009
• I was making that point at the outset becasue I have read other posts on this site of folks who have been skewered when challenging this person named Lazarus. That's all. Love to all!!! - 1nomad 23 de Ago, 2009

Answer 2

Afterall, we say in English all the time, "my house burnt," "the chair broke" "the book fell" and so on and it is understood that these are happening to and/or with objects without personal volition. That is how his explanation makes language look dumb. Something breaking, terminating, dying burning, getting lost is usually somewhat unexpected unless we are acting upon that thing in the moment of its change. In this way, whether it is running out of gas, a car not working or even falling out of love, it is considered unexpected and/or not directly considered one's fault.

Do you expect Spanish to work just like English? We should not assume that Spanish will work the same way, just because we say "the house burnt", and "the chair broke" and we know that they are not burning or breaking other things.

I have no idea how his explanation makes the language look dumb. In fact, I believe the use of the "intransitivizing se" is a very useful aspect of the language. When we say "The house is burning", there is no way to know that it isn't burning other things. Who knows?! - it could be a house that magically came to life and became an arsonist! The use of the "se" in Spanish clears up any ambiguities.

Please remember: Spanish and English are two different languages, with different rules. Translating between the two is not as easy as saying "this = this". Those who think "Hmmph, we say it this way in English! They should say it the same way in this language!" are just plain ignorant.

Languages are diverse, not the same.

• Well, as I suspected -- or expected -- the knee-jerk thumping has begun. Nick-Cortina, with all due respect, you have obviously not read or consider all of what I wrote when you are reacting to the one line about languages having some commonalities - 1nomad 23 de Ago, 2009
• The thing is that, yes, the "se" as it was presented up to this point does clear something up...but it is not a correct understanding. That is all. - 1nomad 23 de Ago, 2009
• Hahaha, sorry. I was a little too blunt and harsh. What do you mean that is not a correct understanding? - Nick-Cortina 23 de Ago, 2009
• And I was more reacting to the part about "Afterall, WE say this in English" and "That's how the language looks dumb." I seemed like you were implying that Spanish should work exactly like English. - Nick-Cortina 23 de Ago, 2009
• Hi Nick-Cortina. Thank you for your return comments. No, I DEFINITELY do not believe that all languages are alike. And I certainly don't believe that English is better than any other language. - 1nomad 23 de Ago, 2009
Ver 17 más comentarios >>

Answer 3

I find your comments/criticisms somewhat confusing. After reading the entire thread (several times),although you assert (repeatedly) that Lazarus's explanation is incorrect/misleading/confusing, not once do you provide an alternative explanation. If you feel his explanation to be wrong, the ideal would be to provide the correct answer. Failing that, to, at least explain what is wrong with his analysis. You have done neither, you simply assert that he is wrong.

Answer 4

"Se con eventos inesperados". A simple "se" is put before the verb when there is an event that was unexpected, that someone does not take/assume personal responsibility for.

Thank you for your take on the subject. This is an interesting idea that you propose, and I think that I will investigate it further to see how well it holds up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, I find nothing strange, erroneous nor misleading about the original way that the topic was handled by Lazarus. Then again, I also happen to be one of those rare grammar geeks who actually enjoys dissecting a language and analyzing it piece by piece. In this, I do not shy away from ideas such as "the transitive" or "intransitive" use of a verb; on the contrary, I find them quite useful.

...it is considered unexpected and/or not directly considered one's fault.

I'm not sure exactly that this explanation of "unexpected and/or not directly considered one's fault" holds up to scrutiny. For example, it would be possible to say each of these:

1). I beat on the mirror with the hammer and it broke. - Di martillazos en el espejo y se rompió

2). The mirror broke because I beat it with a hammer - Se rompió el espejo porque le di martillazos

Clearly, there is nothing strange or unexpected in a mirror breaking after hitting it with a hammer, and it could certainly be considered the fault of the person hitting it with a hammer.

Consider these examples:

1). The door squeeked when I was opening it - Cuando abría la puerta lo chirrié.

2). The old squeaky door creaked like always - Como siempre chirrié la puerta vieja y chirriante

Clearly, in the first sentence, the squeak would be unexpected, but in the second it would not. Despite this, neither requires the use of "se." Why? Because the verb "chirriar" is an intransitive verb and does not require that it take a direct object. For this reason, (which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with with fault or expectedness) it seems like the idea of transitive vs intransitive is more useful to predict when it might be necessary to use "se."

What do you think? Does this seem reasonable, or have I misunderstood what have intended?

• oops...I did not notice the original date on this thread - Izanoni1 8 de Dic, 2009