gspajon said:

Hello HeiditaWhy is a pronoun used in addition to a conjugation of a verb...for example. "Ya me voy", "Me sopongo", "No te preocupes". "Me acabo de llegar"..the list is long.

I thought I answered this before, but here it goes again:

"Voy" means "I go" / "I'm going", and for this verb, you normally mention the destination, or this is implicit from the context. When you say "me voy", the focus is changed with from the destination to the point where the speaker is, so the verb now becomes "I leave" / "I am leaving". To many grammarians, one verb is "ir" and the other one is "irse", pretty much like "to go" and "to leave" in English.

The pronoun in "me supongo" does not modify the meaning of the verb as much as "se" in "irse" ("me" in "me voy"), and it can be omitted without significantly modfiying the original meaning. Its use is mainly colloquial, and adds a light nuance of lack of confidence in the truth of the supposition.

savannah said:

I don't really think they are necicary when saying, the YO form, the TU form, or Nosotros, because the conjugation points it out, however, the El/ella/ud. and the Ellas/ellos,/uds. you most of the time should, because even though they use context, still, it might be easier just to say the form.

No, you shouldn't, because it is not English, and those pronouns are kept on hold for a very good reason. If you use them, you not only sound horrible most of the time, but you deprive Spanish from expressing distinctions and nuances that are normally expressed with those pronouns.

Remember than the context often decides who are we talking about. If I said:

She has come.

You wouldn't have the slightest clue about who is she, unless I told you first, so maybe we should complaint about English too, and conclude that we must say the name all the time, e.g. "Julia has come". If the above sentence had followed something like "Oh, talking about Julia...", that "she" would have made perfect sense, but so would have its Spanish counterpart if we had said "Ha venido". This is something that you probably have never considered.

well heidi....maybe we should talk about psicology...jejejee

Mark Baker said:

>

Mark Baker said:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.'Starts with the person' does not make sense, could you expand upon this please'. As I understand it, reflexive pronouns work in exactly the same way as indirect object pronouns (except they use 'se' instead of 'le and les'). So, a sentence that contains a reflexive verb must also contain a reflexive pronoun likewise a sentence that contains an indirect object (prepositional) must contain an indirect object pronoun.

So, to use the reflective verb 'irse' requires using the relevant reflexive pronoun. In this case 'me voy'

First of all, a sentence that contains an indirect object (prepositional) must not necessarily contain an indirect object pronoun; this is a misconception. Although the duplication is needed in many cases, and it is normally used in general (especially in spoken Spanish), sentences without the indirect pronoun are possible, and correct.

And coming back to the reflexive pronoun in "me voy", I don't know what do you mean by "reflective", but even if you mean "reflexive", there is no action reflected towards the person here: the pronoun turns the verb "to go" into "to leave". If you define "to leave" as "to go", but reflecting the act of going towards yourself, then I have no objections, of course. What I was trying to explain is that, whereas "ir" focusses on a destination, "irse", with the reflexive pronoun, focusses on the starting point, where the speaker is, but the action is still going somewhere else: you are not going "to yourself".

Mark Baker said:

cite="http://my.spanishdict.com/forum/topic/show'id=1710195%3ATopic%3A571165#1710195Comment574396]'me voy' is along the lines of 'I go myself' which is poor English so it becomes 'I leave'. The most common reflexive pronoun is 'cómo se llamas' which really means 'cómo se llamas ustedes'' which means 'how do you call yourself'' (so the verb is reflecting back on yourself) so the correct English becomes 'What is your name''

Well... I have no faith in teaching the uses of the reflexive pronouns by just saying that they all mean "myself", because it doesn't work, and I am not talking about a few exceptions here and there, but hundred of thousands of them... all the time. When the number of so-called exceptions is so large, to me there is a clear explanation for this: the "rule" wasn't a rule, but a mere observation that happened to work in some restricted situations, and outside of them, it doesn't work. In the real world, with the real Spanish... it will be a disaster.

Let's take your "I call myself", which is another one I don't agree with, and let's explain this sentence (which is a very very commonly used one):

Este mineral se llama rutilo.

Is the mineral calling itself "rutilo"? How to explain this? Do we just say that it is another of Lazarus' twisted and unusual exceptions to a wonderful rule? Do we give a different rule? Or what about "Me canso muy rápidamente"? Would you say "I tire myself very easily"? A new rule here, perhaps? Or what about "Me caigo"? "I fall myself"? Shall we say "I remember myself" for "Me acuerdo"?

I don't know if I'm confusing you or others, but anyone following something that absurd, it is likely to end up even more confused when they can't make sense of real Spanishs sentences where those "me" don't mean "myself"... at all!

To me, it would be like trying to teach English to Spanish speakers by saying that phrasal verbs, like "find out" translate as "encontrar fuera". It doesn't make sense, and it is illogical.

Lazarus,
I love your logical analysis of the reflexive construction. You are right, it just does not make sense; so how do we teach this complex concept? Do we explain that the "se" changes the meaning of the verb or what? dormir= to sleep, but dormirse = to fall asleep, ir= to go, but irse= to leave, etc.

Mark Baker said:

This is the type of answer people like gsajon want, not stupid self-righteous parrallel arguments that ontradict the lessons on SD.

Stupid? Nice! Now let me tell you about stupidity: "Me voy" is not reflexive, "me" is not an object here, and I know a hundred times more about Spanish and Spanish grammar than you and all the lessons on this web page put together. The action stays with the subject with or without the reflexive pronoun, and what you are saying shows that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Such a statement is the most stupid thing I've ever heard, and could only come from an ignorant. Read a real grammar book and learn to speak Spanish before going insulting others.

By the way, many of your examples in Spanish were grammatically incorrect, you "smart guy". Trying to teach a language that you can't speak? The blind teaching the blind.

lazarus1907 said:

The verb can be both reflective and non-reflective.....even though you have deliberately confused the two! Many, many verbs can be made reflexive. All it means when a verb is reflexive is that the action remains with the subject.div>

Two? Have you ever learnt any grammar at all? I have used 7 different types of pronouns in my examples, and you can only see two? Hahaha, that's good!

Mark Baker said:

The purpose of the reflexive object pronouns is to show that the action of the verb remains with the subject.

Hahaha? good joke. In 'el jarrón se cae? (the jar falls), the action wouldn't be with the subject without that 'se', i.e. the jar will fall without itself, the subject. That 'se' is there to prevent the falling to escape the object and go somewhere else. Now I understand.

Did you say stupid'

As Lazarus mentioned somewhere - Spanish pronouns are very complex. They are very confusing for native English speakers, just as phrasal-verbs are difficult for native Spanish speakers. I've been studying Spanish for 4 years (mainly on my own). I am a dilligent and keen student. I am reasonably intelligent but I still cannot penetrate this concept.

So...........what am I to do?

I have tried reading different grammar books (many of which seem contradictary), asking questions - but all to no avail.

Recently I have been trying a new method. I forget trying to understand the reason and instead I just accept that this is just the way that it is! Study the examples.Take it "on faith". Let my brain absorb the language. At least I get less headaches!

Does anyone have a plan or a method that works for them? Please share it.!

(Okay - that's enough rambling from me.)

!Hasta luego!

gspajon said:

So the question arises then, when a reflexive form of the verb is used, (exceptions aside for the moment) does it change the verb to mean the subject IS the pronoun. "Me voy", "no te preocupes". Is that also correct?

I will give you my version, whether Mr. Baker likes it or not (or understands it). Verbs with direct objects can potentially become transitive by redirecting the action to oneself, as in "I wash something" and "I was myself". However, those pronouns can have other functions that have nothing to do with reflexivity, and there are books explaining how to understand each type. Those books only call "reflexive" those where the object matches the subject, and not in all other cases.

The verb preocupar (to worry) is transitive, and that in Spanish means that it needs an object, someone to make worried. However, if you just worry, and don't worry others (here Mr. Baker's explanation applies to a certain extent), then you need the pronominal form "me preocupo", but that "me" is not an object, and cannot be understood as such, because "Me preocupo a mí mismo" (I worry myself) becomes nonsensical and plain wrong in Spanish, since it is not reflexive, so it doesn't accept that "myself" at all. This pronoun informs the hearers that there is no object. Period.

In "Me voy", the pronoun simply changes the perspective of the motion, effectively modifying the meaning of the verb.

patch said:

Recently I have been trying a new method. I forget trying to understand the reason and instead I just accept that this is just the way that it is! Study the examples.Take it "on faith". Let my brain absorb the language. At least I get less headaches!

Does anyone have a plan or a method that works for them? Please share it.!

Try reading this article, and see if it helps (warning: it is a bit technical):

http://www.mepsyd.es/redele/revista3/lidia_lozano.shtml

The "just learn" it approach is probably better than using false rules filled with contradictions and countless exceptions. Sentences like:

Me lavo.
Me compro una camisa.

are easily translated as "I wash myself", "I buy myself a shirt". These are called reflexives in any serious grammar book, and both accept an extra reflexive emphatic reduplication: "Me lavo a mí mismo". The problem starts with sentences like:

Me llamo Lazarus

Many books claim that this is not a reflexive structure. Why? Well... some people say that this sentence translates as "I call myself lazarus", but that "myself" in Spanish is "a mí mismo", and "Me llamo Lazarus a mí mismo" sounds stupid in Spanish. Actually, it probably sounds as stupid as "I call myself Lazarus". No native would ever say "Me llamo a mí mismo", ever! It sounds equally weird in both languages... if you try the reflexive approach. So, why that "me"? Well... let's say that changes a verb such as "llamar", meaning "to call (someone something)" into something like "having as a name....". The verb changes, its meaning changes a bit, and it is used in a different way. It is better to remember the verb as "llamarse", regarding it as a different verb from simply "llamar", like "ir" and "irse" (to go and to leave). Of course, you can call yourself anything you want, using the verb reflexively, but it is not the way you normally talk. Stand in front of the mirror, and call yourself "a champion". Here, you could use the reflexive construction, and say "Me llamo campeón todos los días para animarme". Here the object would be the subject. The rest of the time, you are not really calling yourself anything: your name just happens to be that one, and that's how it should be translated and understood.

It seems to me that a better literal version of many non-reflexive 'se' forms is the passive voice. 'Se usa', for example, would probably be translated as 'it is used'. This would make 'Me llamo' mean not 'I call myself' but rather 'I am called'. Of course, that still doesn't apply to 'ir' and 'irse', which, as Lazarus said, seem essentially separate verbs, among many. That may be a wrong view, but that's how I see it. I'm not an expert, of course, but this view seems to work for me. Really, though, patch has the right idea: all you can do is increase exposure and absorb the feel of the language, letting it shape your thoughts.

I hope that everyone who is interested in this discussion followed Lazarus' link. It says in part:

Y es ese método el que queremos tratar, pues el tema de las construcciones con se siempre ha sido complicado para docentes y estudiosos de la lengua, en parte porque las gramáticas no siempre han aportado clasificaciones exactas y claras. El objetivo final: la comunicación.

My translation: And it is by this method that we want to treat the subject, because the theme of the constructions with se has always been complicated for teachers and students of the language, in part because the grammars haven't always supported exact and clear classifications. The goal: communication.

This is followed by 11 different categories of the use of se.

It is clear enough, that if we intend to actually communicate in Spanish, we cannot just ignore the complex uses of se, and attempt to reduce them to one simple case.

Mark and Lazarus, cool it down a little!