Verbs that changes their meaning in the preterite.
Hello everyone. I was just studying through the preterite tense in the reference section. I read where different verbs meanings change when it is conjugated from the present tense into the preterite.
My question is about the verb querer. In the present it says to want and in the preterite it's to refuse/to try. How would I say I wanted? Does quise mean I wanted and also I refused? Are my sentences correct? Would appreciate all the help. Thank you.
Example:
Quise el otro trabajo. I wanted the other job.
Quise el trabajo. I refused the job.
13 Answers
Quise el otro trabajo. I wanted the other job. (Correct)
Quise el trabajo. I refused the job. (Completely wrong) = I wanted the job (Correct)
"Querer" always means "querer", no matter what the tense is, but like many other verbs, its meaning may change with the context. I personally don't subscribe to this changing-meaning verbs according to the tense. "In any case, I can't see how this verb can be translated as "to refuse", unless someone is being sarcastic.
James Santiago said:
Querer means to refuse only in the negative preterit.
But James, "to refuse" means to say that you don't want to accept something. If you say "No quiero", you are refusing because you don't want to accept it.
What's wrong with "I didn't want to do the job" as a translation anyway?
Does it really make sense to talk about a change of meaning? If it does, maybe we should teach English by saying that "To want significa rehusar cuando se usa en frases negativas".
James Santiago said:
I, as a native, could easily say "Supe que iba a venir" even though I didn't find out anything. I'm talking about something I simply knew (or though I knew), but in a defined time frame, as preterite demands. There is no change in meaning.
Cherub1 said:
Would this be true for the other verbs that were listed for meaning changes? only in the negative
Cherub, there is no change in meaning. If you negate "to want" in English, you are also refusing. Please, let's be logical here...
"To work" is translated as "trabajar", but in negative sentences is translated as "descansar".
"To break" is translated as "romper", but in negative sentences is translated as "preservar".
All this is nonsense to me!
Querer means to refuse only in the negative preterit.
No quise hacer el trabajo = I refused to do the job.
(My deja vu bell is ringing...)
But James, "to refuse" means to say that you don't want to accept something. If you say "No quiero", you are refusing because you don't want to accept it.
Yes, yes, but the problem, which you seem to be ignoring, is that there is no easy way in English to differentiate between "no quería" and "no quise," and furthermore, where a native Spanish speaker might use the latter, a native English speaker would often use "to refuse." That is why these "changes" are taught, because they are valid and work in real life. Of course, the situation isn't quite that simple, but I still say that it is valid to teach learners this way, because it helps them use the verb conjugations properly. If they ever become advanced speakers, they will learn the more subtle nuances and differences, but those are not necessary early on, and in fact can hinder learning.
But then, I don't expect you to agree with me on this. 
lazarus1907 said:
James Santiago said:
Querer means to refuse only in the negative preterit.
But James, "to refuse" means to say that you don't want to accept something. If you say "No quiero", you are refusing because you don't want to accept it.
What's wrong with "I didn't want to do the job" as a translation anyway?
Basically nothing.
The notion of "meaning-changing verbs" seems to have crept into various teaching grammars, and I share your skepticism. In fairness, I think the idea of the concept is just a pragmatic one: if you tell average GCSE students that "no quiso" means "he/she refused/wouldn't", and "no quería" means "he didn't want to", then they'll accidentally have more chance of coming up with the right verb form, even though they won't actually understand the logic behind what they're doing. If you're trying to give students a good understanding of the language and the way it works, and you have all the time in the world to do so, then it's an utterly dreadful idea. If you have two hours to teach them enough about the difference between imperfect and preterite for them to scrape through an exam, then maaaaybe as a pragmatic worst case methodology, I can sort of see where the idea is coming from. But on the other hand, it is truly dreadful...
I have heard that when translating quise to English I tried is a suitable substitute.
Ok. thank you very much. Very understandable
Cherub1 said:
Would this be true for the other verbs that were listed for meaning changes? only in the negative
No. Saber, for example, changes in the positive.
Sabía que iba a venir = I knew he was going to come
Supe que iba a venir = I found out he was going to come
Keep in mind, though, that this "change" is only occurring in the English, not the Spanish. These verbs are normal in Spanish, and it's just that we have to use other verbs to translate their preterit forms into English.
Would this be true for the other verbs that were listed for meaning changes? only in the negative
To say "I refused the job," it would be "Rechacé el trabajo."
Thank you for clearing that up for me. That makes learning the verbs alot easier. 
