Subjunctive with "Hacer que", etc. and Rule for Stem Changing Verbs
I have 2 quick questions, one more to make sure I am understanding something correctly, and the other more out of curiosity.
Firstly: with expressions/verbs like "hacer que", "causar que" and "producir que", the subjunctive is used because using the indicative would contradict the whole meaning of the verb, right? That sounds confusing, so let me provide some examples and justify their uses:
"El descubrimiento de una segunda persona con ántrax ha hecho que las autoridades estén investigando la posibilidad de que sea un acto criminal".
If the indicative was used, you would be declaring that they are investigating, but why would someone/something make something that was already happening? So, the subjunctive is used.
"La diabetes causa que las heridas no se curen bien"
If indicative was used, you would be declaring that the wounds don't heal well, but why would you cause something that already is happening?
"La lluvia produjo que me quedara sin correo electrónico."
If indicative was used, you would be declaring that you were already left without e-mail, but why would you produce something that already is happening?
Is my analysis of the use of the subjunctive correct? I feel like my justifications might be a little off...
Secondly, (on a totally unrelated note), I've been curious about this question for a long time: is there some sort of linguistic explanation as to why stem-changing verbs stem-change? I feel like I read somewhere that it has something to do with where the stress is placed, but I can not remember. My view is: there has to be some sort of rule! In the beginning, simply memorizing the types of verbs that stem change is easy enough, but after a while, one begins to wonder what the underlying rule is.
I know this is an incredibly long post, even though I billed my questions as "quick". 
Thanks in advance for your answers, as always.
20 Answers
Before I came to this site, I was studying ahead in class and becoming very frustrated/intimidated by the subjunctive, thinking I would have to memorize countless lists of verbs.
The subjunctive is a beast, in a way, don't underestimate it, because for a linguist maybe it makes sense, but it takes years of study before all these abstract concepts become easy to follow anyway. In any case, I think your critical approach, questioning every sentence, every rule, every assumption... helps you understand it better than spending hundreds of hours learning random lists. Even though you are not entirely convinced by the so-called-rules, you are facing the language face to face, and trying to understand it, and that's how you learn after all. Fear accomplishes nothing here.
Bottom line is: there are rules here, and the proof is that natives don't make mistakes with constructions and verbs they've never heard before, and they feel strange when people make mistakes (some children before 2 y.o.!!), so there must be a logic behind all this after all. The problem is that this logic can be hard to put into words. Walking like a human, using proportionally tiny feet like ours, is the aim of the best experts in robotics in the world. All humans (and animals) walk with amazing dexterity, but no one can explain how muscle coordination is achieved, so no one can make such a program. If you want to walk, reading computer theses about movement will not help, but trying to walk will.
You need to try, try again, and try to make sense out of it in your own way, and not memorizing stupid rules. The more you try, the faster you get there, but remember that you'll get there by trying, not by being able to describe this rules in a perfectly academic manner, since no one has managed to do that yet, anyway.
https://ww5.pimsleurapproach.com...i used this program and i learned spanish so fast it was freaky...you should try it.
I have 2 quick questions,
Just saying.... 
Just saying....
Hahaha, I think I've learned my lesson to never again bill my questions as "quick"!
This is how I see it. Use the basic "declaration"-dichotomy wherever it suits, and throw it out the window where it doesn't. Here it doesn't. It's not a LAW, it's a concept someone came up with, and it has been used as a basic tool to come to grips with the subjunctive at least from the 50s, probably much sooner (see below).
From the 50s? I think you've missed the point. There are similar arguments with similar words, but although there is some overlapping in some of the ideas, it is not the same. I've checked over 30 different theories about the subjunctive already.
Still no quote-button?
Nick Cortina said something like this:
So... the truth is that you can easily separate the sentence into two different declarations: "Me quedé sin correo eléctronico. La lluvia produjo eso", or even just say "Me quedé sin correo eléctronico por la lluvia". But, it's the combination of the two that causes "the rain causing" something to take more precedence, yes?
Hahaha, this thread is going to make my mind explode if I keep over-thinking things!
This is how I see it. Use the basic "declaration"-dichotomy wherever it suits, and throw it out the window where it doesn't. Here it doesn't. It's not a LAW, it's a concept someone came up with, and it has been used as a basic tool to come to grips with the subjunctive at least from the 50s, probably much sooner (see below).
When applying it to the actual use of Spanish it often becomes arbitrary - a Spaniard will tell you that you can't "declare" anything with "cuando" when it refers to the future, for example: "le daré su libro cuando llegue", whereas a Frenchman or an Italian would use the future tense ("je lui donnerai son livre quand il arrivera" / "gli darò suo livro quando arriverà"). Did they somehow miss something? Of course not. The application - where it applies - is arbitrary, and dependent on the sentence structure in question.
If you choose to fall for the dichotomy-trap in all cases, you'll have to resort to circular argumentation, as examplified here in this thread. "Apparently you don't declare the result of the volition, cause it's in the subjunctive". In English you could say something like - and I know that this sounds somewhat clumsy - "I made it so that he stood". Voilà. We've avoided the "bare infinitive", which in some cases are used as a subjunctive, and sometimes not.
My understanding of the use of the subjunctive goes something like this, from abstract to practical:
1) When the sentence structure calls for it, the subjunctive is used to not declare, or to "not get involved with the truth-value of what follows". This is based on several factors:
2) a) it can't be declared, because it hasn't happened, or it might not, or I don't know. b) it's not necessary to declare it, because it's already known in this context c) I don't want to focus on it, or want to explicitly hide my viewpoint d) it's a relative-sentence with unknown or non-explicit antecedents or the point is to focus on the scarcity of the antecedents.
3) If I'm still in doubt, and that happens a lot, I look at the types of verbs involved (perception, communication versus doubt, emotion, value-judgment, influence, etc.), the kind of sentence (affirmative, negating, interrogative), and whether it's a noun-phrase, relative/adjectival, adverbial (causal, temporal, consecutive, concessive, etc), and see if I can remember the basic rules regarding those. If I can't, I look them up.
4) I listen to a few natives and try to get a feel for how it's acually used in different parts of the world. Never have them try to explain here.
Here are a few words to the wise (and I consider you one of us 
), from the foreword of the book already on your christmas-list:
Terminamos aconsejando a quien se adentre en el tema, que no se desaliente ante el número de reglas y que desconfíe de exposiciones simplistas que dan cuenta del subjuntivo español recurriendo a una pareja de conceptos. El funcionamiento del modo es cuestión compleja, ligada, sí, a la semántica, pero dependiente en gran parte del tipo de estructura sintáctica en que se incluye. Por eso cada una de nuestras reglas se refiere al ámbito estructural de su aplicación.
Del párrafo anterior, sin embargo, no debe concluirse:
a) Que complejidad se identifica con caos o desorden (...) b) Que negamos al subjuntivo una caracterización unitaria, un valor general en cuanto modo. No es así. Pensamos que puede tenerla, si bien en niveles de abstracción incompatibles con toda operatividad práctica. Y desde luego ese valor general no es la «duda», la «no-realidad», la «no-efectividad», la «anticipación», etc., como a menudo se dice (...). «On pourrait caractériser le subjonctif par la notion de "suspension de l'affirmation" (...). Le mode s'applique donc parfaitement à des faits réels, mais seulement quand on ne veut pas les affirmer ou quand ce n'est pas nécessaire» (Togeby, K., Mode, aspect et temps en espagnol, Munksgaard, Copenhague, 1953). Exacto: con el subjuntivo el hablante suspende todo compromiso con la verdad de la oración porque no quiere o no es necesario afirmarla, como dice la cita, o porque no está en condiciones de hacerlo, podría añadirse. Creemos que ésta es la buena dirección, aunque no sea ahora el momento de proseguirla.
Here's a few random cases where a simple dichotomy won't help you, but where you need to know the rules:
"Es posible que" versus "posiblemente". "De ahí/aquí que" versus "por eso" or other consecutive expressions. "Quizá" etc. vesus "a lo mejor/de repente/igual" etc. El "rechazo contextual". "Si" versus other conditional nexus.
And on and on.
Good luck 
Nick, what is funny here is that although it is not widely said the verb "make" uses a kind of subjunctive construction in English.
Compare:
I wanted him to leave I asked him to leave I told him to leave
with...
I made him leave I let him leave
In the last two sentences "leave" is in the bare infinitive form whereas "to" is required in the the others. The bare infinitive can be considered a form of the subjunctive in English as in:
I would rather he leave (not: I would rather he to leave)
So... the truth is that you can easily separate the sentence into two different declarations: "Me quedé sin correo eléctronico. La lluvia produjo eso", or even just say "Me quedé sin correo eléctronico por la lluvia". But, it's the combination of the two that causes "the rain causing" something to take more precedence, yes?
Hahaha, this thread is going to make my mind explode if I keep over-thinking things!
José Plácido Ruiz Campillo, although is convinced that understanding the subjunctive is the way to go, he also divides sentences into a few types for practical reasons. Once you understand the idea, it is a good idea to stop analysing structures that you already know they use subjunctive, and try to use them mechanically. You wouldn't say "stood, I made him", but you don't need to know why this is wrong, because your brain someone knows that you are not declaring that he stood, but declaring that you made him stand, so if someone tried to declare it (I made him stood), "stand" would have its own tense (past), and the sentence would be weird. But can you tell why without using grammar? Well, apart from the fact that "it sounds wrong", it is because you are not saying that he stood, but you made him stand. "Stand" is the subordinate of "made", its slave, if you wish.
Your problem is that you are using worded rationalizations to explain this, even though your native English constructions tell you otherwise. I am more than happy to go to the limit when in English the construction is a declarative suspect, but not where it is clearly not one. My suggestion is that, if you are happy with the arguments presented above, simply accept that you simply don't declare in causative constructions... in either language.
Yes, that's true. I guess I am trying way too hard to come up with a rationalization when I should really just accept the fact that causative constructions use the subjunctive. My whole thing is to try not to simply "accept" these things, but understand why they are as they are. And you've done a great job helping me.
"The rain made me lose the internet connection". The "lose" part has no person or tense, so it's not even a declaration... I understand. It's just that when I try to break it up into the separate sentences, it ends up looking like a declaration, as I've said. But now I totally understand what you're saying. Why say the "rain caused this to happen" if it's not important? You could simply say "I lost my Internet connection" and be done with it, not even mentioning the rain. But obviously, the rain causing the loss is an important thing to you, because, why mention it all if that's not what you're trying to say? Correct?
"La lluvia produjo que me quedara sin correo eléctronico". The best explanation so far has been about the rain being the main part of the sentence. "La lluvia produjo algo" is the main declaration, and the rest is just there to detail what happened. And yet, I still feel like the clause after "que" could be declared. Could you delve just a little bit deeper into this, please? grin
Ok, imagine that instead of that sentence, you just say "I lost my Internet connection". Is this what you wanted to say, regardless of the rain part? Or is it "The rain made me loose my Internet connection?" Loosing the internet connection is not the main issue here, but the rain causing it; otherwise, the rain part would not have been mentioned. The dependence of clauses in causative structures is actually clearer in English than in Spanish, for the verb doesn't even seem to have its own person or tense (it depends on the main clause).
The fact alone that you don't say
- I made him stood
instead of "stand" proves that the verb is NOTHING without the main clause, and therefore, it is not being declarated. Hard as the concept is, I refuse to continue an argument where even in English there are no signs of declarations anywhere. Your problem is that you are using worded rationalizations to explain this, even though your native English constructions tell you otherwise. I am more than happy to go to the limit when in English the construction is a declarative suspect, but not where it is clearly not one. My suggestion is that, if you are happy with the arguments presented above, simply accept that you simply don't declare in causative constructions... in either language.
In any case, I think your critical approach, questioning every sentence, every rule, every assumption... helps you understand it better than spending hundreds of hours learning random lists.
Yes, that's the whole thing... learning lists and "trigger" verbs can be helpful at first, but you don't get the idea of what's going on. My view is that it's better to learn these "rules", because they will help you (most of the time) if you come across a verb/word that isn't on the "list". It's better to be able to understand WHY the subjunctive is used when it is than to just see WHEN it is used. And I hope my constant questioning of every little detail does not get tiresome or repetitive. I feel like nearly all my posts have been about the subjunctive since I joined this site.
Anyway... let's see if we can finally make sense of the example... for the seemingly millionth time :
"La lluvia produjo que me quedara sin correo eléctronico". The best explanation so far has been about the rain being the main part of the sentence. "La lluvia produjo algo" is the main declaration, and the rest is just there to detail what happened. And yet, I still feel like the clause after "que" could be declared. Could you delve just a little bit deeper into this, please? 
Does it make sense so far? Relative sentences basically link two sentences like this, with a common element (ie. that "man"), and produces a single one where one is the subordinate clause and the other is the main one. Now a different example:
* I am looking for a guy who can speak 20 languages in this shop.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense, and I've seen your explanations of "breaking it up" into two different sentences before. It makes even more sense in an example such as "No hay nadie que pueda hacerlo".
1) There is no one. 2) (There is someone) that can do it.
That makes no sense and is why subjunctive is used. Yes, I'm very good with that.
So, I guess I'll try to apply that to our sentence:
"La lluvia produjo que me quedara sin correo eléctronico".
1) The rain caused (something) 2) I was left without e-mail.
Left alone, they both seem like declarations to me. I guess it's the combination of the two that causes the "left without e-mail" to turn into a "non-declaration", and the "rain causing something" to become prominent.... hmm...
P.S.: Thank you for your continued patience and answers, like always. Before I came to this site, I was studying ahead in class and becoming very frustrated/intimidated by the subjunctive, thinking I would have to memorize countless lists of verbs. Your explanations throughout this forum have been invaluably helpful to me and caused the concept of the subjunctive to be so much easier/clearer, that my teacher recommended that I skip a level of Spanish because of my progress. Again, thank you so much.
Does the "rewording tool" always work?
For sentences where the direct object is the subordinate with a verb in subjunctive? Probably, most of the time. With other structures would be trickier. For example:
- Estoy buscando al hombre que repara bicicletas.
In a relative clause like this, by definition, the clause is linked to the main sentence by a common link - that's why they are called relative: because they relate to other parts of the sentence. Here, the rephrasing cannot be done without destroying the syntactic structure, so a different approach is required. Let's use English again:
- I am looking for the man who fixes ancient clocks in this shop.
Let's split it down:
- A man fixes ancient clocks in this shop. I am looking for this man.
Does it make sense so far? Relative sentences basically link two sentences like this, with a common element (ie. that "man"), and produces a single one where one is the subordinate clause and the other is the main one. Now a different example:
- I am looking for a guy who can speak 20 languages in this shop.
Here is where English relies on common sense and context, and Spanish is stubbornly super-precise. Question to you, Nick: according to this statement, is there a guy who speaks 20 languages in this shop? Well... you'll be probably thinking, it depends on who said such a thing, what shop,... Chances are the guy who said such a thing was just hoping that such a multilingual genius existed, but no one can tell for sure. This pragmatical guess works so well in practice, that a very rare occasional misunderstandings are just fine. In Spanish, however, there is no room for interpretation here: with indicative, there is such a guy, or at least you think so and that's why you are willing to make us participants of such information. Use subjunctive, and we won't even know whether you think there is such a guy or not; we'll simply check, and see what happens.
In other words, we use indicative in relative clauses when we want to inform others about our thoughts, regardless of the main sentence. If the content of the relative clause can be taken as an independent statement (ie. a declaration), it is because indicative is used. With subjunctive, who knows?
I'm still somewhat confused, especially with the sentence: "La lluvia produjo que me quedara sin correo electrónico".
...I feel as if you should be able to declare that you were left without e-mail, using the indicative.
I understand your frustration. One of the things I try to emphasize when I explain my personal usage of the word declaration, is that you mention the subordinate because you have the intention to communicate what you know, experienced,... regardless of the main sentence.
If something makes something else happen, this event is not a declaration, because from a cognitive point of view, it is not conceived without the cause expressed in the main sentence, and even though it is often understood through that sentence that the event took place, the clause does not exist on its own. Allow me to illustrate this using English sentences, so you can see how radically these non-declarations are from a real declaration (and I hope I haven't explained all this before):
- I think you are right
Being a declaration, "you are right" is a full declaration on its own, so rephrasing the sentence like this:
- Your are right, I think.
should give a sentence with identical meaning and intention. Even a "You are right", using the right intonation, should suffice. Notice that the declarative clause can have its own tense in this case:
- I think you were right
Now a causative:
- I made him stand.
If we rephrase, we'd get:
- Stand, I made him.
Clearly nonsense, and "stand" is not even in past tense because it strongly depends on the main sentence to make sense. Since it doesn't have an independent existence (the hallmark of a declaration), it doesn't even need to have a tense, as this will be provided by that of the main clause. A proper declaration should have read "stood" (but being "stood" does not guarantee that it is automatically a declaration. Careful!)
We just said "stand" because it was convenient in the main sentence to express things accurately, not because we want to inform other people that the guy stood. If that had been our main point, we'd have said "He stood", but the truth is that he didn't really stood, did he? I made him stand, which is not the same. As you can see, "stand" is not being declared here. Yes, English avoid declarations as well as Spanish, but using different mechanisms (sometimes only context and common sense; nothing else). Notice that not even this works:
- He stood, I made him.
Now, if you say "I made him stand", I will know immediately that he stood, but that doesn't mean that you wanted to declare that. You can communicate facts without declaring them, but in this case, you didn't want me to know that he stood, and that's what you think, suspect,... bla bla. You wanted me to know that YOU made him stand. No main clause, no coherence, no declaration.
And going back to the original sentence, although ending up without Internet access is a direct consequence of the rain (like "standing" when I force the guy), you are not guessing or believing that you lost your connection (or even saying that you know it, and that's it): the rain made you loose it, and the rain is the main character in our story. Without the rain, everything else should not be in this story.
That's the only strong argument I can think of right now. As I said, the problem is understanding what a declaration is, because people often look in the wrong direction, but the good news is, I believe that all languages declare and avoid declaring things. English certainly does.
Anyway, what do you think?
