Impersonal and passive
I am more and more convinced every day that certain aspects of a language should be learnt by understanding the effect and the meaning, without paying too much attention to the grammatical jargon. Even I have to think for a few seconds sometimes before giving the right syntactic analysis. If I had to perform such a slow analysis, even if it only took one second, it would be far too slow to maintain a proper conversation. Nevertheless, some people have requested some "grammatical" clarification, so here it goes:
What is an impersonal sentence?
Impersonal sentences are those where the agent does not exist, or it has been hidden or ignored. This effect can be achieved in many ways.
From the interpretation of the sentence. One way is to use a passive with "se" are which have a subject, but no agent is mentioned. The subject must agree with it: "Se vende un piso", "Se venden dos pisos" (See below for more details). The normal passive achieves the same impersonal effect: "El museo ha sido restaurado". Another method is to use "tú" or "uno": "En esta universidad tienes que estudiar mucho / ...uno tiene que...", where that "tú" is not the person you are talking to, but anyone.
From the interpretation and the syntax. Sentences using an impersonal "se" don't have a subject (at all), and no agent can be found either. The verb is always in the third person singular (See below for details). Sentences in the 3rd person plural can be used to achieve a similar effect: "Me han robado el bolso", where the subject is not "ellos", but God-knows-who. In this case, the agent is completely unknown, and "ellos" cannot be mentioned, or the meaning of the sentence changes, and you'd be referring to a particular group of people that you know of. Other sentences with non-finite forms, like "Es preferible votar" have a subject (votar), but "votar" doesn't have one, so there is no specific agent to be found either.
Syntactically, verbs like "llover", "nevar", "son (las tres de la tarde)", "hacer (calor/frío/...)", "hay (algo)", "hace (un año que no te veo)", "hay (que trabajar más)", "parece (que...)" have no subject or agent. There are a few others, like "Falta (de todo)", "Da (miedo verlos pelear)"...
Differences between impersonal "se" and passive with "se"
While in plural it is obvious that it cannot be an impersonal "se" (these must be always in 3rd person singular), in singular it is not so clear, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to differentiate them. However, in terms of classification, according to the RAE, the impersonal "se" is only used with
(1) direct objects that refer to specific people, and therefore they require the personal "a": "Se entrevistó a los jugadores"
(2) intransitive verbs: "Se vive bien, se come bien..."
The passive reflexive verbs are used only with transitive verbs, except when they refer to specific people and the direct object has no personal "a".
I hope this helps. Questions?
7 Answers
Do "Se entrevistó a los jugadores" and "Se entrevistaron los jugadores" mean exactly the same thing (in English)—that is, "The players were interviewed?"
The risk in using a passive construction with a specific human beings is that it is ambiguous. It could also mean that the players interviewed one another, for example. It is more unlikely that they interviewed themselves, but think of other verbs like "Se vistieron los niños". Is it "The children were dressed (by the parents)"? "The children dressed each other"? "The children dressed themselves"?
"Se entrevistó a los jugadores" has only one possible interpretation, because the subject of a passive with "se" can never have an "a", so this means "(Someone) interviewed the players" (in English, "The players were interviewed"). English has not overloaded its passive structures with so many uses, so these things are not a problem, but in Spanish these differences are important because of the multiple uses of "se".
Yes...I have one which doesn't relate to the uses or definitions of the impersonal and passive se but on how they both came to be established.
The passive "se" is older than the impersonal one, and the main reason why the impersonal was created was to avoid the ambiguities mentioned above. Later, its usage incorporated intransitive verbs, like in "Se duerme fatal en esta cama". The origins of the "se" in the first place is a much longer story... which I'll tackle another day.
Do "Se entrevistó a los jugadores" and "Se entrevistaron los jugadores" mean exactly the same thing (in English)—that is, "The players were interviewed?"
Yes...I have one which doesn't relate to the uses or definitions of the impersonal and passive se but on how they both came to be established. I understand what you've explained...and thank you, but I'm generally curious about language and that is why I put this question to you.
Can "Se hizo pan." mean either "Bread was made.", "(Some)one made bread.", etc. or--as might occur in magical realism--"(He) became bread." ?
A friend told me , Se entrevistó a los jugadores
and
entrevistaron a los jugadores
are both impersonales forms.
Se entrevistó a los jugadores.
This is impersonal, because it with A?
Se entrevistó los jugadores.
This is passive? Those players were interviewed. No matter who interviewed them. could be any ones? Am I right? Just know those players WERE interviewed by someone.
Se entrevistó a los jugadores" --- Is this sentence a impersonal form?
"Se entrevistaron los jugadores--- Is this sentence a passive form?
I think so, but not sure if I am right.
