Question to the subjunctive
I have a question to the following exercise (Complete Spanish Grammar, Nissenberg, p. 149).
Escribe la forma apropiada del presente de subjunctivo de los verbes entre paréntesis.
No puedes entrar en un probador a menos que _______ (tener) la llave.
The answer given to me is: tengas
As I understood, the infinitive is used if the subject in the main clause and the dependent clause are the same.
The subject in the main clause is "Tú" and in the dependent clause as well. So why is the answer tengas and not tienes?
16 Answers
The subject in the main clause is "Tú" and in the dependent clause as well. So why is the answer tengas and not tienes?
Very simple: indicative "indicates" (or declares). If you say "tienes", you are telling the other person that he does have the key. The sentence with indicative would be like "You cannot enter the changing room unless you have the key... You have the key!!", in other words, silly. In Spanish, rather than just nonsensical, it is not grammatically correct. You are not using the verb "tener" to inform the other person that he has the key, but to complete your declaration, which is "you cannot go in...", plus the condition that has to be met, which involves the use of the verb "tener", but not to inform the other person, but simply to complete a subordinate clause. The verb "tener" does not indicate anything, it is not used independently, but merely as a subordinate verb, which is what subjunctive does.
The difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods in Spanish is really the difference between the empirical and the hypothetical, the real and the imaginary, what is the case and what can be or could have been the case.
So why "Supongo que estará en casa, pero no lo sé con certeza" is rather hypothetical or imaginary and yet it uses indicative? Why "Me alegro de que estés en el foro" expresses a fact, something real (estás en el foro), and yet it uses subjunctive?
When it is so easy to find a counter-example, the rule has to be discarded as useless right away, and look for a better one.
The expression "a menos que" necessitates the answer "tengas." In particular, "a menos que" is one of several expressions in Spanish that always take the subjunctive, that translate most often as "unless," and that refer to an exception.
"Having the key" (tener la llave) is an exception to the idea contained in the preceding clause. "You are unable to get into the fitting room" (No puedes entrar un probador), unless you have a key (the exception).
But why the subjunctive? Because the exception is hypothetical, possible, imaginary rather than real. Spanish uses the subjunctive in a way that English abandoned long ago. The difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods in Spanish is really the difference between the empirical and the hypothetical, the real and the imaginary, what is the case and what can be or could have been the case.
Look again at the sentence of your question. "You cannot get into a fitting room" is an empirical reference to a real state of affairs in the world; it tells you what is the case. "Unless you have a key" is a hypothetical reference about a possible (not real) state of affairs in the world; you may have a key or you may not; the clause tells you what could be the case, the exception to the statement of the preceding clause, "You (really) can't get into a fitting room, unless (hypothetically/the exception) you have a key."
There are several structures that use an infinitive or an indicative in a subordinate clause, but that is not a universal rule.
Again, the mood of the verb depends on whether the reference is empirical or hypothetical, real or imaginary. Use the subjunctive mood after all phrases that mean unless: a menos que, a no ser que, excepto que, como no, como no sea que, salvo que.
I don't know why he followed asking about tienes? His question should have been why isn't the infiinitive used rather that forming a surbordinate clause using a conjugated verb. So why isn't the answer tener rather than tienes/tengas?
It is often said that the same sentence as the the subordinate clause is the same, you use infinitive, but while this works quite often, it is not a rule. The reality is more complex. For starters, in some sentences, the infinitive is used when the direct object of the main sentence matches the subject of the subordinate:
Lo obligué a cambiarse (lo and él refer to the same person)
Infinitive replaces certain subordinates, but the adverbial ones like the one in this thread only accept infinitives if they can be used with nouns, since infinitives can be used with nouns:
Iré antes de mañana [noun] - Iré antes de comer [infinitive]
Iré cuando vengas - Iré cuando venir [wrong!]
Lo hice pese a todo [noun] = Lo hice pese a estar enfermo [infinitive + atribute]
"A menos que" must be followed by a finite verb, so the infinitive is not used here.
Interrogative subordinates and sentences are a case apart (which I won't discuss here):
¿Cuándo ir? / No sé cuándo ir.
No puedes entrar en un probador sin tener la llave.
Easy: No puedes entrar sin llaves [noun]
Does it make sense?
In my book it says that the subjunctive is always used after the following phrases:
En caso de que {in case}
sin que {without, unless}
con tal (de) que [provided that}
antes (de) que {before}
para que {so that, in order that}
a menos que {unless}
Since your sentence uses a menos que the subjunctive is always used after that phrase.
The book further suggests that, when listed in the order shown above, they form the acronym E S C A P A , a useful memory device.
Besides, there are lots of hypothetical sentences that don't take the subjunctive. That's because hypothesis and subjunctive are not related.
Si vienes, podemos ir juntos al concierto.
¿Por qué no te pasas por aquí mañana?
Cambiaría gustosamente de coche, pero no tengo dinero.
Imagínate que ganas el concurso. ¿Qué haces después con todo ese dinero?
Are these perceived as real facts by the speaker?
Likewise, in the Spanish sentence, "Me alegro que estés en el foro," the speaker refers to his interlocutor's presence in the forum as a hypothetical, a supposition, not an empirical fact. Is it an empirical fact? Yes. But the speaker, in the grammar of the sentence, does not refer to that presence as a fact with the verb "estar" in the sentence. Phrased another way, the presence is a reality or an empirical fact. But that has nothing to do with the sentence. The speaker of the sentence is not saying that it's a reality. I can say, "I am delighted that this should be the case." Is it the case? Sure. Are you saying that it is the case here? No. You refer to it as a hypothetical, an eventuality, not an event.
More to the point, the speaker is not telling the person they are on the forum, because they obviously already know that they are there. Since the speaker is not informing the listener, it is not a declaration and is therefore not in the indicative. It has nothing to do with anything being hypothetical.
Let me continue my reply to the confusion in the answer by lazarus1907.
cdpresberg, insulting me in front of everybody, treating me like an ignorant, and address everyone else as if I wasn't here is arrogant and rather rude, but unlike you, I will address you, and I will comment on your confusion.
Likewise, in the Spanish sentence, "Me alegro que estés en el foro," the speaker refers to his interlocutor's presence in the forum as a hypothetical, a supposition,
I know you are in the forum, you know you are in the forum, everyone knows you are in the forum. That is a fact. But according to you, that is hypothetical and a supposition?? 
...not an empirical fact. Is it an empirical fact? Yes.
...if you properly understand their grammar.
I understand perfectly their grammar, but I don't think I understand "your grammar"... or your logic. I will be surprised if you have read any academic paper on the subjunctive that I haven't, because I have read almost every publication I could find about the topic, including all the ones by the RAE, and anything I could find in the Internet.
But the speaker, in the grammar of the sentence, does not refer to that presence as a fact with the verb "estar" in the sentence.
I would like to know a formal definition of what you call "the grammar of the sentence", but the speaker is me, and I meant it as a fact.
Phrased another way, the presence is a reality or an empirical fact. But that has nothing to do with the sentence.
This is the closest thing of everything you've said that might actually make some sort of sense so far.
The speaker of the sentence is not saying that it's a reality.
Of course the speaker (me) is implying that it is a reality. I wouldn't say "Me alegro de que estés en el foro" unless you are actually here.
Is it the case? Sure. Are you saying that it is the case here? No. You refer to it as a hypothetical, an eventuality, not an event.
According to my Collins, eventuality is "a possible event, occurrence, or result". If I say "Es increíble que hayas terminado tan rápido", I don't see how it is a possible event.
And now you can figure out why this use of the subjunctive has disappeared altogether in American English and is disappearing quickly from British English.
The English subjunctive is disappearing for completely different reasons, since most Germanic languages found alternative ways of expressing things that a language like Spanish would not be able to express if the subjunctive disappeared (at least, not without creating alternative mechanisms first, which still do not exist).
Can I jump in? (without being handed my head). The explanation about the subjunctive or indicative mood is informative, but is no one going to answer the original question (which seemed to have a flaw in it's flow of logic)?
As I understood, the infinitive is used if the subject in the main clause and the dependent clause are the same.
The subject in the main clause is "Tú" and in the dependent clause as well.
I don't know why he followed asking about tienes? His question should have been why isn't the infiinitive used rather that forming a surbordinate clause using a conjugated verb. So why isn't the answer tener rather than tienes/tengas?
So why is the answer tengas and not tienes? (Where did that come from?)
No puedes entrar en un probador sin tener la llave.
I would explain more why a menos que requires a clause with a conjugated verb after it than which mood that the verb is in. [whether it is appropriate since there is no subject change]
That's right. The sentence, "You cannot get into the dressing room, unless you have the key," is indicative in English, subjunctive (the second verb) in Spanish.
An older form, hardly ever used in English any more, would draw on the subjunctive. Let me use third person to illustrate the point. "He cannot go into the dressing room, lest he have (NOT HAS) the key." But, in more standard English today: "He cannot go into the dressing room unless he has (NOT HAVE) the key."
The mood is indicative in English because the reference is now empirical. English speakers have stopped thinking about the action in the second clause of such sentences as possibilities rather than facts, eventualities rather than events. Spanish retains the older way of thinking and expressing the relation between the first (empirical) and second (hypothetical) action in these structures.
Hola Chileno,
Es difícil ver el subjuntivo en inglés porque el subjuntivo (del presente) solo es el infinitivo sin "to". Pero, es fácil verlo en el verbo "to be" cuando es usado en el subjuntivo porque "be" no es usado mucho en las conjugaciones de indicativo. En el caso de "to have", por otra parte, "have" sí es usado con frecuencia en ellas.
Entonces, si hacemos un ejemplo de "to be" será más claro si usamos el subjuntivo en la frase "unless + subjeto + verbo" o no.
You may not attend the event unless you be properly dressed. (subjuntivo usado y no es correcto)
You may not attend the event unless you are properly dressed. (sin subjuntivo y sí es correcto)
Lo primero me suena casi como si es dicho por un pirato (ja ja). Pues no, no me parece que usemos el subjuntivo en este caso...al menos, no en inglés.
(¡Que me corrijan el español con libertad!)
Let me continue my reply to the confusion in the answer by lazarus1907. The sentences there are not "counterexamples" at all, but examples of my earlier answer, if you properly understand their grammar.
Why use the subjunctive in a sentence like, "Me alegro que estés en el foro." Let me kill two birds with one stone here and point to how this sentence would find subjunctive expression in English--a usage that you can still find in British English, though almost never in American English.
You can translate "Me alegro que estés en el foro" as "I am delighted that you should be in the forum." American speakers would never use the subjunctive ("should) here. Now, the modal auxialiary "should" sometimes indicates the subjunctive mood, as it does here.
Take another example: "I am sad to know that he should fall into such confusion about the subjunctive mood." The "should" here, too, is subjunctive; it refers to the person's confusion as a hypothetical, supposititious reality. "But the confusion is real," you might answer. Yes. But the speaker of the sentence is not referring to the confusion as real. That's the whole point of using the subjunctive mood. Notice, too, that the subjunctive is more polite that the indicative ("I am sad that he is so confused/has fallen into such confusion...). Hence the commonplace use of the subjunctive in polite requests: "Quisiera preguntarle algo" is softer, more polite than "Quiero preguntarle algo." Do you "want" something in both cases? Of course. But you make the sentence more polite by referring to your wish as a hypothetical, using the subjunctive.
Likewise, in the Spanish sentence, "Me alegro que estés en el foro," the speaker refers to his interlocutor's presence in the forum as a hypothetical, a supposition, not an empirical fact. Is it an empirical fact? Yes. But the speaker, in the grammar of the sentence, does not refer to that presence as a fact with the verb "estar" in the sentence. Phrased another way, the presence is a reality or an empirical fact. But that has nothing to do with the sentence. The speaker of the sentence is not saying that it's a reality. I can say, "I am delighted that this should be the case." Is it the case? Sure. Are you saying that it is the case here? No. You refer to it as a hypothetical, an eventuality, not an event.
And now you can figure out why this use of the subjunctive has disappeared altogether in American English and is disappearing quickly from British English. It is an excessive subtlety (in English) to refer to what both speaker and interlocutor know as an empirical fact as though it were a hypothetical. That's why the more common form of the sentence would be in the indicative, "I am sad that he HAS FALLEN (empirical reference) into such confusion about the subjunctive mood."
It is common in English to refer to such confusion as an empirical fact and, for that reason, to use the indicative mood. The subjunctive in Spanish has held firm, referring to phenomena as hypothetical when you would refer to the same phenomena in English as empirical, using the indicative.
A final point: Mood in grammar is akin to what philosophers call and "attitude" or a point of view in thinking. English urges a more empirical (less hypothetical) attitude or point of view toward experience than Spanish, as shown by a strong tendency in English to use the indicative mood when you would use the subjunctive mood in Spanish.
Are you saying that "you cannot get in the dressing room unless you have the key is not in subjunctive in English????
Because in English also it is in the subjunctive.
You cannot get in the dressing room unless you have the key.
It is not the same have as in "I have the keys to this place"
Right?
Indeed, I find it fascinating.
I don't know, rather I don't recall much of my own grammar and of course I cannot say I know English grammar.
I know, though, that British people use the subjunctive , not so American people.
So my question is to the American public, and forgetting all you know about grammar.
Is it, to you, the same "have" in the following phrases?
I mean, does it form the same concept in your mind?
You cannot enter the room unless you have the key.
I can enter the room because I have the key.
Thanks.
You cannot enter the room unless you have the key.
Restructure it as a standard conditional:
If you have the key, you can enter the room. (indicative/indicative)
If you had the key, you could enter the room. (subjunctive/conditional)
