La pasiva refleja: some odd constructions that confuse me.
I just read a translation from English to Spanish that had me doing a double take:
The dog was surrounded by a crowd of rowdy kids.
El perro se rodeó por una multitud de chiquillos alborotosos.
The person who translated this was told (many times, I bet) that in Spanish, pasive constructions are used, but they arenot as common as in English. So I am assuming he decided to use the pasiva refleja instead. Although I can't quite put it into words, his translation doesn't seem to work. It seems to me that what he wrote is really "The dog surrounded itself with a crowd of rowdy kids". (I would have said "Una multitud de chiquillos alborotosos rodeó al perro".) Could anyone help me?
Am I correct in my suspicion? And if you guys know, could you help me explain why his translation is wrong, so I can explain it to him?
¡Gracias, chicos y chicas!
8 Answers
no se puede decir alborotosos, debes decir alborotados.
Takers?
Se rodeó means he was surrounded. It is not used with por to name a party, as you cannot name the other party, or, it is implied that the other party is unknown. (although you can say "la casa se construyó por etapas" the house was built in stages, etc...)
El barco se destruyó - The ship was destroyed. By parties unknown.
El barco fue destruido por otro barco.
El perro se rodeó - The dog was surrounded.
El perro fue rodeado por una multitud....... - this is correct.
El perro se rodeó de una multitud...... The dog surrounded himself with..... de makes the difference there and can be used.
Una multitud de chiquillos alborotosos rodeó al perro is also correct. Assuming that "alborotosos" is a word, I've never used it.
Not native. Just my input.
I think the problem with this sentence "El perro se rodeó por una multitud de chiquillos alborotosos" is that in the passive reflexive voice the agent (una multitud de chiquillos alborotosos) can't be mentioned. In a case like this I believe its preferable to use the passive voice with ser "El perro fue rodeado por....". I think your sentence is correct too.
I'm not sure if I've got this right but it seems to me that the reflexive pronoun plus the verb in the preterite often means 'became' as in 'became surrounded' which might not be the way we'd say it in this case in English but at least gives the understanding that it was something that happened as an action in the past. Hmmmm I don't think I'm explaining this very well but here's another example from the 'to become' game:
me iluminé, o que me volví iluminado = both mean 'I became enlightened'
So....I'm not sure if it's right or wrong as se rodeó ..... obviously also means 'he surrounded himself......' but just thought I'd throw it out there je je 
Back again - I've just asked a Venezuelan friend and he said that your sentence would never be said like that, it would be:
El perro fue rodeado por una multitud de niños alborotados.
¡Para servirle!
Looking in our dictionary under rodear, the sentence would have had to use de to equal your interpretation.
rodear de -> to surround oneself with
And your interpretation is reflexive, but not passive.
Your suggested sentence is also active voice; not passive. It may be correct, but it is not saying the same thing.
Any others takers? I'm interested to see if there are any other thoughts re this thread
Thanks, guys. I know I changed it to active. I understand that although passive constructions (the so-called "true passive") exist in Spanish, it's something that should be used sparingly.
As for the translation...(El perro se rodeó por una multitud de chiquillos alborotosos) my point is that I don't think it's something a native would say to refer to a dog having been surrounded by a crowd, when meaning that the dog itself had nothing to do with it. Is it even grammatically correct? I do understand that the most accurate translation would have been El perro fue rodeado por...
I always surround myself with friends and family is not the same as My family and friends always surround me, is it?
