subjunctive grammar point
"Si amas algo, sueltalo. si te regresa a ti, es el tuyo. si no, nunca te fue al principio"
I found this elsewhere on the site, and it was vetted as being grammatically correct - can someone explain to me why regresar does not use the subjunctive? It seems to me that there is the uncertainty that I typically associate with the subjunctive here.
For example: "Me gusta a esa mujer, espero que ella regrese manana"
Is it simply that there is no emotion associated with regresar? Thanks for any insight.
Jim
12 Answers
I think a review of the conditionals might help:
0 conditional=if can be replaced by when=universal truth.
If I heat water to 100°C (S T P), then it will boil.
1st conditonal
If this likely to occur situation (real) arises, then this will be the most probable outcome.
2nd conditional
if this *unlikely to occur * would have arisen, then this would have been the most probable outcome.
3rd conditional
If this did not happen (unreal) had arisen, then most probable outcome would have had occured
The point being that the reality of the if clause is what is important, not the probability of the outcome occurring.
"Si amas algo, suéltalo. Si
teregresa a ti, eseltuyo. Si no, nuncate fue al principionunca lo ha sido"
There were a few mistakes in the sentence.
Why regresar does not use the subjunctive?
It's a mistake to think that subjuctive is related to uncertainty. It certainly is not. You will find thousands of examples in which indicative expresses uncertainty, like the one you gave above.
"Me gusta
aesa mujer, espero que ella regrese mañana"
It's another mistake to believe that subjunctive is associated with emotion, sorry. Where did you read that ?
Would you say that all the conditionals of this kind:
If + subject+ present + subject + future
Si vienes, iré contigo
are universal truths?
Careful with this example. The original apodosis (the "then" clause) contained a verb in the present indicative rather than the future indicative.
When the verb in the protasis (the "if" clause) is in the present indicative and is followed by a verb in the future indicative in the apodosis, this type of relationship often results in a "cause and effect" relationship.
As far as universal truths are concerned, these are a subset of cause and effect relationships and are used to describe conditions which always lead to a certain predictable outcome. Generally, these are expressed by placing the present indicative in both the apodosis and protasis. For example:
?If it rains, it (always) gets wet outside.
This, indeed, could be described as a universal truth. If we amend the statement slightly, we see that, whether the premise is valid in all conditions or not, such propositions are indeed presented as though they were always true:
?If it rains, I (always) get wet.
Another way to look at such a statement is to replace the word "if" with the word "whenever."
?Whenever it rains, it gets wet outside.
?Whenever it rains, I get wet.
It would be difficult to argue that the second statement does indeed represent a "universal truth" as it could not possibly be true in all possible conditions. For example, if the person were in a house or a vehicle, would the proposition still hold true? It's doubtful. Despite this lack of consistency, however, the structure of the sentence does indeed present the proposition through the lens of universality. Such a statement carries a sort of fatalistic slant. For example, imagine a man living out in the wilderness with no shelter available; it would be reasonable to see how this statement would reflect a sort of universally true statement were he to utter it. In this case, the statement extends slightly beyond a typical cause and effect type scenario.
If we change the structure, so that the verb in the apodosis is conjugated in the future indicative, we see that we are no longer able to speak of a universal truth, but of a simple cause and effect relationship:
?If it rains, I will get wet.
We might extend this reasoning to the example mentioned above. Compare the following two sentences:
?Si vienes, iré contigo ? If you come, I will go with you.
?Si vienes, voy contigo ? If you come, I go with you.
Here, the second statement carries the strong implication that the two events are more intimately connected than is true of the first. I suppose that we might say that such propositions approach universality, or the idea that if one condition occurs then some result always follows, or at least from the viewpoint of the speaker. And it is this last little bit—from the viewpoint of the speaker—that itself makes it difficult to ascribe the title "universal truth" to any proposition.
That is to say that given that all so called truths are limited by both one's imperfect perceptional abilities and one's flawed system of value judgments (i.e. one's ability to comprehend and/or identify that which is perceived), it is difficult, at least philosophically, to argue that "universal truths" are even conceptually available to any given speaker. Moreover, due to these limitations, all statements of fact should be considered relativistic rather than universal in nature. Nevertheless, such an argument is extremely esoteric and does not take away from the fact that many arguments are indeed presented as being "universally true," and that such arguments generally follow a standard syntactic arrangement. For example, if I were to say:
?If water reaches 100°C, it boils.
I would be making a statement that, from my limited perspective, I might hold to be a universally true statement. However, were I to learn that the boiling point of a substances is not only related to temperature but to pressure as well, I would find that my original statement is not universal at all, but relativistic in nature so that, in order to make this statement coincided universally with my newfound understanding of nature, I would have to amend my statement to:
?If water reaches 100°C under 1 atm of pressure, it boils.
The fact that my original statement needed to be amended to coincide with a new understanding of reality shows that it is difficult to ascribe universality to any proposition as all such statements can only be considered to have a statistically high chance of being true. That is to say that based upon observed phenomenon and our interpretation of such phenomenon, we might consider something universally true, but by the very limited nature whereby such assumptions arise, we might see that such assumptions/assertions can only be relativistic in nature.
Of course, I am approaching this subject handicapped by my own admittedly shoddy understanding of both Spanish syntax/usage and classical logic patterns, so if you find me to be in error in any way, please feel free to point this out.
In any case, this syntactic arrangement, as you may have noticed, is very similar in both Spanish and English, and this is no mere coincidence as many of these philosophical ideas as well as the corresponding syntactic arrangements have been handed down to us, more or less intact, from classical Greek.
This is a universal truth rather than a statement about a particular event that might occur in the future, so the indicative is used. This is true in English as well.
The reason it is in the indicative is because you are declaring something that you believe (to be true), and the indicative is used whenever you declare something.
Ok. In Spanish:
When you come, I'll go with you. = you are sure they are going to come
If you come, I'll go with you. = you think they'll come, but you're not sure
If you were to come, I would go with you = you don't think they'll come, but if they do. . .
Cuando vengas, iré contigo--> I'm sure you are coming
Si vienes, iré contigo--> I don't know whether you are coming, but I'm sure in case you do, I will go with you. I think that you can/could come, (or I want you to come!)
Si vinieras, iría contigo --> I don't know whether you are coming either. If you did, I would go, but we both know, that's not going to happen...
I think it works similarly
At first sight , only at first sight ( let me think about it) I think I disagree with this--> Your example is about a future event that you believe will happen ( !?????!!!) so you use the indicative.
In English:
When you come, I'll go with you. = you are sure they are going to come
If you come, I'll go with you. = you think they'll come, but you're not sure
If you were to come, I would go with you = you don't think they'll come, but if they do. . .
Lorenzo, I found this to be very interesting. It made me think for awhile. So, would you say that all the conditionals of this kind:
If + subject+ present + subject + future
Si vienes, iré contigo
are universal truths?
Not at all. I am saying that universal truths are declarations of something you believe to be true, thus are indicative. This has nothing to do with other aspects of the grammatical structure of the sentence, nor about statements that are not universal truths but happen to use a similar structure.
Your example is about a future event that you believe will happen, so you use the indicative. One of the differences between English and Spanish is that you use:
When + subject + present + subject + future
to indicate a higher level of belief than
If + subject + present + subject + future
It's another mistake to believe that subjunctive is associated with emotion, sorry. Where did you read that ?
From Spanishdict.com
The subjunctive is used to express: Wishes, Emotions, Impersonal Expressions, Recommendations, Doubt/Denial, and is used after the word Ojalá (I hope to God that...).
It's a mistake to think that subjuctive is related to uncertainty.
The subjunctive is used to express: Wishes, Emotions, Impersonal Expressions, Recommendations, Doubt/Denial, and is used after the word Ojalá (I hope to God that...).
After reading Lazarus different posts on the subjunctive, I understand where you're coming from. But, for a native English speaker, this is a difficult concept to grasp. Especially because every Spanish text book I've ever seen teaches that the subjunctive is 'related' to expressing emotions and doubts.
The way I understand it, the subjunctive mood applies to a dependent clause. The verb following "If" is the primary verb, and remains indicative.
Check out section "VI - "If" clauses" on this page: link
I think a review of the conditionals might help:
0 conditional=if can be replaced by when=universal truth.
If I heat water to 100°C (S T P), then it will boil.
This is actually an example of a so-called first conditional structure (Notice that the apodosis or result clause carries a verb in the future indicative). In this type of construction, the information is presented as a relatively predictable event; however, because we refer to it with the future tense, the degree of certainty is considered (by this criteria) to be smaller than it would be had we referred to it using the present indicative.
A zero conditional for the statement above, then, might take the following forms:
?If (i.e. whenever) I heat water to 100°C (at s.t.p.), it boils
By this standard, it is also possible to use the past indicative to make a zero-conditional statement:
?If (i.e. whenever) I heated water to 100°C (at s.t.p.), it boiled.
In Spanish, such "zero conditionals" might likewise be interpreted by certain "when (cuando)" statements:
?Si (cuando) se calienta el agua hasta que alcanza 100 ºC, hierve
Cuando vengas, iré contigo--> I'm sure you are coming
Si vienes, iré contigo--> I don't know whether you are coming, but I'm sure in case you do, I will go with you. I think that you can/could come, (or I want you to come!)
This is where I get confused, because many sites teaching Spanish to native English speakers reverse the meanings in English for these two sentences.
Since those sites are written by native English speakers (and contain other errors on the subjunctive according to native Spanish speakers), I'll take your word on it. 
This is a universal truth rather than a statement about a particular event that might occur in the future, so the indicative is used. This is true in English as well.
Lorenzo, I found this to be very interesting. It made me think for awhile. So, would you say that all the conditionals of this kind:
If + subject+ present + subject + future
Si vienes, iré contigo
are universal truths?
