About the different usages of se
A.¡Qué sorpresa! ¡ Cuánto tiempo sin verte! ¿ Dónde te metiste?
B.Fui a Madrid a estudiar;me dieron una beca.
A.¡Suerte tuviste! ¿Cuánto tiempo duró el curso?
B. Un año.Pero luego pedí una prórroga, de modo que estuve ahí dos años enteros.
A..¿Dónde te alojaste? Según dicen, es muy difícil encontrar alojamiento en Madrid.
B.Es verdad.Después de mucho trabajo,pude alojarme en un colegio mayor. Es una especia
de casa de estudiantes.Son mucho más baratos que hoteles u hostales, pero un poco más
caro que un piso. Sabes que puedes compartir un piso con otras personas y el alquiler se reparte entre todos. Además, en un piso tú puedes cocinar, pero eso no se permite en el colegio mayor. Lo que me gustaba de aquel colegio mayor era su ambiente internacional, pues ahí se alojaban jóvenes de casi todas las razas:blancos, negros, mestizos,mulatos,asiáticos.
A.¡Muy interesante! Oye,dime:el horario del colegio mayor debía ser bastante rígido,¿Verdad?
B.Por supuesto.Por ejemplo, el desayuno se servía entre las siete y media y las nueve.Si no querías perderlo,tenía que levantarte antes de esa hora. Comíamos a partir de las dos y cenábamos entre las nueve y las diez de la noche.No podíamos regresar muy tarde,porque el colegio mayor se cerraba a la una de la medianoche.
Can anyone explain me those SE ? The different usages of SE here? Do they mean the same? All passive? Thanks in advance.
5 Answers
I think!!!!
se reparte = passive 'se'. The rent (subject) will be shared out between everyone (but no specific agent mentioned. If it was pronominal 'se' I would have expected ..."se reparten todos"
se permite = passive 'se'. Again no agent mentioned. Cooking is not permitted in a college.
se servía = passive 'se' . Subject (el desayuno) but no agent. "Breakfast was served between seven.........."
se carraba = pronominal or passive 'se'. I'm not sure how this would be classed. You could say passive 'se' because no agent is mentioned. Or perhaps this is just pronominal 'se' because the college is closed at 1.
These are just my thoughts, please wait for a native speaker or somebody with more knowledge than I have to confirm!
Without going into unnecessarily profound details, it is fairly accurate to describe all those sentences in bold as passive-like. However, regardless of the terminology, they all share one common feature: the real agent is not mentioned for some reason. The context will determine whether this agent is concealed on purpose, it is relevant, it does not refer to anyone in particular... This interpretation requires both common sense and knowledge about the culture and habits of native speakers, not grammatical rules.
se reparte -> It doesn't matter who splits it up; the important thing is that it will be done
no se permite -> some people and/or some rules do not allow this; it is not allowed
se servía -> whoever was working that day was serving it; it was served
se cerraba -> whoever had the keys on a given night closed the door; it was closed
Una fila de plantas bastarnte altas separa el comedor de la sala de estar. La cocina está a la derecha, las tres zonas están muy bien distribu¡as y se distinguen claramente.
So here, se distinguen, It is reflexive too? As passive too? It's plural. Is it the same use as above, the difference just , this is plural,and examples above are singular, right?
Se reparte and se permite, are they both reflexive here?
Yes.
It seems all of your highlighted examples are passive construction using se.
Se reparte and se permite, are they both reflexive here?
