que significa "Se me fue"?
I admit I have problems with understanding IO and reflexive verbs, so I may just not be getting this one. I was listening to the song "Se Me Fue" by El Gran Combo and of course the machine translator said something that made no sense.
Anyone familiar with the song that can tell me the meaning?
15 Answers
I have always thought that the object pronouns go indirect object / direct object / verb.
That is one possible construction, but there are others. For example, in "Me gusta el cine", the construction is indirect object, verb and subject, in that order, since "gustar" can't take a direct object (it is intransitive). Many verbs can take an optional indirect object for many expressive purposes, but mostly to indicate how the verbal action affects you or involves you.
So in this case, se me fue. "se' is the indirect object, 'me' is the direct object and "fue' is the verb.
No. The verb is "irse", so "se... fue" is regarded in most grammar as the verb. Think of "to give up" in English, which is different from "to give" without that "up". When you say "Give it up", you are inserting an "it" between two words that together act as a single verb (in a way). In Spanish, you are inserting this "me" in the prototypical position of an indirect object, even though it separates "se" from "fue". Think of these two words as a block, rather than seeing "se" as a English-like-pronoun.
When se is used reflexively or pronominally I thought that it was being used as a direct object so "se fue" = he/she/you left (using irse). How can you slide an indirect object in between?
Direct and indirect objects are said to be reflexive when they point towards the subject of the sentence; this has nothing to do with the verb itself, but with the fact that both the subject and the object refer to the same person. A pronominal verb is a verb that goes with a pronoun in all its forms, and in this group there are several sub-groups depending on their behaviour. Remember that "se" in "se fue" is not an object, but an empty particle that binds to the verb to create synergistically a new type of verb, a bit like a phrasal verb in English.
Or more specifically is "me" an indirect or direct object pronoun in this case.
It is an indirect object. I'm 100% sure of it.
Qfreed posted a bit that makes sense that this may be a passive "se". Also is a passive "se" something other than a direct or indirect pronoun?
The term passive here is more than questionable, since passive constructions in Spanish are only possible with transitive verbs, and "ir" is intransitive. Grammatically speaking, it makes no sense to call it passive. Think of English: what is the meaning of that "up" in "to give up"? Does that mean that you are going up? You are giving something to someone who is up? You can't analyze this "up" as an isolated particle and expect it to be a plain adverb indicating position or direction; seeing it as part of the verb makes more sense, and that is how I'd advise you to see "se fue": not as a mere object pronoun (which it isn't, by the way), but a part of a more complex verb structure.
I hope it helps.
P.S. My crusade against the absurd usage of reflexive verb for non-reflexive verbs in Spanish never ends.
I thought reflexive verbs referred back to themselves
You are correct, but I am glad you are saying this, because in this verb there is absolutely nothing happening back to oneself, which is why this type of verb should not be called reflexive, but pronominal.
I guess I need the grammar explanation because I'm still lost (not uncommon). Why wouldn't it be "ella me fue"? Just not familiar with the use of 'se'
"Ella me fue" means "She went [to a place seems to be omitted to confuse native speakers] to me [????]"; in other words, it makes no sense. The pronominal verb is "irse" is used over "ir" when the destination is not relevant (e.g. I'm leaving), like in that sentence, where no destination is stated. Now that "Se fue" (he/she/it left/went away...) makes sense, you can add an indirect object "me" to indicate that you are (indirectly) affected somehow by the fact that he/she/it left. Some more natural translations could be "I lost him/her/it", "He/she left me" or similar ones that reflect your involvement in the event (e.g. your loss).
Tamaramarie -
Maybe your confusion stems from this not being a reflexive "se".
Once again, an expert in Spanish grammar can give you the technical details, but this is more of a passive use of "se". In English we don't say things like" It was forgotten to me" or "The train of thought was lost to him" or "He was gone to me". However, in Spanish this is a common structure.
Those who philosophize about languages and how their structure reflects or influences on human society have had a lot of fun discussing the societal impact on "It was forgotten to me" vs. "I forgot it". There are studies that claim that people who use the passive voice(it was forgotten to me) for this concept approach life differently than those who use the active voice (I forgot it).
Regardless, this is not a reflexive structure. It is the passive use of "se". I hope this helps clarify for you! It is a difficult concept sometimes...
I looked at the previous poster's link to the lyrics, and in the second line I see "se me fue la mujer", which clarifies that "la mujer" or "she" is the subject.
Either "She left me" or "she ran out on me" would work as translations.
To answer the broader question of "se me fue" or "se le fue" or "se nos fue", someone with a specialty in Spanish grammar can explain the actual grammatical ins and outs, but this is a common structure in Spanish. As was pointed out "se me fue la onda" or se me fue el hilo" means "I lost my train of thought"., Literally it is "the wave/the thread was gone to me". This is grammatically similar to the structure to "se me perdió el libro" (the book was lost to me - I lost the book) or "se le olvidó" (it was forgotten to him - he forgot it)
I was listening to the song "Se Me Fue"
This is a perfect sentence, but without more context, it probably means "She / he left me."
A typical idiom is "Se me fue la onda" (the wave left me) "I lost my train of thought."
I think it is "Irse".
Se me fue: he/she left me.
Se me fue.
I was left (by her / him / it)
Is this the correct way of thinking about this?
For what it's worth, I think that this would probably be an adequate translation in that it captures the main idea that (1) somebody left and that (2) somebody else was affected by this leaving.
If we wished to be a little picky, we might consider it to be a bit more consistent with the original structure of the Spanish sentence if we were to avoid the passive construction in favor of an active construction. For example, consider that
Se fue
can generally be translated as, "He/She left." By introducing the indirect object pronoun (in this case "me"), we introduce the notion that some other entity is being affected, in some manner, by the idea being expressed in the predicate. Keeping this idea in mind, consider the differences and similarities between the following two sentences:
?Se fue ? She left.
?Se me fue ? She left me.
Here we see that in contrast to the passive construction (i.e. I was left) that was suggested earlier, we maintain the active construction (i.e. She left). If we were really in the mood to split hairs, however, it might be possible to make the case that even this translation does not entirely coincide with the original Spanish construction. This is due to the fact that in English, the verb "to leave" is considered transitive, a fact which makes the "me" in this sentence act as a direct object.
In the original Spanish construction; however, we find that "me" appears in the dative form (i.e it appears as an indirect object pronoun). In this particular case, we might consider it to be what some grammarians term a "dative of interest" (a form which is common in many Latin derived and Germanic languages, but one which is typically absent from modern English)
Here, the idea of interest is used to describe the interest a person takes in (or how they consider themselves affected by) a particular action, or more specifically, whether the action is viewed as detrimental or beneficial.
In the case of "Se me fue" we see that the idea of her leaving (i.e. Se fue/She left) is of relevant or of particular interest to the person speaking. In this case, it might be viewed as something that was detrimental to the speaker (i.e. taken as a loss). For this reason, an extremely literal translation might be something like
Se me fue ? She left from me.
Here, we see that the action of her leaving is viewed as a sort of personal loss to the speaker. Unfortunately, the prepositional phrase "from me" would probably not be all that common in this particular context—as was mentioned earlier, the dative of interest is a form that is typically absent from modern English. However, because this particular structure is used to provide auxiliary, or rather structurally dispensable information, it also occasionally finds its analog in certain adjuncts. In particular, we can sometimes find a particular similarity to the idea of detriment when we consider certain English expressions which make use of prepositional phrases to convey the idea of doing something "on somebody." For example, a couple of fairly colloquial expressions which might be used to illustrate this point would be:
?Se me fue
? She up and left on me.
? She (up and) ran out on me.
? She walked out on me
?Se me rompió la computadora
? The computer broke on me.
? The computer (went and) died on me.
?Se me murió mi abuelo.
? My grandfather (went and) died on me
? My grandfather passed away on me
Interestingly, in English we sometimes see the verb preceded by an expression such as "went and" or "up and," expressions which (at least in my estimation) tend to emphasize the importance that the event has on the person.
In each of the examples above, the dative pronoun is used to add emphasis to the fact that the event has impacted the speaker in some way. In other words, we are not simply saying that, "She left," but instead we are emphasizing the impact that it had on the speaker (i.e. "She left on me or "She left" and "her leaving had an impact on me"). Similarly, we can note the difference in regards to how the event affects the speaker when we consider the difference between, "The computer broke" vs "The computer broke on me" and, "My grandfather died" vs "My grandfather died on me."
It might be helpful at this point to dissect one final example that was taken from a recent news article:
Chau Flaco: Al arte se le fue una voz imprescindible
As indicated by the title, the article is about Chau Flaco, a singer who died recently of lung cancer. In the portion of the text which follows, "Al arte se le fue una voz imprescindible" we see that the subject of the sentence is "una voz" so that essentially we have "Una voz se fue" or "An essential voice left" (or perhaps more colloquially, "an essential voice is gone"). Now, when we add the dative of interest "Al arte/le" we are commenting on the impact this loss has on "the art (of music)." The main concept to grasp is in the fact that with Chau Flaco's passing, or rather, with the departure of this "essential voice" the dative is being use to inform us, or emphasize the fact that this action has had a detrimental effect on (i.e. has taken away from) the music world. In this sense, an adequate translation might be seen with something like:
Chau Flaco: An essential voice departed from music.
Or perhaps a bit more liberally
Chau Flaco: An essential voice was taken from the music world
Catchy salsa song, listen on YouTube
Se me fue, bendito se me fue.
Se me fue la mujer, pa' lla pa nueva york
Yes, it means, He left me, she left me, and even it left me (like sand, water between your fingers, your car, etc.
- Are you talking about, Se me fue, by Miriam Hernández? I love that song! Se me fue sin avisar, no le pude acompañar, a su cita con la oscuridad....Yo no sé si me extraño, si al final me perdono, sólo sé que ya no está, lo que es peor, no volverá...
I guess I need the grammar explanation because I'm still lost (not uncommon). Why wouldn't it be "ella me fue"? Just not familiar with the use of 'se'
I thought reflexive verbs referred back to themselves (i.e. lavarse to wash oneself, using this example "se me lava" would mean "he/she washes me" and I don't think that's right at all)
OK, so the verb IS Irse but it's NOT considered reflexive it's considered pronomial/passive? eyes crossing
Well, I think I'll rely on just asking what the hell things mean until I understand this a little better. I appreciate the explanations though.
Okay i am a little confused. Please help.
I have always thought that the object pronouns go indirect object / direct object / verb. So in this case, se me fue. "se' is the indirect object, 'me' is the direct object and "fue' is the verb.
When se is used reflexively or pronominally I thought that it was being used as a direct object so "se fue" = he/she/you left (using irse). How can you slide an indirect object in between?
Or more specifically is "me" an indirect or direct object pronoun in this case. And if it is an indirect object pronoun then what is the "se", indirect or direct? And if "se" is a direct why does it come in front of the "me"?
Qfreed posted a bit that makes sense that this may be a passive "se". Also is a passive "se" something other than a direct or indirect pronoun?
Se me fue. I lost it.
Se me fue.
I was left (by her / him / it)
Is this the correct way of thinking about this?
Word Order: Reflexive pronouns usually come before the verb and before any other object pronouns, for example
I found this on another website. I think it helps. As I take it the reflexive pronoun will usually come first and may be followed by a direct object pronoun or an indirect object pronoun. I had always assumed that the reflexive pronoun (because it came first) was the indirect object pronoun. But thanks to Lazarus1907's great explanations and the above quote I now understand that reflexive pronouns are considered separate and apart from direct and indirect object pronouns.
I think and hope that "se' just got a little easier for me to understand.
