Present subjunctive after si
Since we do not get corrections much on the daily threads anymore I wanted to ask about this sentence:
http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/285703/la-palabra-del-da-incansable#a928360
CodyAndrews1993
Mi perrito siempre me está madrugando cada día para jugar con sus amigos. Si estéis tan incansable como él, nunca podríais dormir.
My dog is always waking me up early to play with his friends. If you were as relentless as he is (and it's likely that you aren't), you could never sleep.
I wrote a couple of comments:
• http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/condic.htm IV Reminders/tips A. The present subjunctive is NOT used after si (“if”)! I think you need past subjunctive. I would not have used present progressive in your sentence either, but I am just a learner.
-bosquederobl 28 mins ago delete flag
• I of course meant in the Spanish, we misuse present progressive like that in English not infrequently.
To which the poster, who lists as fluent in both Spanish and English, responded:
• The present subjunctive actually can be used, but only in very minimal circumstances. In this case, because it is unlikely that everyone is as relentless as my dog. - CodyAndrews1 20 mins ago flag
Now I have learned that occasionally in some set uses present subjunctive can be used after si, mostly I have seen "no sé si sea", but this is unusual and not a broad rule, and in almost all cases in hypothetical if sentences being combined with conditional, past subjunctive should be used instead.
If I were capable of giving corrections, I might have written:
Mi perrito me despierta temprano todos los días para jugar con sus amigos (o para que juegue con sus amigos). Si fuerais (fueran **ustedes) tan incansable como él, nunca podríais (podrían) dormir.**
The first parentheses are because I am not sure if he is being woken up to play with the dog's friends, or so that the dog can play with the dog's friends. The second and third sets are to provide the option for ustedes for anyone not used to vosotros.
I switched from madrugar, as my understanding is that madrugar= despertarse temprano and here the dog is doing the waking of the speaker.
I learned cada to be used for days that meet a criteria, todos los días if you truly mean every day, but that is quibbling.
I simply do not like the progressive there in Spanish.
I like ser better in this case with incansable as it seems to be being used as a characteristic.
My purpose in asking this question is to check my understanding, as a intermediate level learner, of these grammar points with native speakers to know better how much of what was used really is natural sounding Spanish, and whether a native speaker would change anything from the original. Thanks in advance.
2 Answers
Mi perrito siempre me está madrugando cada día para jugar con sus amigos.
The continuous tense of madrugar here may be grammatically OK, but it does sound very anglosized and a little unnatural, however madrugar is an intransitive verb that does not act upon anything other than to affect the speaker, so to use it this way is not grammatically correct. "Me despierta cada día" is a good alternative. I like the use of "cada día" better than "todos los días" in this case because it give us a nuance of non-stop frustration.
Si estéis tan incansable como él, nunca podríais dormir.
For this I would say: "Si fueras tan incansable como él, nunca podrías dormir." Of course other persons (Vos, Uds, Ud.) can be used as a matter of preference, but the copretérito with the conditional simple should be used as a hypothetical situation, which I believe this is.
I agree that there are some present tense expressions that use copretérito following si,ie: "A ver si fuera Ud tan amable de traerme un café por favor" but I don´t think they are really correct. This is like ain´t in English, it´s not correct, but it´s used often.
Note: I misread your post as I was leaving my house before I responded. Yes, it is ONLY the past subjunctive that can be used with "si".
Here are the rules for the past subjunctive with the word "si":
Used when:
1. Something is contrary to fact
2. A condition which is untrue
3. An event which is impossible
4. A condition which is quite unlikely
These are just the notes that I have. Just because I am fluent in the language, does not mean I am perfect at speaking the language. It means that I know the language really well.
In regards to the ser vs. estar part of this, my take would be that estar is better for the sole purpose that, in this case, he feels relentless in the mornings (which is why he is waking me up), not that he has a relentless personality.
"The first parentheses are because I am not sure if he is being woken up to play with the dog's friends, or so that the dog can play with the dog's friends." It should be rather obvious, based off of context, that the dog is waking me up "in order to" (para) play with his friends. Conjugating "jugar" with the subjunctive still wouldn't change the ambiguity of the statement either, unless there was a personal pronoun inserted (para que él juegue con sus amigos.).
"I learned cada to be used for days that meet a criteria, todos los días if you truly mean every day, but that is quibbling." Varies from dialect to dialect.
"I simply do not like the progressive there in Spanish." You are entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong since it is implied to be in progress.
