Uso del subjuntivo
"La persona que emita, reciba, tome, convierta o cambie dinero de suma mayor que haya obtenido a través de un delito o sepa que se haya obtenido a través de un delito, o disimule a través de conversión o transferencia en otra forma que el dinero proceda de tal origen o disimula su ubicación, circulación y posesión será sancionado con cárcel de uno a diez años."
Se trata de artículo 273 del Código Penal.
¿Alguien puede explicarme porque se usa el subjuntivo de los verbos subrayados y luego, al final de la frase, el presente indicativo del verbo "disimular" (disimula su ubicación)?
Gracias de antemano.
5 Answers
Sorry, yes I was being slightly sloppy. Technically, the analysis would usually be that there is a syntactic feature that triggers the subjunctive, and it need not be the word que that introduces the clause with this feature (busco un lugar donde pueda trabajar en las vacaciones, quiere una emprasa cuyos servicios cuesten menos etc).
lazarus1907 said:
What word "triggers" the subjunctive? No word triggers any subjunctive here.
The forms underlined are in subjunctive because the subordinated is not being declarated:
La persona que recibe = you are declaring that you think or know that there is a person that actually receives something. You actually have one specific person in mind while saying this.
La persona que reciba = you are declaring it, because you may not be referring to anyone in particular, but to whoever does it, if ever happens
As you can see, both indicative and subjunctive are possible, and their meanings are different. However, and here I agree with Neil, the sentence is so ridiculously long and twisted, that whoever wrote it, eventually lost track of what he was saying, and he started making mistakes (the verbs in bold). Spanish legal writing is characterized by artificial, extremely long sentences with multiple subordinates, using archaic or confusing language, all to try to impress people with a theatrical affected solemnity, and make sure that only a lawyer can understand -or pretend to understand- those sentences. The grammar (and the coherence) in legal texts is surprisingly often wrong, and their texts can be a nightmare to understand or analyse.
A few days ago, someone asked to translate one sentence from a speech in English into Spanish, and it was so long, and had so many subordinates and explicative digressions, that it made no sense in either language. People took for granted that it was right, but they couldn't translate it, of course.
>
It's not just spanish legal writing that is a pain in the neck, legal writing in general is a nag.
Thanks a lot Lazarus for taking the time to post an answer. I really appreciate it. I studied languages, spanish was my second language and we have such a lack of grammar books and dictionaries here, that it's just... well just sad. So thanks again.
P.S. You're something like "the man" around here, aren't you''? Just joking 
))
What word "triggers" the subjunctive? No word triggers any subjunctive here.
The forms underlined are in subjunctive because the subordinated is not being declarated:
- La persona que recibe = you are declaring that you think or know that there is a person that actually receives something. You actually have one specific person in mind while saying this.
- La persona que reciba = you are declaring it, because you may not be referring to anyone in particular, but to whoever does it, if ever happens
As you can see, both indicative and subjunctive are possible, and their meanings are different. However, and here I agree with Neil, the sentence is so ridiculously long and twisted, that whoever wrote it, eventually lost track of what he was saying, and he started making mistakes (the verbs in bold). Spanish legal writing is characterized by artificial, extremely long sentences with multiple subordinates, using archaic or confusing language, all to try to impress people with a theatrical affected solemnity, and make sure that only a lawyer can understand -or pretend to understand- those sentences. The grammar (and the coherence) in legal texts is surprisingly often wrong, and their texts can be a nightmare to understand or analyse.
A few days ago, someone asked to translate one sentence from a speech in English into Spanish, and it was so long, and had so many subordinates and explicative digressions, that it made no sense in either language. People took for granted that it was right, but they couldn't translate it, of course.
When you think you´re sure of something, along comes a dumb text like the one I´m reading right now, to shake my confidence ))) thanks Neil
Neil Coffey said:
I'd be interested to haer what others think, but it just seems like a case of "leaking": the word that triggers the subjunctive is far away in the sentence; the nearest verb (linearly) is clearly in the indicative, and this indicativeness "leaks" on to the next verb. There are cases in English with singular/plural verb forms where a verb that you'd, say, logically expect to be in the plural is accidentally given a singualr form because of a surrounding verb with a singular form. In Spansih you can also get a similar effect with singular/plural adjectives sometimes.
The moral of the story: avoid stupidly long, winding sentences to reduce the chance of leakage
>
I'd be interested to haer what others think, but it just seems like a case of "leaking": the word that triggers the subjunctive is far away in the sentence; the nearest verb (linearly) is clearly in the indicative, and this indicativeness "leaks" on to the next verb. There are cases in English with singular/plural verb forms where a verb that you'd, say, logically expect to be in the plural is accidentally given a singualr form because of a surrounding verb with a singular form. In Spansih you can also get a similar effect with singular/plural adjectives sometimes.
The moral of the story: avoid stupidly long, winding sentences to reduce the chance of leakage 
