These lessons are great Paul! I love how you speak to your audience, it really shows what a good teacher you are. Thank you so much for your time and knowledge ❤
Why don’t they teach us these important useful sentence structures as easily and clearly as u do. Takes a whole semester to learn and remember and use what I learn from one lesson on your channel. Thanks again
Perhaps because they are "teaching" and I am just "sharing" what works for me. That is the advantage of have since I learned Spanish on my own out of necessity.
I watched this video again and gave it another like. Thank you for teaching us Paul. This time I noticed you made some interesting comments about the pluperfect tense.
English uses the subjunctive; we don't notice because it's spelled the same as the past tense. One exeption is WERE, in place of WAS. Your examples all use WERE; the ones that don't, can be replaced by WERE.; WERE I born in Denmark...;as if he WERE the owner...; as if I WERE run over...Any sentence that can be stated with WERE in English, will be in the subjunctive in Spanish also.
Yes, it is used but it is often skipped over and it doesn't play the importance that it does in Spanish. If you skip it in English, no one bats an eye - If I was rich. But try that in Spanish and even an uneducated native speaker will be like -- that sounds wrong.
After watching these videos it seems we need to entirely change the way we teach children in school. It’s so much more enjoyable to learn this way, especially bringing in the subjunctive right away
Hi Paul: Can I add to your EXCELLENT explanation of the English past subjunctive it's easy to identify if the two words "WERE TO" + infinitive could be put in it; _if it WERE TO be possible, I would love to live in Italy 3 months of the year_ *** _If I WERE TO have been born in Denmark, I would speak Danish_ and one of my own: _If I WERE TO tell you I also speak French_ ({rather than} If I told you you I speak French) _I doubt you would believe me_ *** WERE can always stand alone when it's used as the past subjunctive of "to be" (so "If I were taller" == "If I were to be taller") - but the rule to see if we are using the past subjunctive in English is can we change the sentence with 'the past tense' with 'WERE TO + infinitive' but it still make sense.
One clue to the subjunctive is that it only exists in English in sentences such as ‘I were’ and ‘he were’. We never say ‘I were’ but I was. The ‘were’ part is the remnant of the English subjunctive and is used after the word ‘if’ - as in Spanish. If you see ‘if’ and ‘were’, the English subjunctive, you can bet it is the subjunctive in Spanish.
Not only after the word if in English! What about these sentences: I wish I were the owner of that business. Or , I wish I were a poet. No if in those sentences. In Spanish, we would use Ojalá.
Love this lesson. I have struggled with the subjunctive mood forever, it seems, without understanding what triggers it and when to use it. Hopefully, i can begin to implement these videos into my Spanish. I have a question, why is “yo” on the end of the example “Si Juan quisiera saber lo que puso ayer, se lo diria yo.” Why not “Yo se lo diria”? Thank you.
What I learned was that the subjunctive is used in situations that are contrary to fact (as in all these examples). Are there any other cases in which it is used? Also, is there a difference in usage between the "-ra" forms and the "-se" forms?
Yes, there are several other ways it is used. I have a playlist where I address different ways it is used in each video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RICirlIwjSk.html As far as the RA and SE versions, there is no change in meaning; however, the RA version is the one most used in speech. In writing, you will see both. My recommendation to students is to just learn the RA version since it used for both anyway. Keep life simple.
You're an amazing teacher! Question: In this video "Hubiera nacido" is translated as "had BEEN born", but later on you make clear that "me hubiera atropellado" is NOT "had BEEN run over" and is instead "had run me over" The spanish looks the same, but why are the translations different? THANKS! And can't wait for your next video
Si quieres mejorar tu español, tienes que prestar mucha atención a lo que dice el profesor Qroo Paul. 😉 Si yo fuera tú, lo haría eso.🎯 Yo lo hago cada día como si mi vida dependiera de ello.😜 Gracias por tu ayuda.👍
Hi Paul, It seems like you might be taking a rest or out traveling lately. Hope you are doing well. One of the aspects of Spanish grammar that has given me the most trouble getting clear in my foggy brain has to do with Indirect Objects and Indirect Object Pronouns. I understand a lot of the basics about them, but I've always been left confused and with questions that remain unanswered to my satisfaction. It is my understanding that the IO pronoun is pretty much mandatory, and the clarifying "a + IO" is optional . But, I see many Spanish teachers using example sentences to illustrate what an Indirect Object is, but where the Indirect Object pronoun is omitted. And a lot of my confusion also comes from sentences where the "for whom" is expressed as prepositional phrase beginning with "para". I've searched the web and listened to many lessons from my favorite RU-vid instructors, and recently, I've discovered I'm not the only one having trouble getting my head wrapped around this topic. You have always had a wonderful knack at explaining grammatical concepts that gringos can relate to. I'd love to see you do an in-depth treatment of Indirect Objects, Indirect Object Pronouns, and Double Object Pronouns. To see how sticky this problem is for many people, here is a link to a discussion on Span¡shD!ct. Reading all that didn't help me any. www.spanishdict.com/answers/144168/indirect-object-pronouns-wprepositional-phrase-or-wclarifying-phrase Take care.
Hi Calvin. It has been awhile since I made a video for thi channel. I have been busy working on content for our main channel, Two Expats Mexico, and teaching at a police academy in Florida. I am still a certified law enforcement instructor so I pick up some dates to teach whenever we are here. I really enjoy teaching. Okay, back to your message. I can understand your confusion with this topic. It is often taught that indirect object pronoun is mandatory, the old redundant LE, but you are right, you will see sentences without it. The reason being that use is not always mandatory -- but often preferred. It depends on the verb. Perhaps I can clear that up for you in a video as well as double object pronouns, para etc. This is already sounding like a long video...lol.
This is the best source to learn the difference between rules and tendencies. Warning -- it is not an easy read: www.rae.es/dpd/pronombres%20personales%20%C3%A1tonos
If it is the indirect object pronoun for he, she, or it, use le. If it is the direct object pronoun for he, she, or it, use lo or la, depending on the gender of the person or object. Ustedes and ellos will become les for an indirect object and los or las for a direct object. The others, me, te, and nos, don't change.
If English is taught in the manner in English-speaking countries, students would find it way easier to learn foreign languages. I always stress the improtance of mastering verb tenses.
Because these types of hypothetical cannot be done with the preterite. We don't hear any difference in English, that's why it is best to learn the construction: imperfect subjunctive+ conditional.
Thanks. I started with the cartoons because it seemed like the easiest way to make Spanish videos for my English-speaking neighbors in Mexico. I prefer the live version of me too. :)
Hola Wendy. Gracias por ver el video. Sí, tu traducción es correcta tambíen (con la excepción del uso de la palabra Denmark) pero el uso del condicional compuesto no es la única opción en frases como esta. Según el Diccionario panhispánico de dudas, se puede emplear el condicional compuesto: "Si hubieras/hubieses estudiado, habrías aprobado..." o el condicional simple: "Si hubiera/hubiese terminado los estudios, hoy tendría un trabajo mejor." Un ejemplo de Internet elpais.com/tecnologia/2010/11/24/actualidad/1290592867_850215.html Un saludo.
I haven't made one yet. I actually use marchar very little in my own Spanish and only in a few ways. I use marchar as "to march or walk" in the sense of large protests marching toward city hall of something. And I use the reflexive marcharse with the same meaning as irse -- to leave, go off. I do use poner en marcha occasionally for to start up, set in motion etc.
Hi Qroo, Try this one for yourself in Google translate: "If I were rich I would buy myself a yatch." Here's what you get: Si fuera (subjunctive) rico (rica for feminine) compraría (condicional) un yate. Well, GT uses a subjunctive... contrary to you and your argument of certainty (about buying the yatch). Why is that, and why is GT correct? Because of the fact that the subjunctive is triggered when the subordination clause (I would buy a yatch) is dependent of a "desire" (If I were rich). It could also be dependent of an order, a condition, an appreciation, etc. By the way, even you guys in English use ... "If I were..." (your kind of subjunctive in English though this formal verbal tense does not exist in your language. "If I were" stresses a desire/condition in English. If you went, "When I am rich I will yatch" GT goes - "Cuando sea (conditional) rico (rica) compraré (futuro) un yate." Why the conditional again? Because of "When" (Cuando) which is a condition. So, sorry mate, but your explanation (certainty of the dependant clause) does not hold true to the grammar test on this one. My mother tongue is French, am level B2 in English and A2 in Spanish. (I really like your other channel on living/moving in Mexico). Keep up the good work!
You are making this more complex than it needs to be. You are linking this to "desire" because I mentioned being rich and if that condition were met, I would buy a yacht. It is the hypothetical that triggers it here. A set construction of the imperfect subjunctive and the conditional. Look at a sentence like, "If I were you, I would go to the party. - Si fuera tú, iría a la fiesta. I have no desire to be you. This is a set construction in Spanish. Super easy. Then you segway into the subjunctive being used with time clauses in the present. When I am rich.... etc. You wrote conditional but I think you meant subjunctive. This is a different construction altogether and the present subjunctive is used after CUANDO when the action in the subordinate clause is dependent on that happening. This doesn't have anything to do with the hypothetical situations. When it stops raining, I'm going. Cuando deje de llover, me voy. There is no desire here. Just a statement of fact of what will happen when something else happens first. These are simple constructions for English-speakers to learn. Overthinking them can lead to some incorrect conclusions that can inevitably lead to inaccurate translations.
Not to be that guy, but Google translate is horrible for translating English to Spanish. It works well with other languages, like German for instance. But for Spanish it's notoriously bad. If you want to use GT to translate English to Spanish, it's best to use it for individual words, to augment or enhance your vocabulary. For grammar, you have to know the constructions beforehand.
