1. The WordReference Forums have moved to new forum software. (Details)

despertar / despertarse

Discussion in 'Spanish-English Grammar / Gramática Español-Inglés' started by Pitt, Mar 5, 2008.

  1. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Hola a todos:

    Me gustaría saber si mi análisis es correcto:

    He despertado a mi hijo [CD] a las siete.
    Me [morfema verbal] he despertado a las seis.

    El verbo despertar es transitivo, pero despertarse es un verbo pronominal: Me es un morfema verbal (parte del verbo): no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.

    Muchas gracias y saludos,
    Pitt
     
  2. Magmod Senior Member

    England
    England English
    Parece que tienes razón :thumbsup:
     
  3. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Opino que es la misma situación con despertar(se) como con acercar(se) o entregar(se) -- Es transitivo
    y reflexivo - La DRAE no tiene ninguna definición única que se marque así -->'prnl'. Despertar se marca
    exactamente como lavar en el DRAE. = [tr. _________________ U.t.c.prnl] -- así que si se considera
    lavar como 'reflexivo' -- despertar también debe ser reflexivo.

    Una persona puede despertar a alguien o despertarse a sí mismo (figurativamente).
    La acción sucede al sujeto sí mismo.

    Pero me da que unos gramáticos coincidan con tu análisis.

    Grant
     
  4. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Pitt:

    Haz un vistazo a unos verbos pronominales verdaderos.

    Salirse (de) en «El aceite se salió de la botella.»
    Parecerse (a) en «Te pareces a tu padre.»
    Perderse en «Me perdí en el bosque.»
    No hay ningún aspecto de los verbos arriba que se pudiera entender como el sujeto actuando sobre/en sí mismo. Hay que mirar el aspecto de cada verbo cuando analices el papel del pronombre átono que concuerda con el sujeto. Lo veo así: Si el verbo es esencialmente transitivo -- entonces el pronombre átono tiene una función sintáctica actual o figurativa. Si el verbo es esencialmente intransitivo entonces el pronombre átono no tiene ninguna función sintáctica y es simplemente una morfema del verbo.

    Chao,
    Grant
     
  5. mhp Senior Member

    American English
    A mí también me parece bien. :)
     
  6. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    A mi entender la entrada prnl./U.t.c.prnl. en el DRAE no significa que en todo caso se trata de un verbo pronominal. Esta entrada simplemente significa que el verbo en su acepción se conjuga con un pronombre átono (me, te, se, nos, os). Este pronombre puede tener una función sintáctica (verbo reflexivo lavarse) o no (verbo pronominal despertarse).

    Un ejemplo con el verbo conocerse

    Entrada en el DRAE:
    conocer
    10. prnl. Juzgarse justamente.

    Un ejemplo:

    Juan se conoce muy bien, sabe lo que quiere.

    A pesar de la entrada prnl. conocer no es un verbo pronominal, es un verbo reflexivo: SE funciona como complemento directo: se puede añadir a sí mismo.

    Juan se conoce muy bien a sí mismo, sabe lo que quiere.

    ¿Qué opináis?

    Pitt
     
  7. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    No. Prnl --siempre significa 'verbo pronominal para esa acepción'

    Y no estamos de acuerdo en lo de tu ejemplo con conocerse. En tu oración 'conocer(se)' no usa acepción #10 que has citado. Usa acepciones #1,2, o 3 -- pero no #10.

    conocer. (Del lat. cognoscĕre).
    1. tr. Averiguar por el ejercicio de las facultades intelectuales la naturaleza, cualidades y relaciones de las cosas.
    2. tr. Entender, advertir, saber, echar de ver.
    3. tr. Percibir el objeto como distinto de todo lo que no es él.

    Así que -- usando #1 -- el 'se' es complemente directo.

    Un ejemplo de acepción 10 sería así:

    En estos momentos, Juan se conoció bien y se dio cuenta de que él no iba a ser el mejor....

    El 'se' allí no tiene ninguna función sintáctica.

    Cuando 'por sí mismo' se pueda añadir -- la acepción que se está empleando siempre es (y se marca como) 'transitivo' -nunca 'pronominal'.

    Grant
     
  8. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Me gustaría saber la opinión de los nativos.

    Saludos,
    Pitt
     
  9. lazarus1907 Senior Member

    Lincoln, England
    Spanish, Spain
    El DRAE menciona -de manera poco clara- que el verbo despertar también se usa como pronominal cuando la acción no consiste en interrumpir voluntariamente el sueño de alguien (que sería el complemento directo), sino en experimentar tal evento sin que haya un agente explícito.

    El Manuel Seco (de la RAE) menciona que el significado de "dejar de estar dormido" es intransitivo, pero también es frecuentemente pronominal.

    Para mí no hay lugar a dudas.
     
  10. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    ¡Gracias! Otra vez: Me he despertado a las seis.

    ¿Estás de acuerdo que ME es un morfema verbal (parte del verbo) sin ninguna función sintáctica: no es un complemento directo?

    Saludos,
    Pitt
     
  11. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Mi problema con esta posición común, entre muchos gramáticos, es que el papel que desempeña el pronombre átono, en verbos como 'entregarse', acercarse, despertarse, lavarse, bañarse otros, es 'marcar' el sujeto como recibiendo la acción del verbo -- o mejor dicho -- experimentando directamente la acción del verbo.

    Esto no es el caso con lo que llevo tiempo nombrando -- 'verbos pronominales verdaderos' -- como: parecerse a, salirse de, darse cuenta de, irse, perderse... Todos estos claramente no dejan ningún papel sintáctico para el pronombre. El sujeto no es un paciente de la acción del verbo.

    En uno de los otros hilos declaré que -- otra manera de probar si un verbo es verdaderamente pronominal es quitar el pronombre -- y si la acepción transitivo o intransitivo, con y sin el pronombre, es igual -- entonces el verbo no se puede considerar pronominal sino que sencillamente se puede usar -- 'pronominalmente' donde el pronombre marca 'un aspecto' reflexivo (verbo-->sujeto paciente). El DRAE parece diferenciar esto con 'U.t.c.prnl' y 'prnl' detrás o frente de la acepción.

    En tu opinión, Lazarus -- ¿dónde me equivoco - en mi análisis? Sé lo que dice Seco y Alarcos en este tema.. He leído mucho. ¿Qué opinas tú?

    Gracias,
    Grant
     
  12. mhp Senior Member

    American English
    despertar 5. intr. Dejar de dormir.
    (DRAE)

    I just like to point out that the verb ‘despertar’ is also intransitive and it means ‘to wake up’: Él despertó sobresaltado. No one woke him up, and he did not wake himself up (whatever that means); he just woke up with a start. Although the tag is missing in the DRAE, that’s how María Moliner (which has a lot more reliable use of tags) defines the pronominal use of the verb.

    despertar 2. intr. y prnl. Dejar de estar dormido alguien: ‘Despertó alarmado’.
    (María Moliner)
     
  13. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Yes I agree the intransitive use is very common. Interesting that the DRAE does not have the tag -- U.t.c.prnl after definition #5. And what's even more astounding and speaks volumes -- is that in definition number one where it refers to 'waking someone else'... There is the tag 'U.t.c.prnl'. And yet definition #5 exists.. So how then would Def #1 be used 'pronominally' and why???? I think the answer is easy: to account for the reflexive use. And here is a simple context showing reflexivity:

    "All afternoon I was dozing so I went to splash my face with water in a desperate attempt to 'wake myself up' and get through the afternoon."

    That would clearly use the pronoun in Spanish and would be definition #1 to a tee and the reflexive pronoun would have the syntactic funtion of a DO.

    The fact that definition 5 has no tag and definition 1 does have it -- further supports my assertions about the RAE's nomenclature and how it's to be understood.

    Maria's dictionary was a staple of mine for a while until it turned up too many contradictions -- in attempts to make concepts easier that aren't easy. A single definition is not both intransitive and pronominal. I'm sticking with the DRAE since they have had all the finest minds in Grammar work on it. I agree it's a chore to 'mine it'. But there is a reason for every mark (and lack thereof) in the DRAE.

    Grant
     
  14. mhp Senior Member

    American English
    Hi Grant,

    I like your example of “waking myself up”. But I think that we all agree that’s not how the verb is used in the sentence that we are talking about: Me he despertado a las seis.

    As for your criticism of two tags for the same definition, I just don’t understand why you should have a problem with that. That’s perfectly normal. As I have given examples before, there are many occurrences of both “transitive” and “intransitive” tags for the same definition of a verb in the DRAE. It simply means that the verb, with that definition, can be used either as transitive or intransitive verb. Surely a verb being both intransitive and pronominal is not that far fetched. If for some reason you prefer to see it in DRAE (the first one that I came across)

    ablandar.
    6. intr. Dicho del viento: Ceder en su fuerza. U. t. c. prnl.
     
  15. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    But that sentence is using definition #5 and not #1 as Pitt was proposing. And that's the whole point of my assertions.

    Please remind me of one. Thanks. Verbs in the DRAE, by and large, have the marks - tr + U.t.c.prnl and intr + U.t.c.prnl -- but I haven't seen a "tr + U.t.c.intr" for the same definition. They simply list the intr definition on its own line and the definition is not the same usually. Or if it happens it's rare. I'd be happy to examine just one.. as that would temper my case a bit.

    I need to see an example of this.

    Not as far fetched as tr and intr for the same definition and remember a few posts back I agreed that an entry that is intr + U.t.c.prnl is possible since there is no possibility of a reflexive understanding without transitivity.

    Additionally, Mhp, can you react to my analysis posed to Lazarus. Based on what I said there to him -- What, if any, would the differences be between lavarse and parecerse a syntactically. If they're both pronominal and the DRAE's own definition of pronominal disallows any syntactic function for the pronoun -- then what is the DRAE communicating by putting U.t.c.prnl on the first definition line of lavar?

    I'm still convinced that 'pronominal' (prnl) y 'usado pronominalmente' (U.t.c.prnl) mean different things.
     
  16. mhp Senior Member

    American English
    Hello again Grant,

    I only gave that example because as a criticism of María Moliner you had written: "A single definition is not both intransitive and pronominal."

    The example that I had given before is: http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=4399104&postcount=61

    In that example, the verb, with the same definition, is transitive, intransitive, and pronominal.

    But the dictionary is full of such tags (both transitive and intransitive). If you note all my examples from DRAE start with letter ‘a’ since I find them just by paging through the ‘a’ section without examining every prior entry.

    I’m sure lazarus is going to react in his own way without my help. :D

    As always, I’ll read what he has to say.
     
  17. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Thanks Mhp -- I do remember that post now. You make a compelling case. Still not convinced we're seeing it all.

    Grant
     
  18. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    En este contexto tengo dos ejemplos con el verbo emocionarse:

    1. Me he emocionado mucho.
    2. ¡No te emociones!

    DRAE:
    emocionar.
    1. tr. Conmover el ánimo, causar emoción. U. t. c. prnl.

    A mi entender U.t.c.prnl. simplemente significa que el verbo transitivo emocionar también se usa con el pronombre átono (me, te, se, nos, os).
    Esto significa que la partícula SE convierte el verbo transitivo emocionar en el verbo pronominal intransitivo emocionarse.

    En ambas ejemplos ME y TE no tienen ninguna función sintáctia (no es CD).

    ¿Es correcot mi análisis?

    saludos,
    Pitt
     
  19. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Conoces lo qué sería mi análisis.. :) Pero --- Con emocionarse y otros verbos de 'sentimiento' -- el SE no puede ser CD. Estamos de acuerdo. Y sí -- el SE se convierte el verbo transitivo en intransitivo. Pero para mí -- SE Intransitivador es un papel sintáctico. Sin el SE el verbo significa una cosa.. Y con él -- significa algo diferente.
     
  20. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    The reason I can't fully accept that, MHP.. Is that definitions that refer to a direct object being required. The truly pronominal definition could never exist. Pronominal verbs can't take Direct Objects. When the pronoun is added the meaning of the verb 'alway changes'. As here is Pitt's most recent 'emocionarse' example.
    Emocionar algo - Excite something
    Emocionarse - to get excited (yourself) -- a simple change of personal state.
    It is not the same definition for both at all. - Unless what you may be hinting -- is that the DRAE already factors in that the Spanish native understands that it's the same process of that definition whether it's happening outward or inward. That could be an AHA! moment for me.

    As foreigners -- it's possible we make artificial syntactic walls where there are none. That's hard to swallow since English grammarians can identify every particle of every sentence and give it a syntactic function.

    Grant
     
  21. mhp Senior Member

    American English
    Hi Grant,

    I’m really not hinting at any thing. I’m just pointing out that a verb can have several tags and that U.t.c.prnl is the same as prnl tag. Unlike María Moliner, that lists all of the tags at the beginning of a definition, the DRAE only gives one tag at the beginning of a definition and list additional tags as “U.t.c.” (usado también como). For example:

    aaronita.1. adj. Descendiente de Aarón, personaje bíblico, hermano de Moisés. U. t. c. s.

    For me this means that aaronita can be used as either an adjective or a noun. Obviously, there must a subtle change in meaning when it is used with either function. I’m afraid that I’ll be just repeating myself when I say that the DRAE is not a grammar book—it only hints that a particular word can have that function, but does not elaborate when and how it is used that way. Sometimes these “hints” are quite mysterious because you have to search long and hard to find an example where that function is performed by that word. One example of this is ‘el/la tema’:

    tema.(Del lat. thema, y este del gr. θμα).
    1. m. Proposición o texto que se toma por asunto o materia de un discurso.
    8. f. Actitud arbitraria y no razonada en que alguien se obstina contra algo o alguien.

    A grammar book, such as the DPD, elaborates on when and how it is used that way.

    [tema] Con el sentido de ‘manía o idea fija en la que alguien se obstina’, se ha usado tradicionalmente en femenino: «Ya le entró la tema de escandalizar por las recámaras» (VInclán Tirano [Esp. 1927]); pero también se emplea en masculino, por contagio del género propio del resto de las acepciones. (DPD)
     
  22. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    You're winning me over slowly with the notion that the DRAE is not a grammar book and 'space' is the issue. But the sticking point for me is still the 'despertar' definition in the DRAE. Def #5 is word for word the meaning of 'despertarse' (the 'just waking up' def) -- Why would they list it separately if the definition already exists in #1? That seems redundant. Either it is redundant or the RAE sees U.t.c.prnl as something different than prnl. There are many other examples we've looked at that have this same redundancy. The 'true' pronominal definition (the one we associate with teh transtive entry) is listed later with the prnl tag and yet the 'U.t.c.prnl' tag is on the transitive line. Despertar and Entregar both have this issue.

    These are the sticking points with me. And you still aren't able to explain to me why lavar has the U.t.c.prnl. tag. You and I both know lavar can't ever be a pronominal verb. Remember 'pronominal' is defined in the DRAE and DPD as a verb where the atonic pronoun has no syntactic function -- and yet the DPD makes clear the SE in lavarse has the syntactic function of a CI. There are just too many contradictions for me to accept the 'oversimplified' view that "U.t.c.prnl" is identical to 'prnl'. If some of my other questions can be solved and explained then I'll get off this issue. For now the only logical explanation for me is that «tr___+__U.t.c.prnl» is the RAE's way of marking a 'reflexive' verb where the pronoun has and actual or figurative syntactic function.

    Thanks for trying to work this thru with me. Don't give up. Remember I'm a teacher and grammarian writing a course and I want to be accurate and as much from the native grammarian's point of view as possible in my explanations. :)

    you've noticed that in the last 20 years the Spanish grammar world has moved from the terminology 'reflexive' to teach this subject to 'pronominal'. I think 'reflexive' was too limited -- but in throwing out the term all together it has clouded one of the most important syntactic mechanisms in the language. Reflexive verbs (lavarse) can be turned into passive - where truly pronominal ones (salirse de) cannot.

    Reflexive verbs also can't be turned into SE passive or SE Impersonal.
    Se se lavó las manos.:cross:
    Uno se lavó las manos.:tick:

    I know this is turning into a soapbox for me and I don't want to overstate my case -- but as long as Pitt wants to find the true meaning of SE in Spanish -- I need to keep stating my case.

    Thanks for your patience,
    Grant
     
  23. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Que yo sepa todos los diccionarios usan la denominación prnl. para todos los verbos con la desinencia SE en el infinitivo: verbos reflexivos (p.ej. lavarse), verbos recíprocos (p. ej. besarse) y verbos pronominales (p.ej. levantarse). El diccionario no da una información sobre la función sintáctica del pronombre átono (me, te, se, nos, os). Ejemplos: Me lavo (ME = CD).
    Me levanto (ME no tiene función sintáctica).

    La definición gramatical del pronombre átono (me, te, se, nos, os no tienen función sintáctica) es otra cosa.

    No se debe mezclar el uso pronominal (prnl./U.t.c.prnl.) con el verbo pronominal según la definición gramatical.

    Pitt
     
  24. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Hay tantas problemas con esa explicación - como he mantenido.

    Nadie ha podido explicar por qué las definiciones 1 y 5 de despertar ambas existen - uno con tr+U.t.c.prnl y la otra con intr. La misma problema existe con entregar pero uno con prnl y la otra con tr+U.t.c.prnl. Es más - hay 'lavar' y acepción #1 se marca « tr____+_____U.t.c.prnl » -- y todos sabemos que el pronombre usado con lavar SÍ tiene función sintáctica. Por eso -- the "prnl" en U.t.c.prnl 'no' puede querer decir lo mismo como 'prnl' solo.

    Déjame preguntarte esto, Pitt. Parece que has entendido bien lo que declaras sobre SE arriba durante meses ahora - ya que llevamos mucho tiempo discutiéndolo y has estado recibiendo las mismas opiniones. ¿Por qué sigues preguntando con dudas sobre el mismo tipo de verbo con SE? Cada verbo de la que has preguntado ha sido un verbo «tr + U.t.c.prnl»

    ¿Te parecen diferentes a ti los verbos sobre las que llevas un rato preguntando? Solo estoy curioso.

    Grant
     
  25. mgwls Senior Member

    Buenos Aires
    Spanish (Argentina)
    I feel a bit out of place posting in this thread, since the topic being dealt with here is far beyond my knowledge (which anyhow is scarce). Anyway after having taken a look at the RAE definition, I've come up with this:
    Wouldn't an example of this be "ella lo despertó" or "él se despertó" and an example of
    be "él despertó"?

    To be honest, I don't really see a diference between "él se despertó" and "él despertó", but both are heard and read, although the former is found in a greater extent.
     
  26. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Que yo sepa todos los diccionarios usan la denominación prnl. para todos los verbos con la desinencia SE en el infinitivo: verbos reflexivos (p.ej. lavarse), verbos recíprocos (p. ej. besarse) y verbos pronominales (p.ej. levantarse). El diccionario no da una información sobre la función sintáctica del pronombre átono (me, te, se, nos, os). Ejemplos: Me lavo (ME = CD).:cross: (ME = CI)



    Hola Grant:

    Creo que tu corrección (ME = CI) no es adecuada.


    Me lavo: Me es claramente un CD
    Se puede añadir a mí mismo: Me (CD) lavo a mí mismo.

    Me lavo las manos: Me = CI, las manos = CD

    Pitt
     
  27. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    Tienes toda la razón. Ambas frases tienen el mismo sentido:

    Él se despertó: acepción 1 (uso pronominal)
    Él despertó: acepción 5 (uso intransitivo)

    Pitt
     
  28. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Tienes la razón, Pitt. ¡Me pillaste desprevenido! Porque no es una oración común (Me lavo). De hecho muy raramente se diría.. Pero sí es gramatical. El pronombre es el CI con «lavar» cuando el CD se menciona - lo cual sucede 99%.

    ¿Tienes una explicación por qué el DRAE pone la marca 'U.t.c.prnl' con acepción 1 de 'lavar'. Tú y yo ambos sabemos que la palabra, 'pronominal' exige que el pronombre no lleve ningún función sintáctica pero el pronombre con 'lavar' siempre tiene tal función. Puesto que esto es así - ¿sigues creyendo que "U.t.c.prnl" y 'Prnl" da igual?

    Grant
     
  29. Pitt Senior Member

    Germany
    German
    A mi entender la fórmula prnl. significa quel verbo en su acepción se conjuga exclusivamente con el pronombre átono (me, te, se, nos, os).
    Ejemplo: Él se llama Juan (no se dice: Él llama Juan).

    La fórmula U.t.c.prnl. significa que el verbo se conjuga también con el pronombre átono (existe también el uso sin el pronombre átono).
    Ejemplos: Juan se lava / Juan lava el coche.

    Pitt
     
  30. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    AH... Entonces ¿SÍ coincidirías conmigo en que la nomenclatura tiene todo que ver con lo de si o no hay 'un pronombre átono' posible con el verbo en una acepción u otra? Si sí.. Bueno.

    Pero en tus argumentos aquí -- cuando tú notas que el DRAE usa 'U.t.c.prnl', has estado manteniendo que eso apoya la idea de que tal acepción usa una forma del verbo 'pronominal'. Pero otra vez digo que - no hay tal verbo como 'lavarse' - pronominal - puesto que se define «pronominal» como tener un pronombre sin función sintáctica -- y en 'lavar(se)' el SE tiene función sintáctica.

    Seguimos teniendo el mismo problema que teníamos al principio en nuestro estudiar de este tema. Y es esto: La marca U.t.c.prnl claramente no nos prueba que el verbo con esa acepción se convierta en 'pronominal' al usar el pronombre. La prueba de esto es 'lavar(se)' - el cual nunca puede ser «pronominal» (como definido por el DRAE) -- y todavía se usa con el pronombre.

    ¿No ves la contradicción?
    Grant
     
  31. mhp Senior Member

    American English
    I’m sorry Grant, but after so many pages of your misunderstanding across so many threads, I wonder if you have any bases aside from your hunch that the simple phrase ‘U.t.c.Prnl’ means anything other than the obvious: U.t.c.Prnl= Also used in pronominal form.

    For example see: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=851998
     
  32. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    I've never said otherwise. Your definition there is what I've said all along (read next post for my summation). Other's have disagreed.

    And it's more than a hunch and I think I've explained my basis very thru these threads. I believe there is no 'leaving out' on the
    part of the RAE as some have said simply because their dictionary is for natives and somehow the natives will 'intuit' the
    meanings of the nomenclatures. Linguists and grammarians line the members of the RAE are like mathematicians, Mhp. I
    have read many volumes of their work over many years. And the most amazing this about an organization like the RAE is
    that they 'sign off' as a 'unit' on the final printing of works like the DRAE and the DPD. What an accomplishment. Rest
    assured they have wrestled way more hours than the 'ad nauseum' supposed threads here. Most of the time -- people give
    up on these harder topics or we resort to the 'well -- that's just the way we say it'. Some of us here need more. I'm one of
    them. And I think Pitt is too and of course there are many others.

    Please don't hear me wrong, Mhp, I love 'short and sweet' answers - when they're reliable and stand the test of scrutiny.
    But when basic questions of 'consistency' can't seemed to be answered - I keep pushing. Several are very quick to say --
    Grant, Pitt, it's very obvious what the U.t.c.prnl and prnl markings mean -- they're just saving space. Okay -- I'm open to
    that position but then please explain for me the conundrums with 'lavar' and despertar's entries. If it is space saving then
    why (in 'despertar's' case) does the definition marked 'intr' on one line match exactly the definition on the line with 'tr__
    __U.t.c.prnl'? The pronominal use we ascribe to 'despertarse' has its definition on line 5 with the marking 'intr'. These are
    questions that haven't been answered to my satisfaction yet and so I keep posing a reason why -- my 'hunch' as you put it.

    I have tried writing a consulta to the RAE about this -- but they only answer grammar questions and not questions about
    the design of their works.

    The basis for my 'hunch' is mere logic and an apparent inconsistency. I am glad for you and others that it seems so simple.
    But for those who dig pretty deep on this 'duda' -- there're problems in "them thar hills". :)

    And you'll note the only threads in which I've ever brought this up are the threads where Pitt is asking the deepest of
    grammatical questions: What syntactic role is SE playing. In any other general thread where a student asks about a
    particular verb's use -- I give the same type of straightforward answers and simple answers as given in the thread about
    perderse you cited. Though there are some errors in that thread too about 'perderse'.

    As the young generation says these days. "It's all good". I don't think everyone's over here complaining about the musings
    of a grammarian reading a dictionary.. :) And I'm grateful for all the attempts you've made to explain this issue. I'm simply
    not convinced by your explanation --- yet -- :).

    But as to despertarse - - According to the DRAE's entries in can be tr, intr or tr-reflexive. There may be even a prnl use -- but
    it's not the same meaning as definition #1 - in my humble opinion. If it could be truly pronominal the entry for #1 would have
    tr alone and Definition #5 would have been listed: intr---------U.t.c.prnl

    Thanks,
    Grant
     
  33. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    As I read your last sentence one more time I want to add that I actually 'do' believe that U.t.c.prnl means what you say there
    -- that I highlighted in blue. But Pitt and others have posed that it means that: the same definition on the line where U.t.c.prnl
    appears is the definition for a true pronominal use where pronoun has no syntactic function. Lavar and despertar's entries
    disprove that conclusion.

    I fully agree and have purported from the start that:
    tr.______U.t.c.prnl = This definition is often used in the pronominal form (with an atonic pronoun agreeing with the subject)
    where the pronoun has the actual or figurative syntactic role of a Direct Object or Indirect Object and are reflexive in nature
    with the pronoun [these verbs in their infinitive never take 'se' except to distinguish them from the transitive alone meaning]

    prnl = This definition is used only and ever with the atonic pronoun and the pronoun is a morpheme of the verb with no syntactic
    value [these verbs in their infinitive always take 'se' added to the end]

    intr._____U.t.c.prnl = This definition is used with and without the atonic pronoun and the pronoun when used is a morpheme of
    the verb with no syntactic value [in the pronominal form the infinitive always take 'se' added to the end]

    That is the only explanation of the nomenclature that explains consistently every case I've seen.

    I also acknowledge, Mhp, that these markings on definition lines do appear in many combinations as you've stated as well. But it's
    only in the 3 I note above where inconsistencies appear. These inconsistencies have frustrated our attempts to discern the true role
    of SE.

    Grant
     
  34. MargaritaPonchita Junior Member

    Washington, DC
    English - USA
    Despertarse es reflexivo entonces hay que corregir la frase que sigue, ¿no?

    No solo esperan ansiosamente la noche en que su niño duerma sin despertar, pero los primero años están llenos de muchos logros.
     
  35. flljob

    flljob Senior Member

    México
    México español
    Es un verbo pronominal pero también lo puedes usar como intransitivo. Puedes decir ...sin despertar...
     
  36. MargaritaPonchita Junior Member

    Washington, DC
    English - USA
    Gracias flljob. Pero en esta situación específica, ¿está bien como despertarse también?
     
  37. flljob

    flljob Senior Member

    México
    México español
    Sí, está bien.
    No solo esperan ansiosamente la noche en que su niño duerma sin despertarse, pero los primero años están llenos de muchos logros.

    Sin embargo, prefiero sin despertar.
     
  38. IsabeldeCastilla Junior Member

    Pomfret, MD
    English-American
    Un apunte sobre lavarse. Cuando decimos que uno se lava una parte del cuerpo el pronombre es equivalente al adjetivo posesivo en inglés.
     
  39. IsabeldeCastilla Junior Member

    Pomfret, MD
    English-American
    En el uso intransitivo despertarse se usa comúnmente. Pero parece que el verbo despertar se puede ser usado en este uso tambien.
     
  40. NewdestinyX

    NewdestinyX Senior Member

    PA, USA|Do work in Spain
    American English
    Sí. Gracias. Eso ya sé.
     

Share This Page