es evidente, es lógico (+ indicativo / subjuntivo)

T1000

Senior Member
Polish
It's very difficult for me to understand why there is:
es evidente que + <verb in indicativo>
and
es lógico que + <verb in subjuntivo>

I mean there is no doubt in any of these two. It looks to me that indicativo will fit both.
So WHY it does not?

Let's look at these nine:
1. Está claro que + <verb in indicativo>
2. Está demostrado que + <verb in indicativo>
3. Es una vergüenza que + <verb in subjuntivo>
4. Es importante que + <verb in subjuntivo>
5. Es incredible que + <verb in subjuntivo>
6. Es cierto que + <verb in indicativo>
7. Es normal que + <verb in subjuntivo>
8. Es una pena que + <verb in subjuntivo>
9. Es indudable que + <verb in indicativo>
I chose like this because some of these seemed objective
<verb in indicativo> and some seemed subjective<verb in subjuntivo>.
Is there any other way to distinguish these two?
Because
es evidente que and es lógico que seem both to be objective.
 
  • ampurdan

    Senior Member
    Català & español (Spain)
    Creo que la diferencia está en que en "es lógico" el hablante se pone mentalmente en un momento anterior a la constatación de la existencia de algo. Considera las posibilidades y ve que esa concreta es lógica.

    Con "es evidente que" meramente se constata algo que a todas luces es de esa manera.

    Algo puede ser lógico, pero no evidente.
     

    Peterdg

    Senior Member
    Dutch - Belgium
    "Doubt" is a bad guide to let you decide between subjuntivo and indicativo. The problem with the concept "doubt" is that people apply it to cases where it does not apply and consequently draw the wrong conclusion.

    Besides "doubt", there are about a dozen other factors that decide between subjunctive and indicative, but for some reason, people tend to remember only the "doubt" concept.

    Anyway, in these kind of sentences (oraciones sustantivas (de sujeto o de complemento)), there is also the "personal appreciation" that calls for the subjunctive except for cases where "the truth of what is said is put in clear evidence" (I think that is approximately the wording the RAE uses; I don't have the book with me now, so I can't cite literally.)

    "es evidente que" is used with the indicative almost by definition (see: "in clear evidence").

    "Es lógico que" is considered to be a personal appreciation and thus calls for the subjunctive. You can argue that its meaning is close to "es evidente" but that is not how it is perceived.

    There are some things you just have to learn and accept, like this one. Once you know, it's easy to give an explanation afterwards of why the subjunctive is used or not, but you will agree, it is of little help for letting you decide whether to use one or the other.
     
    Last edited:

    -mack-

    Senior Member
    American English
    Peterdg is exactly right. Remembering doubt as a condition will cause you much confusion. Doubt is one, but there are so many more. When we're speaking about logic, we're speaking hypothetically (regardless of whether the facts are true or not), as opposed to "evident," where we are speaking about evidence existing in reality. Hypothetical situations require subjunctive.

    I would also like to point out that English also triggers subjunctive-like constructions with "logical" but not "evident."

    Suppose we're discussing the fact that a man is running away from a bear. We have no doubts about it. The footprints and pawprints are visible, and we heard screaming and frantic footsteps. But I'd say...
    "It is logical that he run from an angry bear." (run is the English third person present subjunctive)
    or
    "It is evident that he is running from an angry bear."
    ...but the two words and constructions are not interchangeable.
     
    Last edited:

    T1000

    Senior Member
    Polish
    It is still a bit confusing, but I think I get what are you trying to say.

    from Online Ethymology Dictionary
    logical early 16c., "pertaining to logic," from logic + -al. Attested from 1580s as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence." Related: Logically.
    We assume that it's the thing that should be happening, because that's what should be happening in similar situations according to laws of reasoning.

    from Online Ethymology Dictionary
    evident late 14c., from L. evidentem (nom. evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious," from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. of videre "to see" (see vision).
    We can actually see that or perceive by any other sense. So it is there, it is happening.


    Nah,
    it's still a vague concept to me, and rather inapplicable to other crazy subjuntivo phrases.
     

    José M. Vázquez cuadra

    Senior Member
    Español (España)
    There is a construction which has come to my mind where you can use the subjuntivo with the expressions you have pointed out that should be with indicativo, i.e.

    Es evidente que juegue quien juegue la selección ganará el partido.

    Es cierto que venga quien venga organizaremos una gran fiesta.

    It is not difficult to see you can change the order and say:

    Es evidente que la selección ganará el partido juegue quien juegue.

    I did't mean to confuse but, it was something you can find somewhere.
     

    inib

    Senior Member
    British English
    I don't think my comments are really going to clear up that apparently small difference between "logical" and "evident", but I would like to reinforce what has been said before. "Doubt" is only ONE of the good reasons to use the subjunctive. One of the many others is "Emotion". Me alegro de que estés aqui does not suggest that I have any doubt about your being here, but it is correct. While I don't think that "es lógico" expresses an emotion, it is a more subjective opinion, so might be a bit closer to the usage I've mentioned.
    Everything Jose M. Vázquez cuadra says is true, but he is only adding subordinate clauses on top of the general rules.
     
    Last edited:

    Old Raft

    Member
    Polish
    There is a construction...where you can use the subjuntivo with the expressions...that should be with indicativo, i.e.

    Es evidente que juegue quien juegue la selección ganará el partido.

    Es cierto que venga quien venga organizaremos una gran fiesta.
    No. These are not at all examples of "evidente/cierto que" used with the Subjuntivo: here, "juegue quien juegue" and "venga quien venga" are parenthetic expressions and can be put between commas. The relevant verbs are in Indicativo (ganará, organizaremos).
     

    Peterdg

    Senior Member
    Dutch - Belgium
    No. These are not at all examples of "evidente/cierto que" used with the Subjuntivo: here, "juegue quien juegue" and "venga quien venga" are parenthetic expressions and can be put between commas. The relevant verbs are in Indicativo (ganará, organizaremos).
    Absolutely right!!
     

    stuartshaw.cfc

    Senior Member
    English (UK)
    You should find THIS useful http://www.puntoyaparte.de/media/pdf_veroeffentlichungen/1_subjuntivo_mvarela.pdf

    Note that when you say, "it's logical that the subjunctive be difficult" what you are declaring is not that the subjunctive is difficult (this is taken for granted), but rather that it being difficult is logical.

    When you say, "it's obvious that the subjunctive is difficult", this, by definition, is an assertion that it is difficult.
     
    Last edited:

    donbill

    Senior Member
    English - American
    Hi T1000,

    Okay, so I'll add my bit to the excellent answers that have been posted and the superb examples that we can add to our repertoire.

    It is evident = anyone can see it; there is objective evidence, if need be, to support it; therefore it is an affirmation. I use indicative in the subordinate clause.

    It is logical = it is my judgment based on a subjective opinion; maybe others don't see it, but it's my reaction to the situation. I use subjunctive in the subordinate clause.

    Don't be mislead by "opinion"; it is not, in my judgment, a very precise term. The semantic base underlying the use of the indicative here is that, using empirical evidence, anyone could see that it is evident. That's why some manuals tell us that if the expression does not literally say it's evident, clear, obvious, etc., it lacks the semantic base and therefore cannot govern indicative.

    Imagine this dialog:

    --Fulano tiene problemas con el subjuntivo.
    --Es cierto que los tiene.
    --Y en mi opinión es lógico que los tenga
    . No lo ha estudiado a fondo.

    There is no doubt at all that Fulano has problems with the subjunctive. When we say es lógico, that fact is not diminished. It is, nevertheless, couched in an evaluative reaction to the situation rather than an affirmation of it. The reaction, however weak, governs the subjunctive.

    --Fulano hace buenas preguntas sobre el subjuntivo.
    --Es bueno que las haga
    . (No doubt about his asking them. That fact is established. Es bueno simply reacts to a given. If we had said es lógico, it would have been the same kind of reaction.)

    All of this sounds complicated, but it isn't. If we grasp it, we choose the mood with confidence. It becomes a "no brainer."

    cheers!
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top