Hablaste/Hablastes

< Previous | Next >
Status
Not open for further replies.

irisheyes0583

Senior Member
English (USA)
Outsider said:
When a person who is learning Spanish asks about a particular construction, and native speakers tell that person that the construction is "incorrect", I don't see that necessarily as an attempt to stop change.
It can be simply a description of the present stage of the language, what is currently considered valid, and what is not. Only the future will tell what Spanish will turn into tomorrow, but it's useful to know what it is today.
Agreed (imagine that! :))!

I just think it's also important to mention all forms of speech, whether correct or not.
 
  • gisele73

    Senior Member
    Spanish - Peru
    irisheyes0583 said:
    How about "me too"? This is definitely incorrect, but who doesn't say it?
    Hi :)

    I didn't know "me too" was incorrect. Actually I've said it many times, but I'm not a native speaker. I use either "me too" or "so do I", but now I know. I assume then the latter is the correct one.
     

    mhp

    Senior Member
    American English
    gisele73 said:
    Hi :)

    I didn't know "me too" was incorrect. Actually I've said it many times, but I'm not a native speaker. I use either "me too" or "so do I", but now I know. I assume then the latter is the correct one.
    Hi Gisele, I think you can safely continue to say “me too” without being corrected. You can even say all the me-too people, me-tooer or me-tooism.
    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/me%20too
     

    bluejazzshark

    Senior Member
    English, England
    In South Wales, English speakers say just that:"I knows what you're talking about"for example. It's part of the South Wales community language, and just because we don't like it, it doesn't mean it isn't "correct", if there is such a thing in a language. We can talk about "common usage" as a standard in English, but that's as far as we get. Given the diversity of language in the English and Spanish communities, enforcing one model on the rest doesn't work, as I have pointed out with object pronouns and the RAE.So I would only say "hablastes" is "incorrect" if we are judging all spanish speakers by the same authorititive and prescriptive standard (i.e. RAE), which doesn't event attempt to include all variations in the language seen throughout Latin America. If we do this, then there are literally millions ofnative speakers who are "wrong".And it is at this point we have to accept a relativism in language - that is that it doesn't fit any one model, and authorities are only useful for the purposes of exams, which aren't "real" language.- Blue
    gisele73 said:
    But again, &quot;hablastes&quot; is not &quot;informal speech&quot;, it is wrong, probably it´s not easy to see the differecne for someone that is not a native speaker, but it´s like saying &quot;tooks&quot; instead of &quot;took&quot;or something like that. Ex: &quot;She tooks the bus yesterday&quot;.
     

    Dr. Quizá

    Senior Member
    Spain - Western Andalusian Spanish.
    "Haber" (what do you think of this?) que "hablastes" no es característico de ciertas zonas, sólo de individuos aislados que intentan disimular que hablan mal.
     

    Kaia

    Senior Member
    Argentina -Spanish
    "Haber" (= a ver) ?????....un desastre!! HablasteS es un horror, aunque he oído a muchos españoles decir esto (si no escuchen las canciones del grupo "Mecano"..un poquito ochentosos pero bueno!)
     

    Dr. Quizá

    Senior Member
    Spain - Western Andalusian Spanish.
    Kaia said:
    "Haber" (= a ver) ?????....un desastre!!
    Te aseguro que aquí la mayoría de los chavales escriben "haber" en vez de "a ver"... no por eso vamos a darlo por bueno. Incluso he visto escrito más de una vez "habeces" :eek:
     

    gisele73

    Senior Member
    Spanish - Peru
    bluejazzshark said:
    In South Wales, English speakers say just that:"I knows what you're talking about"for example. It's part of the South Wales community language, and just because we don't like it, it doesn't mean it isn't "correct", if there is such a thing in a language. We can talk about "common usage" as a standard in English, but that's as far as we get. Given the diversity of language in the English and Spanish communities, enforcing one model on the rest doesn't work, as I have pointed out with object pronouns and the RAE.So I would only say "hablastes" is "incorrect" if we are judging all spanish speakers by the same authorititive and prescriptive standard (i.e. RAE), which doesn't event attempt to include all variations in the language seen throughout Latin America. If we do this, then there are literally millions ofnative speakers who are "wrong".And it is at this point we have to accept a relativism in language - that is that it doesn't fit any one model, and authorities are only useful for the purposes of exams, which aren't "real" language.- Blue
    I'm not saying "hablastes" is wrong because I don't like the word. It is incorrect, whether I like the word or not isn't the point here. At least until now it hasn't been accepted.
     

    Fonεtiks

    Senior Member
    Esp-Eng-Ita-Por-Deu(learning)
    tigger_uhuhu said:
    Creo que ésta teoría es correcta. En México hemos perdido con el tiempo el uso del vosotros, pero mucha gente agrega la s como error común. El error tiene su origen justamente en esto.
    Saludos.
    Tggr
    I disagree. The mistake comes from the inability to distinguish the 2nd person singular conjugation in the simple present with the 2nd person singular in the past, future, conditional or subjunctive (which always take a final "s")

    Tú comes
    Tú comieras / tú comieses
    Tú comeras
    Tú comerías
    Tú hubieses comido

    Ergo: tú comiste(s)

    If I heard this mistake, I'd hold myself back not to correct it on the spot, but since it's getting widespread... what can I do? :)
     

    Fonεtiks

    Senior Member
    Esp-Eng-Ita-Por-Deu(learning)
    Outsider said:
    We're not just talking about making a few contractions, here, though. This is adding a consonant that isn't supposed to be there.
    Consider also that contractions are much less common in Spanish than they are in English. And I've seen some English speakers say that even contractions like "it's" and "I'd" are not proper English, and should never be used in writing!
    I agree with you. Adding a consonant that should not be there sounds like an aberration. It's like saying "warter" instead of "water"
     

    alvarezp

    Senior Member
    es_MX
    bluejazzshark said:
    So I would only say "hablastes" is "incorrect" if we are judging all spanish speakers by the same authorititive and prescriptive standard (i.e. RAE), which doesn't event attempt to include all variations in the language seen throughout Latin America.
    This is not fair. RAE has included Argentina's imperative and Latin America's plural second person. I don't know where did these come from. But there is pretty much difference between "usage, common usage, convenience" and "mistakes".

    What you are implying that dyslexic people do not exist, since their wording is not incorrect. Then, why help them? I disagree. They are dyslexic and they should be helped. (I hope this isn't taken bad).
     

    ayaram7700

    Senior Member
    Chile-Spanish
    I BEG TO DIFFER...

    I totally disagree with Irisheye, you cannot EVER use an incorrect form, Ok, do not correct those who do, but if you know how to pronounce the words, please do it correctly. There is nothing that sticks to you more than an incorrect word or usage, that is why you should never write wrong words, as your eye captures them and before you know, you start repeating them. Our language is a treasure, we are supposed to pass it on to the next generations as pure as possible, of course, incorporating the new usages, but there is a limit to everything. Sorry...
     

    Fonεtiks

    Senior Member
    Esp-Eng-Ita-Por-Deu(learning)
    Not everyone is as well read as irisheyes and people who say "warsh" instead of "wash" knowing they are saying it incorrectly, ok, go ahead, but people who don't know? Should we just let them because it's regional and thus, correct? Pretty dangerous. Then let's just start writing as we want and we'll have a new basis for disintegration and groundless nationalism: new languages.
     

    irisheyes0583

    Senior Member
    English (USA)
    Fonεtiks said:
    Not everyone is as well read as irisheyes and people who say "warsh" instead of "wash" knowing they are saying it incorrectly, ok, go ahead, but people who don't know? Should we just let them because it's regional and thus, correct? Pretty dangerous. Then let's just start writing as we want and we'll have a new basis for disintegration and groundless nationalism: new languages.
    Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?! :p Hehe... well, I think I give up! I'll just stick with one of my original statements: we're all just going to have to agree to disagree!

    Note: If you'd like to look at this argument from an academic standpoint, look up the differences between prescriptive & descriptive linguistics. (I have some background in modern linguistics, which is generally descriptive, and which is why I have fought this fight. :D)
     

    jmx

    Senior Member
    Spain / Spanish
    Outsider said:
    I think you will find a much greater percentage of English speakers using those phrases, than you will find Spanish speakers using "hablastes", though.
    "Hablastes" is by no means unusual. I hear it all the time, and what's more, I think I have said it myself, though I'm not sure.

    It's funny, in Classical Latin this form was already the only one for 2nd person singular not ending with 's', as you can check here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation

    I wouldn't be surprised to know that this "hablaste"/"hablastes" question dates back to Vulgar Latin, and that "hablastes" has been regularly rebuked by grammarians all these centuries to keep the similarity with Latin. It would be interesting to know how the corresponding form is said in other Romance languages, but neither French nor Catalan have forms derived from "amavisti".
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Portuguese is just like Spanish in this regard, including the tendency to add that spurious -s: falastes :cross: falaste :tick:
     

    jmx

    Senior Member
    Spain / Spanish
    Dr. Quizá said:
    Te aseguro que aquí la mayoría de los chavales escriben "haber" en vez de "a ver"... no por eso vamos a darlo por bueno. Incluso he visto escrito más de una vez "habeces" :eek:
    You are mixing up spoken and written language. Written language is artificial and based on conventions. Therefore writing "haber" instead of "a ver" serves no purpose at all.

    On the other hand, spoken language is natural and deeply ingrained into each native speaker's psychology, which means that for a particular speaker saying "hablaste" instead of "hablastes" can be simply antinatural, and forcing him to do so is a way to repress his expressivity.
     

    San

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    irisheyes0583 said:
    From a gramatical standpoint, this form of speech is definitely incorrect. However, from a linguistic standpoint, it is not "wrong", it is just "different". As long as a form of speech is understood and practiced by a group of people as a form of communication, it isn't wrong. Language helps us communicate, so if we are communicating, it can't be wrong.

    So, in the same way that "ain't" and "walkin'" aren't wrong, "hablastes" and "andaste(s)" aren't wrong; in certain regions/countries, this speech pattern is often used in informal situations, especially among friends. I think they are more often said than written (in the same way that many people say "walkin'", but will write it as "walking", regardless of how they would pronounce it). However, I have many friends that use this form when writing me on messenger... it all depends.

    I think that the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." ("Donde fueres, haz lo que vieres.") certainly applies in this situation. In informal speech, mimic those around you. Learn how natives speak. That's how you'll achieve true fluency. The ability to adjust to your surroundings and use colloquial speech is what sets apart a person who is learning a language and someone who knows a language. And yes, this sometimes means using incorrect grammar. I know that I don't speak with my friends in the "correct" way that I was taught in school. I split infinitives, use run-on sentences, employ double negatives, and so much more and thats okay. Likewise, it's okay to say "andaste(s)" or "hablastes" if that's how everyone is speaking around you. Just remember the correct grammar for when you're in a formal situation (such as with older adults, in written form, etc.). ;)
    Bueno, yo he de reconocer que digo "hablastes" en muchas ocasiones. No es un problema de desconocimiento porque escribo "hablaste". Tampoco de parecer fino sobreactuando con las "eses", porque de hecho no pronuncio las "eses" finales de sílaba, digo "hablahteh". No es confusión con el plural, porque yo no rechazo el "vosotros". Digo por tanto "hablasteis".

    Supongo que tiene que ver con lo de los romanos. Pero en fin, prometo autoflagelarme más de lo normal esta noche :)
     

    Dr. Quizá

    Senior Member
    Spain - Western Andalusian Spanish.
    jmartins said:
    You are mixing up spoken and written language. Written language is artificial and based on conventions. Therefore writing "haber" instead of "a ver" serves no purpose at all.

    On the other hand, spoken language is natural and deeply ingrained into each native speaker's psychology, which means that for a particular speaker saying "hablaste" instead of "hablastes" can be simply antinatural, and forcing him to do so is a way to repress his expressivity.
    Entonces habría que dar por buenos "pograma", "celebro", "yo es que no me gusta" ...
     

    jinti

    Senior Member
    San said:
    Bueno, yo he de reconocer que digo "hablastes" en muchas ocasiones. No es un problema de desconocimiento porque escribo "hablaste". Tampoco de parecer fino sobreactuando con las "eses", porque de hecho no pronuncio las "eses" finales de sílaba, digo "hablahteh". No es confusión con el plural, porque yo no rechazo el "vosotros". Digo por tanto "hablasteis".

    Supongo que tiene que ver con lo de los romanos. Pero en fin, prometo autoflagelarme más de lo normal esta noche :)
    No soy nativa, pero les diré que cuando empecé a estudiar español, cometí el mismo error. No fue por confusión con hablasteis, porque no nos enseñaban vosotros en mis clases de español. Ni tuve una conexión psíquica con los romanos. Fue porque en todos los tiempos menos en el pretérito, la 2ª persona singular termina con s (hablas, hablabas, hablarás, hablarías, hables, hablaras, hablares....). Y extendí el uso de la s lógicamente a hablastes. (Y entonces mi profesor de español me regañó como si yo hubiera planeado la perdición del idioma español....)
     

    Jérémie

    New Member
    American English/California, USA
    I am used to hearing Mexican Spanish, almost exclusively, since graduating from college. Unfortunately, most Mexican immigrants to the United States bring with them an inferior vocabulary (average for parents of my Spanish-speaking students is under 500 words), low literacy rates, and improper grammar. While I can identify with the idea that some educated people want to relate to their "country" roots at times, many who use "ain't", "fixin' to", and other slang terms do so without actually knowing that their usage is an impediment to getting a job, excelling in academics, and climbing the social ladder. This is the same for my students and their parents, who mostly hail from poor areas of Jalisco and Michoacan (México). They add the extra "s" onto the 2nd person past tense, e.g. hablasteS, comisteS, escribisteS, out of ignorance for the correct way of speaking. This is apparent, also, in their writing. While few California "Okies" would actually write "ain't" or "nuthin'" in an essay, all of my students will write "hablastes", believing they are writing proper Spanish. With apologists around, ignoring the problem, these kids may return to Mexico, someday, and be in for a rude awakening, as educated, more urban Mexicans, can be quite unforgiving.
     

    Franra

    Member
    Spanish / Chile
    Raro, Irish Eyes. Las personas de mi comunidad, es decir, Chile, que usan aquella "s" al final y eso va también para la mayoría de hispano parlantes que lo hacen, no saben que aquello está mal. Por lo tanto es una muestra de ignorancia y no me parece que deba ser imitada por nadie, nisiquiera en lo coloquial. Distinto es el uso de otras informalidades en el idioma castellano, como decir "na" en vez de nada o "pa" en vez de para, que son utilizados como contracción de la palabra original para hacer más fluída una conversación, por ejemplo. Aquello se acerca bastante más al uso del "ain´t" al que tú haces referencia, que puede sonar desagradable ala oído, pero es utilizado a sabiendas de que aquella es una mera expresión y no la negación ni la conjugación correcta de un verbo. Hay una gran diferencia entre ser distendido a la hora de hablar y promover el mal uso del lenguaje.
     

    jorcorbalan

    New Member
    Argentina
    NO NO NO
    I come from a the "voseo" country "par excellence: Argentina, and hablastes is totally forbidden, here it is uneducated language.
    Linguistically speaking, this is a case of hypercorrection, by assimilation from the second person of other tenses where there is an "s" ending.

    So at least in Argentina, second person singular, indefinite past (pretérito indefinido) (now called simple perfect past (pretérito perfecto simple) has no "s" ending. Pleople using that ending are considered uneducated, among other things, and we do NOT SAY "hablastes" and write "hablaste" as you say "walkin' " and write "walking". NO WAY, DEFINITELY NOT!

    Thanks
    Jorge
     

    soltango

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?

    Yo supongo que sería algo regional y/o ineducado y/o habla del campo? Pero me gustaría confirmar esta noción, y saber si hay algo más aquí que esté yo perdiendo.

    Muchas gracias.
     

    Fernita

    Senior Member
    castellano de Argentina.
    Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?

    Yo supongo que sería algo regional y/o ineducado y/o habla del campo? Pero me gustaría confirmar esta noción, y saber si hay algo más aquí que esté yo perdiendo.

    Muchas gracias.
    Hola Soltango.
    Es muy común también aquí en Argentina. Pero no es correcto.
    No te preocupes porque no estás perdiendo nada más.
    Saludos,
    :)
     

    virgilio

    Senior Member
    English UK
    soltango,
    Así solía pronunciarlo una amiga mía, natural de Valencia (España). No sé si es regional.

    Virgilio
     

    San

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?

    Yo supongo que sería algo regional y/o ineducado y/o habla del campo? Pero me gustaría confirmar esta noción, y saber si hay algo más aquí que esté yo perdiendo.

    Muchas gracias.
    Es un error que cometen muchos hispanohablantes en todas partes, en el campo, en la ciudad, en España, en América, intenta evitarlo siempre que puedas :)
     

    Jeromed

    Banned
    USA, English
    Estoy empezando a fijarme en que muchos de los inmigrantes mexicanos aquí en California con quien platico añaden una "s" a las palabras en forma pretérito: ¿Por qué no me hablastes ayer?
    That ending is incorrect. It's characteristic of people with a low educational level, and not just in Mexico.

    It can also sometimes be found among relatively 'well-educated people' in some countries.

    PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though).
     

    virgilio

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Jeromed,
    Re:" PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though)."
    It would certainly have been a mistake in Latin, where the equivalent form ends in -isti.
    In Latin the perfect stem of many verbs ends in "v" and even in classical Latin the Present Perfect/Aorist tense was abbreviated in colloquial speech in much the same way that Spanish has abbreviated it, by dropping this "v" and the following vowel.
    e.g.
    amavisti - amasti - amaste
    amavistis - amastis - amasteis
    amaverunt - amarunt - amaron

    Best wishes
    Virgilio
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    (This was suggested a while ago in another thread where the topic came up.) Take a look at the full conjugation of "hablar".

    Every simple form of the 2nd. person singular () ends with -s, except for the indefinido. It seems likely that variants like *hablastes arise by analogy with the other simple tenses.
     

    lazarus1907

    Senior Member
    Spanish, Spain
    Re:" PS -- I believe it's an archaic conjugation, which is no longer accepted (not sure of this, though)."
    It would certainly have been a mistake in Latin, where the equivalent form ends in -isti.
    No es una conjugación arcaica; no existía en latín, y nunca se ha usado sistemáticamente. Como dice Outsider, la "s" se añadía a veces (p. ej. "cantastes") por confusión debido a las demás formas verbales, pero nunca se ha considerado estándar. No es lo que pienso, sino que aparece documentado en muchos libros. Si alguien quiere referencias, se las daré con gusto.
     

    lazarus1907

    Senior Member
    Spanish, Spain
    Entonces eso explica las terminaciones en el voseo americano: Vos tenés en lugar de Vos tenéis. ¿O no?
    No creo. El verbo latino "cantatis" cambió a "cantades", empezó a perder la "d" en el siglo XV, y desapareció en el XVI (cantaes); Entre el XVI y el XVII se formaron "cantáis" y "cantás". La última forma perdura en Argentina y otros países.
     

    virgilio

    Senior Member
    English UK
    lazarus,
    I believe you, I believe you. Ud escribe "Esto aparece documentado en muchos libros; no es mi opinión personal." Que lástima! Yo habría preferido que fuese su opinión personal. Podemos prescindir de los muchos libros; la opinión sincera de un filòsofo vale más de cien libros, por eruditos que sean.

    Best wishes
    Virgilio
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    No creo. El verbo latino "cantatis" cambió a "cantades", empezó a perder la "d" en el siglo XV, y desapareció en el XVI (cantaes); Entre el XVI y el XVII se formaron "cantáis" y "cantás". La última forma perdura en Argentina y otros países.
    Coincido con Lazarus. Por lo que he visto, la conjugación del vos es posterior a la del vosotros, y una simplificación de esta, si es que se puede hablar así. Bueno, puede que cronológicamente se hayan desarollado en simultáneo, pero al menos morfológicamente la conjugación del vos se puede describir como una "reducción" de la del vosotros.
     

    Jeromed

    Banned
    USA, English
    Lazarus:
    ¿A partir de cuándo se empezaron a calificar los términos, construcciones, conjugaciones, etc. como 'estándar' o no en castellano? Supongo que habrá sido después del Quijote--quizá con la creación de la RAE. Te lo pregunto porque leo lo siguiente en la sección Preliminares de ese libro:

    Por cuanto por parte de vos, Miguel de Cervantes, nos fue fecha relación que habíades compuesto un libro intitulado El ingenioso hidalgo de la Mancha, el cual os había costado mucho trabajo y era muy útil y provechoso, nos pedistes y suplicastes os mandásemos dar licencia y facultad para le poder imprimir, y previlegio por el tiempo que fuésemos servidos, o como la nuestra merced fuese.

    Gracias.
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Jeromed, eso es una 2.ª persona de plural arcaica:

    Miguel de Cervantes said:
    Por cuanto por parte de vos, Miguel de Cervantes, nos fue fecha relación que habíades compuesto un libro intitulado El ingenioso hidalgo de la Mancha, el cual os había costado mucho trabajo y era muy útil y provechoso, nos pedistes y suplicastes os mandásemos dar licencia y facultad para le poder imprimir, y previlegio por el tiempo que fuésemos servidos, o como la nuestra merced fuese.
    Fíjese que este "vos" es el étimo del "vosotros" actual (y del "vos" sudamericano actual también), que en esos tiempos de usaba como tratamiento formal.
     

    Jeromed

    Banned
    USA, English
    Jeromed, eso es una 2.ª persona de plural arcaica:
    Gracias, Out. ¡Entonces estamos confundiéndonos nosotros mismos y mezclando una cosa con otra!

    ¿Podríamos concluir entonces que:
    1. Cantastes fue en una época una de las posibles conjugaciones de vosotros/vos.
    2. Cantastes ha sido siempre una conjugación incorrecta de tú?
    ¿Existe alguna relación entre las dos?
     

    lazarus1907

    Senior Member
    Spanish, Spain
    ¿A partir de cuándo se empezaron a calificar los términos, construcciones, conjugaciones, etc. como 'estándar' o no en castellano? Supongo que habrá sido después del Quijote, quizá con la creación de la RAE. Te pregunto porque leo lo siguiente en la sección Preliminares de ese libro.
    Te puedo dar ejemplos literarios de escritores famosos de cualquier siglo, si quieres, pero me refería a lo que usa la mayoría con más frecuencia. Esa "s" se añadía -y se añade- a veces, pero normalmente no. Por cada forma que encuentres con "s" , vas a encontrar cuarente sin ella. Si quieres llamar a lo primero una conjugación, allá tú; no pienso discutir contigo.

    Y otra cosa es el tratamiento de cortesía con los morfemas de plural, claro.

    En español medieval, a veces se añadía una /-S/ a la segunda persona del singular de la terminación del pretérito (p. ej., cantastes), sin duda por imitación de las demás terminaciones de segunda persona del singular, marcadas con estemorfema. - Ralph Penny, Gramática histórica del español

    Es vulgarismo dar a la forma de segunda persona del singular la terminación -stes por -ste, por analogía con la -s de las segundas personas de los demás tiempos (cantas, cantabas, cantarás, cantes, etc.). Muy raras veces pasa a la lengua literaria. En el siglo xix este uso no era raro en poesía, en alternancia con la forma normal -ste, probablemente como licencia poética requerida por la medida del verso. [...] En el español antiguo —hasta el siglo xvn— existió la desinencia -astes o -istes, pero con un valor diferente, pues era de segunda persona del plural (luego se transformó en la actual -asteis, -isteis): - Manuel Seco

    Asi tenemoa los paradigmas del latin popular: Cantasti. [...] En el siglo xi coexistian dos formas del perfecto Yo levantai arcaica latina vulgar, y levanté romance.Para Tú -stes, Vos -steis. Tú canteste, que domina en el siglo XIII, lo mismo en textos leoneses que castellanos que aragoneses, puede explicarse como analógico con e tónica tomada de la persona Yo, a imitación de dormí, dormiste (1); la forma -este se conserva aún en Asturias y Santander; luego prevaleció la etimológica -aste, como era natural, para uniformar la vocal con las demas personas del plural y tiempos afines al perfecto. - Menéndez Pidal, Manual de gramática histórica española
     

    Jeromed

    Banned
    USA, English
    Si quieres llamar a lo primero una conjugación, allá tú; no pienso discutir contigo.
    Mi intención no era polemizar, sino informarme. Simplemente no estaba entendiendo la parte histórica de este asunto. Ahora con tu explicación, me queda todo claro. ¡Mil disculpas y gracias! :cool:
     

    MarX

    Banned
    Indonesian, Indonesia
    Asi tenemoa los paradigmas del latin popular: Cantasti. [...] En el siglo xi coexistian dos formas del perfecto Yo levantai arcaica latina vulgar, y levanté romance.Para Tú -stes, Vos -steis. Tú canteste, que domina en el siglo XIII, lo mismo en textos leoneses que castellanos que aragoneses, puede explicarse como analógico con e tónica tomada de la persona Yo, a imitación de dormí, dormiste (1); la forma -este se conserva aún en Asturias y Santander; luego prevaleció la etimológica -aste, como era natural, para uniformar la vocal con las demas personas del plural y tiempos afines al perfecto. - Menéndez Pidal, Manual de gramática histórica española
    So for the 2.sg. preterit form of cantar in Spanish there were variations:
    1. with the vowel: cantaste(s) and canteste(s)
    2. with the final -S

    Both cantaste(s) and the final -S were modifications of the language which evolved naturally in the vernacular of its speakers.
    In the case of Spanish, cantaste got accepted into the standard written language, whereas cantastes did not.
    The fact that it is so widespread (it occurs in Spain -even in València where Castilian originally was "imported"-, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, so one may suppose, almost everywhere in the Spanish-speaking world) shows that it must have a long history and that it has something to do with the natural evolution of the Spanish language. The only thing is that it was not accepted into the written norm.

    Interesting comparisons:

    1. In Chile, vos was once more widespread than today and didn't have a strongly negative connotation. But through the work of Andres Bello, it deteriorated to the point that it is considered vulgar today.

    2. Romance languages.
    Vulgar Latin was, well, as the name says, vulgar. ;)
    But certain varieties got to be standardized which resulted in today's Romance languages.
    What is not accepted in one variety may be considered standard in another.
    For example the "vanishing" of final -S in pronunciation, which got accepted in the standard French language, but is considered as a widespread regionalism in the Spanish language: In Chile and Argentina, the aspiration of the final -S is accepted in the speech of all levels of the society, and doesn't carry a strong negative stigma as it might in certain other Spanish speaking countries.

    Interesting thread.

    Saludos,


    MarK
     

    aleCcowaN

    Senior Member
    Castellano - Argentina
    Hablastes o cantastes es forma del voseo muy común que no tiene aceptación académica en ningún país, sin embargo es de uso extendido y aunque en general se lo considera de "entrecasa", no le atrae a quien la use una apreciación negativa siempre que conozca y entienda la forma estándar.

    Por lo tanto, siendo voseo. no puede ser incorrecto como tal. Es simplemente otra cosa. Lo único incorrecto es considerarlo una forma paradigmática de conjugación general del castellano para el tuteo verbal. No lo sería en el caso del voseo verbal con uso del pronombre "tú", aunque vuelve a surgir la pregunta de si el hablante es consciente de lo que está utilizando.

    Con respecto al voseo en general, encuentro una cierta ceguera por parte de quienes no lo usan. Los otros días, leyendo Fuente Ovejuna en la edición del catedrático español Francisco López Estrada, me encontré con tres presumibles casos de voseo que el editor dio por formas incorrectas del imperativo de la segunda persona del plural. El más notorio es en los versos 607 a 614:

    LAURENCIA: Si los alcaldes entraran,/que de uno soy hija yo,/bien huera entrar; mas si no.../COMENDADOR: ¡Flores! FLORES: Señor COMENDADOR: ¿Qué reparan/ en no hacer lo que les digo?/ FLORES: Entrá pues LAURENCIA: No nos agarre./ FLORES: Entrad, que sois necias.
     

    Ynez

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    Using "hablastes" instead of "hablaste" is a mistake of the same kind as saying "Bilbado" instead of "Bilbao" = hypercorrection.

    Well, the first one is more common :)

    Those of us who never pronounce final -s have it easier in this case ;)
    and don't think it's such a terrible stigma Marx.


    Someone has commented on Mecano singing like this, and that probably made him think it is more normal in Spain, but it is not so. I know which song that is and I was like "come on, what are you saying?" when I heard it :) One thing is to make the mistake when you are speaking fast, but that mistake in the song was a really ugly one.
     

    Idiomático

    Senior Member
    Latin American Spanish
    I am not sure if this has already been asked but where i work there are a lot of Mexicans and i always here them adding on that weird type of ending. Usually with ar verbs. Can anyone explain this to me

    Por ejemplo:
    Hablaste=Hablastes
    Veniste=Venistes
    Corriste=Corristes

    I appreciate your help.
    Really? I've heard vinistes, never venistes.
     

    jmx

    Senior Member
    Spain / Spanish
    Using "hablastes" instead of "hablaste" is a mistake of the same kind as saying "Bilbado" instead of "Bilbao" = hypercorrection.
    I'm afraid you are wrong. A hypercorrection is something done when you're trying to speak in a formal register to which you're not used. "Hablastes" is about the opposite, it's something people say in their everyday conversations. Maybe you could tag it an "undercorrection".

    It's amazing how many people in Spain don't understand the word "hypercorrection".
     

    MarX

    Banned
    Indonesian, Indonesia
    Using "hablastes" instead of "hablaste" is a mistake of the same kind as saying "Bilbado" instead of "Bilbao" = hypercorrection. (or undercorrection as kmartins says?)
    In any case, this "mistake" has been present in Spanish for many centuries now, and still persists in the spoken language throughout the Spanish speaking territories, from Ushuaia to Mexico to Spain.
    And no, I'm not saying people should start using -stes more, but one can stop judging people who use it, at least in the spoken language.

    Saludos,


    MarK
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    < Previous | Next >
    Top