This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spain This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm thinking this should be moved to Spanish conjugation. — Chameleon 21:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spanish verb conjugation would be better IMHO. My advice: check other "conjugation" articles. There's Latin conjugation and Portuguese verb conjugation, but I don't know what else. --Pablo D. Flores 02:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Y verb conjugation" is redundant. They should all be at "Y conjugation". — Chameleon 08:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is kind of redundant, but only in the sense as "lawn mower" is redundant (what else are you going to mow?). Do you think "noun declension" is redundant too? "Spanish verb conjugation" shows up 7650 times in Google; "Spanish conjugation" only a 10% of that. "Verb conjugation" alone pops up more than 75000 times (12000 times in a USENET group search). I'm not a fan of Google for this, but see Wikipedia:Google test. I also believe "XXX verb conjugation" is a more suggestive title, because it works well with main articles called "XXX verbs". I do agree that "paradigm" might be too much of a word. --Pablo D. Flores 11:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Lawnmower" is more of a fused compound, sometimes even written as one word. "Verb conjugation" isn't. "Noun declension" isn't a good analogy because there is "adjectival declension" too. "Spanish verb conjugation" just has an annoying extra word to type. "Conjugation" already has four syllables and eleven letters, more than "lawnmower" has even including its redundant "lawn". The only good argument is that Google has more results for "Spanish verb conjugation", but that just shows that people say a lot of redundant stuff. They say "P[ersonal]I[dentification]N[umber] number" too. — Chameleon 12:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you say, people say a lot of redundant stuff. "Verb conjugation" is redundant and yet it is used throughout language teaching sites, linguistics sites, etc., and it is common use, exactly like "PIN number". I'm not sure there's a specific Wikipedia policy on this, but as long as a name is common use and not inaccurate or POV, I think it should be OK to title an article like that. I have no emotional attachment to "verb conjugation", so I'm fine with either title. If you still choose to move the page to the new title, please check the inward links. --Pablo D. Flores 13:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great article and I like it just where it is. Dratman (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why the redundancy of "verb conjugation" is a good thing: There are readers who don't know that conjugation is limited to verbs. There are Wikipedia editors who don't know it! I've just come from correcting a Wiki article that referred to "conjugating" Spanish past participles used as adjectives (i.e. gender/number agreement). Keep novice readers in mind. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, shouldn't the tables contain the negative imperative forms, which are different for tú and vosotros? Perhaps this point is made in another article, but since this article is supposed to be a more or less comprehensive summary of verb forms, I would think these forms should be included here.Tawagoto 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that is needed is to say that the negative imperative makes use of the subjuntivo: "no ames", "no temas", "no partas". You provably mean tu and vos; yes, its same for both. Mariano(t/c) 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "tu/vos" AND "vosotros". According to the "Spanish verbs" article, the negative imperative for vosotros is different from the positive imperative. I understand that the negative imperative forms for tu/vos and vosotros make use of the respective present subjunctive forms. However, since this is an otherwise comprehensive table useful as a quick-glance reference, we might as well fill in the forms explicitly. (After all, by the previous poster's reasoning, we could skip the Imperative cells altogether and explain in a footnote that the positive "tu" imperative is the same as the third person present indicative, and so on, but that would defeat the purpose of the table.) Tawagoto 13:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tables seem incomplete in this regard. I book I have entitled "1001 Pitfalls in Spanish" (Barron's, (c) 1986) makes the following points:

1. The present indicative of the vos form varies from the tú form. This is already reflected in the tables of the regular verbs here. However, the vos form (indeed, the heading vos) is missing from most of the irregular verb tables.
2. The present SUBJUNCTIVE form also varies. This is not included in any of the tables. For regular verbs, the forms would be amés, temás, partás.
3. The affirmative IMPERATIVE also varies. You drop the -d of the vosotros imperative form and accent the final vowel: amá, temé, recibí.
4. The negative imperative is the same as the present subjunctive, although the tú form can also be used: no amés (no ames); no temás (no temas); no partás (no partas).

I would be grateful if someone who knows what he/she is doing could fill these forms in. Tawagoto 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in Rioplatense Spanish, the vos person is conjugeted as tu for for the present subjuntive. I don't think the negative imperative can be used with the affirmative form; if so, it is surely not used.

I will add the affirmative imperative for vos. Mariano(t/c) 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When yo uthink you know your language...

I haven't been able to complete the table with Affirmative and Negative imperatives of vos for the verbs haber and ir. I can't think an example of a phrase with Haber in imperative, except Hete aquí (which I'm not sure to be the case) Anyway, I don't known how would that be for vos, perhaps just the same.

For ir, well, to send someone somewere we say andá (andar). I don't know how to selve this 2 examples. Mariano(t/c) 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. (Having forgotten to log in...) I separated the imperative row into affirmative and negative rows for the other verb tables. Please feel free to check these. I wasn't sure about the the reflexive forms for the negative imperative of estar, so you may want to fill them in. Thanks. Tawagoto 12:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I put the Spanish names of conjugation forms, only the first verb if you don't agree or it must be changed.

2. Conditional is also indicative.

3. The pronouns must be after the imperative:

come tú/vos, comed vosotros.

4. what about composed forms, such as present perfect?--Daniel bg 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the tú form of the imperative of haber should be "hé," not "he." Also, I'm a bit confused about the imperative of haber, in general. I don't understand how it could be translated, and sites vary in their explanations. One site claims that haber doesn't even exist in the imperative form. There are also some confusing notes on http://www.123teachme.com/learn_spanish/interrogative_pronouns_adjectives , which states the following:

"Given as a form only, as Haber has no Imperative Mood in modern Spanish, except in Héme, héte, héle, aquí, etc. (here I am, here thou art, here he is, etc.), and in some other rare cases.

In Spanish there is no imperative negative, the Pres. Subj. negative being used instead, as:

• =Hablar=. No hables (do not (thou) speak).
• No habléis (do not (you) speak).]"

Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.224.100 (talk • contribs)

I believe the imperative negative is quite covered. For the imperative of Haber, it is true that it is not (commonly) used. We should find a qualified source on the topic first (RAE?) --Mariano(t/c) 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a nice site which I think will compliment this article. Not so much on the theory, rather the Spanish read along(on the Español tab), and the Spanish verb trainer. http://www.spanishdaddy.com/Presente.aspx What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.46.202.189 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've been trying to do some editing lately, but I was told to come here to discuss my edits, so here I am. I am just a bit confused about which sites can and can't be added to the external links. I added one cool site to the section and it was removed almost straight away, yet there are other sites with far less content linked from here. I'm going to re-add the site and if anyone has any problems, please bring it up with me here before removing it, thanks. Lumpeseckel 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the link has been removed again. I still fail to see how one person can make the decisions. What gives one person right to include/delete links as they see fit? It's not right. Lumpeseckel 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be clarified that yacer means "to be in a horizontal position" rather than "to give false information". --ReiVaX 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any reason to have this verb on this list, anyway? 70.253.203.14 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the aforementioned statement, if yacer is 'hardly used in colloquial speech' it deserves no place on this list; at the very least a verb such as conocer which follows similar rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Cusack (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rarity of the historical second-personal plural imperative form in everyday speech is greatly exaggerated in this article. It probably varies from place to place, but there are certainly areas with enough people who use it casually to make it very unlikely for an observer not to hear it often, and consequently it's easily felt as different from the infinitive, despite their common confusion (where the infinitive prevails because modern Spanish speakers find it easier to pronounce a final r than a d). Also, I think some of them do use íos (dismissed here as obsolete) as the pronominal form for ir, which is no surprise, since rather few people know the RAE prescribes idos. In fact, idos looks like an awkward invention made only to supply, without admitting it, the consonant those who substitute the infinitive—iros—for the second-person plural imperative tend to insert. Anyone with the habit of using verbs in the -d imperative and its pronominal form without this consonant, unless they know this odd RAE prescription and are making a conscious effort to conform to it, will readily say íos. They probably won't even feel any difference between ir and any other verb in this regard. I don't know why the RAE does not accept íos fully.

Naturally, this whole issue affects only the regions where the vosotros verb forms are still in use (most of Spain, and little more). However, the imperative forms used with vos (in the cases where they haven't been replaced by the tú ones) haven't taken on the -r from the infinitive—they've solved the difficulty in pronouncing the final d simply by dropping it (cantad → cantá), which is also what most dialects of Spanish tend to do with any other final d (verdad, David, majestad, pared). Splibubay (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very experienced Spanish speaker. I've been speaking since I was 7, and my mother is as good as a native speaker. However, because of where I learned to speak (and from whom, I suppose), I've never heard of the usage of voseo until now. Not saying it doesn't exist, I've done my research. but what I'm proposing is that we just link the first occurrences of tú and vos in this article for people who are coming at this not knowing the difference, if what I just said made any sense. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to share my suggestions for editing the form "vos" in the page. Please note that I am not experienced in the language but have come across this from a trustworthy source, "Real Academia Espanola" (http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=vos ) and it might be worth considering.

From what I understand (and again, I might be wrong), the "vos" as described/conjugated in these examples (on the Wiki page) and often spoken in various Latin American countries are a variant form of "vos" as it should be used. The actual usage should be with the "eis" ending. For example (and these are quoted directly from the Real website): "Vos, don Pedro, sois docto; vos, Juana, sois caritativa." In the colloquial Spanish described on the Wiki page, the form would take "sos" rather than "sois," and the same holds true for verbs like "amais" changed to "amas" or "teneis" changed to "tenes." In the colloquial Spanish of "vos," the "i" of "eis" is taken out.

I have come across this in many prayers as well, where "vos" is used to speak to God. Take the following example: "Dios y Señor mío, yo os doy infinitas gracias por todos los favores que hicisteis al glorioso San Ramón No-nacido; por cuyos méritos os suplico humildemente, que así como fuisteis tan liberal con el glorioso santo cardenal, lo seáis en esta ocasión conmigo, concediéndome el despacho de la petición que solicito en esta novena, para más serviros y amaros. Amén" ( http://www.devocionario.com/santos/nonato_2.html emphasis added). In the colloquial Spanish, "hicisteis" would take the form "hicistes," and the same holds true for the other examples in the prayer.

Feel free to take this with a grain of salt in case any of this is incorrect, but it might be worth observing.

:-)

70.72.44.213 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The given link (which has been changed to http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=vos) says that there are two forms of vos. One is tono elevado, used for royalty and God, and the other is used in some countries (almost all of the Americas, but not Spain). Therefore, the actual usage is no with the "éis" ending (useful for God), but with the "és" ending (useful for normal people), as you can see in amar (amas / amás). Pablo.cl (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this article doesn't mention anything about the principal parts of Spanish verbs. Will this information be added in the future? Jarble (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat what I said about "principal parts" on the Talk page of Spanish verbs:

The term "principal parts" is much used in the tradition of English grammar, to help learners keep track of irregular verbs like "go"/"went"/"gone" (as opposed to regular ones like "help"/"helped"/"helped"). For English it is a practical concept, because the forms that change are seen as whole words. But in Spanish the forms that change are the "stems" of verbs (which are bound to "endings"). So the information you are looking for is in the article, but it is called by other terms, such as "stem-changing". I'm deleting the note at the top of the article that says "This article is missing information about principal parts of Spanish verbs" etc. "Principle parts" are not part of the Spanish grammatical tradition. See the article Principal parts, where it says "In Spanish, verbs are traditionally held to have only one principal part, the infinitive, by which one can classify the verb into one of three conjugation paradigms (according to the ending of the infinitive, which may be -ar, -er or -ir)." Kotabatubara (talk) I don't know why the "quadruple tilde" signature failed to include time data: approx. 00:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This so-called rule of thumb is actually a big misconception that keeps spreading and confusing learners of the language. As the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española, 37.7d, puts it, the correct rule of thumb, still with its exceptions but much more precise, is to regard statements built with "ser" as describing an inherent, context-independent, characteristic of the thing it references. On the other hand, sentences built with estar describe a context-, situation-dependent state of what's referenced.

In fewer words, the rule of thumb is the following: ser is for inherent characteristics while estar for states. Apolo399 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why conocer is listed as an example of an irregular verb. The only way in which it differs from regular verbs is the addition of the letter z in some forms of the present indicative, present subjunctive, and the imperatives (i.e. whenever the "ending" does not begin with e or i). But surely that's always the rule for verbs whose infinitives end in -_cer or -_cir (with a vowel in the _ position)? I can't think of any example of a verb that doesn't follow this rule (except for those which are irregular anyway, like decir). And if that's the "default" rule, surely it should count as regular?

For the same reason we don't usually consider verbs that end in -guir (like distinguir) to be irregular, even though the u is sometimes dropped, again whenever the "ending" does not begin with e or i (yo distingo).

I think we should remove that example from the list, or perhaps replace it with another one that's irregular.

~ 88.211.86.26 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]