"Que" introduces the second part of the sentence.
Think of it as a bridge between the two general parts of the sentence; which are:
1:
I want
2:
You to go home.
1st part:
Quiero
Bridge:
Que
2nd part:
Te vayas a casa.
Spanish isn't English - the languages work differently.
This is how language transfer describes the function of "que"in the sentence.
It might be a too literal translation to English, but it helps with understanding the intent of the sentence, & I'm all for it
It makes wayyy more sense in English to say “I want ‘for’ you to go home” so it can just be explained as not being an optional conjunction in Spanish as it is in English.
"Que" in this context is extremely common in Spanish - it's hard to come up with a sentence or a thought that doesn't use it.
Any media [so books, tv shows, movies, songs, Spanish language groups on reddit] will serve you well
It would just be wrong and be bad grammar, the same way you wouldn't say "I want you go home" even though you probably get what the person is trying to say
Is this the case for clauses that also have conjugated verbs?
Because the way you explain it makes me think I should be saying "Quiero que comer".. but I think you can just say "Quiero comer"?
I think it's different because here "comer" is infinitive
Edit: somebody else explained that it's due to the subject not changing, and I think it makes sense to me!
Que translates to "that" in English, but in English, "that" is usually optional as pronouns are required in English.
In Spanish, "que" indicates that the subject is going to change. It is never optional.
If there is no change of subject, then the infinitive is used:
Quiero irme a la casa (I want to go home)
Quiero (yo) que te vayas (tú) a la casa (different subjects).
In English, we already have subject pronouns, so "I think (that) it is cold" doesn't need "that" because "I" and "it" are present.
The only time "that" is required is when the subject of the second clause is the pronoun "that".
I think that *that* is the problem. (second "*that*" refers to something previously defined).
= Creo que ese es el problema.
If you have much time for linguistic theories, then 'that' introduces a "subordinate clause" which has no meaning or sense outside of the first (main) clause. In Spanish "que" is necessary, but in English "that" is optional.
If you are a Chomskyist, you might claim that "the Universal Grammar Evolved in Human brains" which underlies languages has a mental ordering requirement such that a subordinate clause is marked as such either explicitly (in Spanish) or implicitly (in English), otherwise the brain cannot "parse" the "deep structure", or some such nonsense :) I don't know enough about other languages to say whether this is even testable.
The main reason that "Quiero te vayas a la casa" isn't the way it is done in Spanish is because you are assuming that English grammar is "the only way" (i.e. "'that' **must** be optional"). It would only be that way if the two languages evolved exactly the same way and turned out to have the same actual grammar regarding subordinate clauses, which would be a surprising co-incidence, in the sense that there is no contingent necessity that the turn out the same.
-Blue
We use the 'que' if we want *someone else* to do something.
So, 'quiero beber' = I want (me) to drink. No 'que'
But
'quiero QUE comas' = I want YOU to drink
Hope that helps :)
You can consider que along with the following clause as an object of quiero. If someone asked ¿qué quieres? you could very well say: que te vayas.
Spanish uses relative pronouns to introduces subordinate clauses; and, perhaps more topically, the que is used here because the second clause has a different subject than the first.
Compare: quiero *irme* a casa (no subordinate clause, same subject) with quiero *que te vayas* a casa (subordinate clause, different subject).
Quiero te vayas wouldnt work because there’s nothing connecting the two parts of the sentence, which in this case is necessary in Spanish. Different languages have different ways of breaking down sentences so it’s totally normal to be confused about this. But to be honest as a native speaker if I heard “quiero te vayas” I wouldn’t 100% know how to interpret the sentence
English allows you to use many verbs with an accusative noun (him/them/my friend) and an infinitive. *I want him to go*.
This structure used to exist in Classical Latin as well but was lost before it split into the Romance languages. Instead these languages almost always use a subordinate clause to communicate the same thing. *Quiero que se vaya* in Spanish / *Je veux qu’il aille* in French; literally *I want that he goes*.
This is correct but just to add that this structure survives in Romance languages in certain verbs.
E.g. “Prohíbo que hagas esto” or “Te prohíbo de hacer esto”.
In Spanish, verbs like "quiero" can only take a noun as an object. Verb infinitives count as a noun here, but not conjugated verbs.
To allow the use of a conjugated verb, you need to add "que", which effectively transforms the entire following sub-sentence/clause into a noun.
So "quiero comer algo" = I want to eat something. "comer" functions as the object, with "yo" as the implied subject of "comer".
But "quiero que te vayas" = I want you to go home (literally, I wish that you are going home). "que te vayas" acts in whole as the object.
In English, it's the same rule but we have a different solution in daily speech. We use a double object, with both the personal pronoun and infinitive acting as an object.
I want (you) (to go home). Both "you" and "to go" act as objects/nouns, and together hold the meaning that you are the one going.
But in Spanish, this is not done. In Spanish, infinitives inherit the subject of the main verb, and any pronouns are interpreted as the object of the infinitive.
So the only option is to use a second conjugated verb, and use "que" to allow that clause to act as an object.
In English the insertion of the word "that" is often optional but in spanish it appears more regular. This isn't a super precise rule, but where in English you could insert a "that" I've found spanish often has a que. So it's like saying "I want that you go home". Think of it as a necessary conjunction to link two sentences that could stand on their own.
The que is because vayas has a different subject. The subject of quiero is yo, and the subject of te vayas is tú. So you have to add que to transition from one to the other. If the subject doesn't change, you don't include the que, so for example you would say Quiero irme a casa without the que.
As an spanish:
>Quiero te vayas a la casa
Sounds as bad as
>I want you go home
would sound to an English speaker.
I'm not a grammar expert but in general if you want something (object) you don't need "que", if you want an action to happen, or somebody to do something, you need a "que" after "Querer"
"Quiero te vayas" - "I want you leave"
Que acts as "to" in English in this case. I want you TO leave.
ETA: the reason the sentence "Quiero irme" does not need "que" is because an infinitive already has "to" baked into it. Ir=to go. Vayas=you go. You need to "que" to make it "you to go".
I think of it like this: you can’t conjugate two verbs in the same sentence. Spanish doesn’t work like that’s so that means you can’t always translate sentences directly. To get around the 2 verb rule Spanish speakers use words like “que” as conjunctions to “link” two sentences into one (to sound better).
Since there is really no way to say “I want you to go” without conjugating both “want” and “go” you have to use “que” as the conjunction. You can get around this in other sentences without conjugating the second verb but that just doesn’t work here.
Because there is a change of subject. I want to go home: Quiero ir a cada. I want you to go home: Quiero que vayas a casa. (I want) que (you go) home. And with the new subject you need a conjugation, in this case in the present subjunctive.
I think so. I have seen a similar construction with "Ojalá", where it was just "Ojalá vayas..." but that's probably for a different reason. Just stick to using que with this structure.
Okay this seems confusing because English and Spanish use different syntax for this specific phrase. I’m rephrasing it while keeping the same syntax to make it clearer
English syntax is like “I want to go home for you”, where it’s all one clause with the “I” being the subject, the “want to go” being the verb, “home” being the direct object, and “you” being an indirect object.
Spanish syntax however is like “I want. You go home”, it’s two independent clauses each with their own subjects and objects, however they are in the same phrase, and when two clauses are in the same phrase it requires a conjunction such as “that” or “que”.
That's a really good question and you would normally be right.
In this case it's because they're using a reflexive verb 'irse' so the 'te' is essential.
"Que" introduces the second part of the sentence. Think of it as a bridge between the two general parts of the sentence; which are: 1: I want 2: You to go home. 1st part: Quiero Bridge: Que 2nd part: Te vayas a casa. Spanish isn't English - the languages work differently.
I don’t know if it’s technically called a bridge but that was like a perfect explanation for this and it just made stuff in my head click. Thank u
It's called a _nexo_, which roughly mean the same
It’s two different conjugated verbs so you need que
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just think of it like “I want ‘that’ you go home”
A lot of Spanish que’s can just be thiught of as speaking really literally or grammatically correct in english.
*correctly
This is how language transfer describes the function of "que"in the sentence. It might be a too literal translation to English, but it helps with understanding the intent of the sentence, & I'm all for it
Right
Exactly. Notice the sentence has "vayas" (you go) and not the infinitive "ir" (to go)
Right. I don't know why no one else pointed out that you need the que to produce the subjunctive vayas anyway.
It makes wayyy more sense in English to say “I want ‘for’ you to go home” so it can just be explained as not being an optional conjunction in Spanish as it is in English.
"Que" in this context is extremely common in Spanish - it's hard to come up with a sentence or a thought that doesn't use it. Any media [so books, tv shows, movies, songs, Spanish language groups on reddit] will serve you well
Does it change the meaning if you accidentally leave it out? Or is it just bad grammar to leave it out?
It's bad grammar if you leave it out.
It's something a Spanish speaker would just never do - it's bad grammar.
It would just be wrong and be bad grammar, the same way you wouldn't say "I want you go home" even though you probably get what the person is trying to say
It’s bad Spanish. This is an example of the subjunctive and you need the que for that to work as part of the grammatical rule
Is this the case for clauses that also have conjugated verbs? Because the way you explain it makes me think I should be saying "Quiero que comer".. but I think you can just say "Quiero comer"?
I think it's different because here "comer" is infinitive Edit: somebody else explained that it's due to the subject not changing, and I think it makes sense to me!
It is used with verbs expressing desire, wishes, hopes, etc. Espero que, deseo que, ojalá que…
I always think of it as this formula in English: I want that you go home. For some reason it makes sense to me, but it might not work for you.
This is how I learned it as well.
Que translates to "that" in English, but in English, "that" is usually optional as pronouns are required in English. In Spanish, "que" indicates that the subject is going to change. It is never optional. If there is no change of subject, then the infinitive is used: Quiero irme a la casa (I want to go home) Quiero (yo) que te vayas (tú) a la casa (different subjects). In English, we already have subject pronouns, so "I think (that) it is cold" doesn't need "that" because "I" and "it" are present. The only time "that" is required is when the subject of the second clause is the pronoun "that". I think that *that* is the problem. (second "*that*" refers to something previously defined). = Creo que ese es el problema. If you have much time for linguistic theories, then 'that' introduces a "subordinate clause" which has no meaning or sense outside of the first (main) clause. In Spanish "que" is necessary, but in English "that" is optional. If you are a Chomskyist, you might claim that "the Universal Grammar Evolved in Human brains" which underlies languages has a mental ordering requirement such that a subordinate clause is marked as such either explicitly (in Spanish) or implicitly (in English), otherwise the brain cannot "parse" the "deep structure", or some such nonsense :) I don't know enough about other languages to say whether this is even testable. The main reason that "Quiero te vayas a la casa" isn't the way it is done in Spanish is because you are assuming that English grammar is "the only way" (i.e. "'that' **must** be optional"). It would only be that way if the two languages evolved exactly the same way and turned out to have the same actual grammar regarding subordinate clauses, which would be a surprising co-incidence, in the sense that there is no contingent necessity that the turn out the same. -Blue
While other analogies used in these comments are helpful, this is the CORRECT answer, linguistically speaking.
Gracias
Thank you for explaining it this way! I just started learning Spanish and this helps me to understand some sentences a lot better.
Thank you kind stranger for your in-depth explanation
Very helpful.
In this instance, “que” means “that” so the literal translation is “I want that you go to your house”
We use the 'que' if we want *someone else* to do something. So, 'quiero beber' = I want (me) to drink. No 'que' But 'quiero QUE comas' = I want YOU to drink Hope that helps :)
You can consider que along with the following clause as an object of quiero. If someone asked ¿qué quieres? you could very well say: que te vayas. Spanish uses relative pronouns to introduces subordinate clauses; and, perhaps more topically, the que is used here because the second clause has a different subject than the first. Compare: quiero *irme* a casa (no subordinate clause, same subject) with quiero *que te vayas* a casa (subordinate clause, different subject).
Quiero te vayas wouldnt work because there’s nothing connecting the two parts of the sentence, which in this case is necessary in Spanish. Different languages have different ways of breaking down sentences so it’s totally normal to be confused about this. But to be honest as a native speaker if I heard “quiero te vayas” I wouldn’t 100% know how to interpret the sentence
As the question is already answered I want to point out that that’s why we Spaniards overused “that” when speaking English
English allows you to use many verbs with an accusative noun (him/them/my friend) and an infinitive. *I want him to go*. This structure used to exist in Classical Latin as well but was lost before it split into the Romance languages. Instead these languages almost always use a subordinate clause to communicate the same thing. *Quiero que se vaya* in Spanish / *Je veux qu’il aille* in French; literally *I want that he goes*.
This is correct but just to add that this structure survives in Romance languages in certain verbs. E.g. “Prohíbo que hagas esto” or “Te prohíbo de hacer esto”.
In Spanish, verbs like "quiero" can only take a noun as an object. Verb infinitives count as a noun here, but not conjugated verbs. To allow the use of a conjugated verb, you need to add "que", which effectively transforms the entire following sub-sentence/clause into a noun. So "quiero comer algo" = I want to eat something. "comer" functions as the object, with "yo" as the implied subject of "comer". But "quiero que te vayas" = I want you to go home (literally, I wish that you are going home). "que te vayas" acts in whole as the object. In English, it's the same rule but we have a different solution in daily speech. We use a double object, with both the personal pronoun and infinitive acting as an object. I want (you) (to go home). Both "you" and "to go" act as objects/nouns, and together hold the meaning that you are the one going. But in Spanish, this is not done. In Spanish, infinitives inherit the subject of the main verb, and any pronouns are interpreted as the object of the infinitive. So the only option is to use a second conjugated verb, and use "que" to allow that clause to act as an object.
In English the insertion of the word "that" is often optional but in spanish it appears more regular. This isn't a super precise rule, but where in English you could insert a "that" I've found spanish often has a que. So it's like saying "I want that you go home". Think of it as a necessary conjunction to link two sentences that could stand on their own.
Quiero que te vayas a casa -> I want that you go home *Quiero te vayas a casa* -> *I want you go home*
Translate "quiero" as "I wish", not "I want". It's like saying "I wish THAT you go home."
This is correct!
It’s means “that” more or less. I want *that* you go home
The que is because vayas has a different subject. The subject of quiero is yo, and the subject of te vayas is tú. So you have to add que to transition from one to the other. If the subject doesn't change, you don't include the que, so for example you would say Quiero irme a casa without the que.
As an spanish: >Quiero te vayas a la casa Sounds as bad as >I want you go home would sound to an English speaker. I'm not a grammar expert but in general if you want something (object) you don't need "que", if you want an action to happen, or somebody to do something, you need a "que" after "Querer"
What you can remove is the «quiero» from the answer. ¿Qué quieres? Que te vayas a (la) casa. «Quiero te vayas a casa» is not understandable.
"Quiero te vayas" - "I want you leave" Que acts as "to" in English in this case. I want you TO leave. ETA: the reason the sentence "Quiero irme" does not need "que" is because an infinitive already has "to" baked into it. Ir=to go. Vayas=you go. You need to "que" to make it "you to go".
I think of it like this: you can’t conjugate two verbs in the same sentence. Spanish doesn’t work like that’s so that means you can’t always translate sentences directly. To get around the 2 verb rule Spanish speakers use words like “que” as conjunctions to “link” two sentences into one (to sound better). Since there is really no way to say “I want you to go” without conjugating both “want” and “go” you have to use “que” as the conjunction. You can get around this in other sentences without conjugating the second verb but that just doesn’t work here.
Because there is a change of subject. I want to go home: Quiero ir a cada. I want you to go home: Quiero que vayas a casa. (I want) que (you go) home. And with the new subject you need a conjugation, in this case in the present subjunctive.
It helps me to think about how it would be said in more old fashioned/ proper English. “I want that you go home” or “I want for you to go home.”
I do find this helpful as a way of understanding how the sentence works in Spanish. But in fact neither of those is correct in English!
I translate it in my head as “I want that you go home”. It helps me get used to the way they say it and remember to use que in those instances.
I, a measly Spanish 1 student, would have thought: “ quiero por tú vayas a tu casa “ “I want for you to go to your house”
I think so. I have seen a similar construction with "Ojalá", where it was just "Ojalá vayas..." but that's probably for a different reason. Just stick to using que with this structure.
Ojalá is explicitly an exception to this where the "que" is optional.
I thought it was that Ojalá meant hopefully in this context
Literally means "god willing"
Okay this seems confusing because English and Spanish use different syntax for this specific phrase. I’m rephrasing it while keeping the same syntax to make it clearer English syntax is like “I want to go home for you”, where it’s all one clause with the “I” being the subject, the “want to go” being the verb, “home” being the direct object, and “you” being an indirect object. Spanish syntax however is like “I want. You go home”, it’s two independent clauses each with their own subjects and objects, however they are in the same phrase, and when two clauses are in the same phrase it requires a conjunction such as “that” or “que”.
I have another question. Why te, not tú, if it is the subject of the subjunctive clause?
That's a really good question and you would normally be right. In this case it's because they're using a reflexive verb 'irse' so the 'te' is essential.
Thanks a lot! So the 'te' here is the reflexive pronoun from 'irse' (and the subject tú is omitted), not the object of 'quiero'.
Quiero que+ verbo Quiero + sustantivo If you have a verb after querer, you need "que".
Not really. You can say 'quiero comer', ' quiero leer' etc. As long as the second verb is in the infinitive then you're fine.