se construction

anonymous asked:

Differences between ISTP and ESTP?

I’m not going to rely on cognition for this one. If you want in depth cognition go to @mbti-notes

I’m going to do observational differences .


- are “there” even when they’re not
- more prone to be moody, or broody
- more prone to outbursts
- less prone to having a framework for morality
- more anal about surroundings, the home, etc
- more likely to fear commitment, but put themselves in those situations anyway
- tend to disperse energy through the room
- level stare when pissed or thinking
- runs from the void of Ni
- more liquid


- tend to rationalize away emotion, to protect themselves
- extremely committed (most ISTPs I know marry very fast)
- “broad” presence, like they have a bubble
- level stare, always
- incidental and accidental deep jabs
- more prone to believing everyone’s dislikes them
- more humble (see above point)
- embraces Ni, especially if they have a strong interest and/or are an academic person (Ti-Ni framework building)
- more likely to be irrational (see: not illogical) about things they are not comfortable with (rejection of Se data gathering for constructing Ti Ni frameworks out of nothing)
- more solid

Tu crois que l'amour existe et tu l'attends ; exactement comme une barque vide attend l'océan. L'amour il faut l'aider à sortir de sa cachette-nulle part. Et pour ça il faut parfois l'inventer. L'inventer, lui et la barque, lui et l'océan, un peu comme le conduire par la main là où il ne pousse encore que du manque. Et là, cette pure construction imaginaire se met à exister pour de vrai. Elle choisit de prendre une autre main, car l'amour est aussi un choix. Et la barque se remplit de fleurs et de poissons volants et la mer se remplit d'écume : c'est la jupe de l'amoureuse virevoltant autour d'un premier baiser.

jacques dor

anonymous asked:

"Se constructions" are ruining my life please help me 😫

The impersonal se is used when there’s no specific subject that’s being stated. In English “we” would say “we” even though it’s a figurative “we”. Also there’s “you” and “everyone” or the very ambiguous “they”.

In Spanish, this se is impersonal because no subject has actually been mentioned so it talks about “what can be done” not “what someone can do”.

Se habla español aquí. = We speak Spanish here. [lit. “Spanish is spoken (by us/them)”]

Se habla español en España. = They speak Spanish in Spain. [no subject has been stated; this isn’t a “they” like ellos which refers to present people]

Sí se puede. = Yes we can. [lit. “yes it can (be done)”]

Impersonal can become personal by adding a subject:

Hablamos español. = We speak Spanish.

La gente española habla español. = The Spanish people speak Spanish. / Spaniards speak Spanish.

The passive se looks almost exactly like impersonal except that it can appear as a plural.

Passive se is part of the passive voice. Active is “Subject verbs an object” but passive voice is “An object is verbed by Subject”.

The passive se places emphasis on the object where no subject is specifically stated.

Se comió la comida. = The food got eaten. [by whom? we don’t know]

Se comieron las galletas. = The cookies were eaten. / The cookies got eaten. [by whom? again, no subject]

Se vende ropa en la tienda. = Clothing is sold in the store.

Se venden joyas en la joyería. = Jewels are sold in the jewelry store.

Passive se can be used in a full passive context by adding a por (alguien)… or it can be made active:

Se comieron las galletas. = The cookies were eaten. [passive se]

Las galletas fueron comidas por los niños. = The cookies were eaten by the children. [fully passive with the por “by (someone)”]

Los niños comieron las galletas. = The children ate the cookies. [active voice]

In singular, impersonal and passive look very similar but can be translated slightly differently, so it’s only by plural that you can tell which is which:

Se habla español. = They speak Spanish. [impersonal]

Se habla español. = Spanish is spoken. [passive]

Se habla español y francés. = They speak Spanish and French. [impersonal]

Se hablan español y francés. = Spanish and French are spoken. [passive]

In the case of abrir it’s impersonal/passive because abrir takes a direct object but things don’t quite “open” themselves.

Abren las ventanas. = They open the windows.
Pueden abrir las ventanas. = They can open the windows.

Abrieron las ventanas. = They opened the windows.
Abrían las ventanas. = They were opening the windows. / They used to open the windows.

Pudieron abrir las ventanas. = They succeeded in opening the windows.
Podían abrir las ventanas. = They had the ability to open the windows. / They could open the windows.

By using impersonal or passive, you place the emphasis more squarely on the object itself; in this case “windows”


Se puede abre las ventanas. = You can open the windows. / One can open the windows.

Se pudo abrir las ventanas. = They successfully opened the windows.

No se pudo abrir las ventanas. = They couldn’t get the windows opened. / They failed to open the windows.

*Note: Some people when doing passive will put the object in front so it can more easily be understood as an “almost subject”. It’s really up to you.

Las ventanas se pueden abrir. = The windows can be opened.
Se pueden abrir las ventanas. = The windows can be opened.
Las ventanas no se pueden abrir. = The windows can’t be opened.
No se pueden abrir las ventanas. = The windows can’t be opened.

Se pudieron abrir las ventanas. = The windows were able to be opened.
No se pudieron abrir las ventanas. = The windows failed to open.

Se podían abrir las ventanas. = The windows could be opened.
No se podían abrir las ventanas. = The windows could not be opened. / The windows did not have the ability to be opened.

Note: There are other ways se gets used like when you use reflexives, when you’re doing indirect objects + direct objects, or when you’re dealing with other more specialized Spanish grammar.

anonymous asked:

hey i was wondering if you could explain how reflexive verbs work with an indirect object? like the website i was reading used the example "se me rompió la taza" and i just dont understand why the "me" is there and when i should use something like that. i love your blog by the way!!

The indirect object here [me, te, le, les, nos, os] here is not a typical indirect object.

This is an incredibly passive construction used to show who the passivity affects; it’s not completely reflexive in the normal standard definition.

First let’s start with romper vs. romperse

romper = to break

romperse = to break down

Typically the romperse is used for inanimate objects and this is to indicate a kind of passive thing that’s happening.

It’s not rompí la taza “I broke the teacup”; this is active voice.

It’s se rompió la taza “the teacup broke”; and this is more like passive voice.

This is trying to say “the teacup broke (on its own)” removing blame from any one person.

This is very common with all kinds of machinery:

Rompí el coche/carro/auto. = I broke the car.

Se rompió el coche/carro/auto. = The car broke down.

By not typically reflexive in the standard definition, I mean that inanimate objects don’t technically “break themselves” as romperse suggests… it indicates that it happened on its own.

I’ve seen it referred to as la impersonalidad pasiva meaning “no-person passive”, sometimes seen as se impersonal “impersonal se

Things “break down” on their own, or “get broken” on their own, or things “are taken away” and it’s not really anyone’s fault exactly, it’s more of an impersonal consequence.

By adding the indirect object, you show a kind of… dative weight to it. Meaning it shows who benefits or is inconvenienced by the thing:

Rompí el coche/carro/auto. = I broke the car. [active]

Se rompió el coche/carro/auto. = The car broke down. [passive]

Se me rompió el coche/carro/auto. = The car broke down on me.

We tend to use the “on me” or something like that when this comes up in English, but it’s saying “the car broke down all on its own - I didn’t do it - but it’s inconveniencing me now”… or “the car broke down me”

Another common one is se me acaba ___ which is “(something) is running out on me/for me”… so se me acaba el tiempo is “time is running out for me” or se me acaba la harina “I ran out of flour”

This se me ___ construction [which can be used with any of the indirect objects] shows a “I didn’t expect it”, usually in the sense of inconveniences, accidents, or unexpected luck (usually bad but not always)

Things like se me enganchó la manga en el pomo which is “my sleeve snagged on the doorknob” or more literally “the sleeve hooked itself (on/unto/at me) on the doorknob”

Or se me entumecen las manos “my hands are going numb”; se me traba la lengua “I get tongue-tied”; se me olvidó el libro “I forgot all about the book”

In all of these cases, the verb is done in 3rd person singular or plural depending on what it is:

Se me olvidó el libro. = I forgot all about the book.

Se me olvidaron las llaves. = I forgot all about the keys.

The “subjects” are all inanimate objects that do the thing “to themselves”; it’s not “I forgot my keys”, it’s more literally “the keys made themselves forgotten to me”