Reflexive Spanish Verbs With an Indirect Object

Reflexive Spanish Verbs With an Indirect Object Spanish often uses reflexive verbs  in a way that seems unfamiliar to English speakers. And they can seem downright indecipherable at when they are in sentences include two object pronouns of a single verb, a phenomenon that is unheard of in everyday English unless those pronouns are connected by and or or. Here are three examples of sentences that include two object pronouns that have different grammatical functions (that is, that arent joined by a conjunction such as y or o). Translations given arent the only ones possible; alternatives are explained below.) Se me rompià ³ la taza. (The objects are se and me. My cup got broken.) ¿Se te olvidà ³ el tomate? (The object pronouns are te and me. Did you forget the tomato?)La espiritualidad es algo que se nos despierta en cierto momento de nuestra vida. (The object pronouns are se and te. Spirituality is something that awakens for us at a certain time of our lives.) Why Two Objects Are Used You may have noticed that the three translations above took different approaches- but that none of the translations are literal, word-for-word ones, which wouldnt make sense. The key to understanding these sentences grammatically is to remember that the se in each of these cases is part of a reflexive verb, and that the other pronoun is an indirect object, one that tells who is affected by a verbs action. Basically, a reflexive construction is one in which the subject of a verb acts on itself. An example in English would be I see myself (Me veo in Spanish), where the person speaking is both seeing and being seen. In Spanish, however, it is possible to think of a verb acting on itself even when we dont translate it that way in English. This can be seen in the first example, where the most common definition of romper is to break. So we can think of romperse (romper plus the reflexive pronoun se) as meaning to break itself, (The translation to be broken might also be used.) The other pronoun, in this case me, tells us is affected by that breaking. In English, we might translate the indirect object me as me, to me, or for me. So a fully literal meaning of the sentence might be something like The cup broken itself to me. Obviously that doesnt make much sense. So how do we translate such a sentence. Normally, if a cup breaks and it affects me, its probably my cup, so we could say My cup broke or My cup got broken. And even I broken the cup would be fine if that fit the context of what happened. The other sentences can be analyzed in the same way. In the second example, olvidarse typically means to be forgotten rather than the literal to forget itself. And if the forgetting of the tomato affects you, you are probably the person who lost it, and the the translation given. And in the third example, despertarse usually means to wake up or to awaken. Without the nos in the sentence, we could could think merely of spirituality waking up. The for us is used to clearly indicate who is a beneficiary of the verbs action, although awakens us could be used. Note how in all these sentences, the se is placed before other pronoun. Se should not be placed between a verb and any other object pronoun. Other Sample Sentences You can see how this pattern is followed with the other sentences. Again, the translations given arent the only ones possible: Estoy agradecido no se me ocurrià ³ antes. (Im grateful it didnt happen to me sooner.) ¡El cielo se nos cae encima! (The sky is falling on us!)Pedid y se os dar. (Ask and it will be given to you.)Que se te moje el telà ©fono mà ³vil es una de las peores cosas que puede pasar. (Getting your cellphone wet is one of the worst things that can happen to you.) Key Takeaways The reflexive pronoun se can be used along with indirect object pronouns that indicate who is affected by the action of the reflexive verb.Se is placed before the indirect object pronoun.Sentences using se and an indirect pronoun can be translated in at least three different ways.

The False Cause Fallacy Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

The False Cause Fallacy Correlation Does Not Equal Causation The False Cause Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Equal Causation When we see that two things happen together, we may assume one causes the other. If we don’t eat all day, for example, we will get hungry. And if we notice that we regularly feel hungry after skipping meals, we might conclude that not eating causes hunger. A good deduction! But does the same logic always apply? Are two things that seem to occur together always related? Or is this sometimes an error? In this post, we look at correlation and causation to help you understand – and hopefully avoid – the false cause fallacy in your academic writing. Correlation and Causation A correlation is a mutual relationship between two or more things. Typically, this is a statistical relationship where two variables are interdependent: A positive correlation occurs when two or more variables seem to increase or decrease together. For instance, there is a clear correlation between the variables â€Å"foot size† and â€Å"shoe size† because people with bigger feet reliably have bigger shoes. A negative correlation occurs when one variable increases as another one decreases. For example, the variables â€Å"speed of vehicle† and â€Å"duration of journey† are negatively correlated because a faster vehicle will typically complete a journey in less time. Correlations like this can be useful because they can help us spot a connection between two things. In some cases – including the examples we’ve used here so far – you can even identify a causal relationship between the variables. For instance, few would deny that skipping meals can cause hunger, or that a faster vehicle can reduce journey time. But we must be careful when drawing this kind of conclusion. Correlation does not always imply causation. And if we misinterpret a correlative relationship, we might fall into the false cause fallacy. The False Cause Fallacy The false cause fallacy occurs when we wrongly assume that one thing causes something else because we’ve noticed a relationship between them. For instance, if one thing happens after something else, we may assume that the first causes the second. However, following from or coinciding with something is not the same as causing it. And if we are too quick to conclude a causal relationship, we might end up with a false cause. Two major hazards here are reverse causation and spurious correlation. The False Cause Fallacy: Reverse Causation When looking at a correlation, we may misunderstand the relationship between the variables. And this can lead to mixing up a cause and an effect. For instance, based on a correlation alone, it would be just as reasonable to believe that windmills cause wind as it would be to believe wind causes windmill blades to turn. All we know is that the two things happen together, increasing and decreasing at the same rate. Its basically a big rotary fan, right? (Photo: music4life) For anyone who knows anything about windmills, though, this is obviously a case of the false cause fallacy. We know this because we know that windmills catch wind to create rotational energy. Thus, a correlation can only tell us about a cause if we know how the variables are related. And if we get this relationship wrong, we can end up with reverse causation. The False Cause Fallacy: Spurious Correlation The false cause fallacy can also occur when there is no real relationship between variables despite a correlation. For example, there is a genuine statistical correlation between movies released featuring Nicolas Cage and the number of people who drown in US swimming pools each year. Is Nicholas Cage a secret pool murderer? Our libel lawyers say No. (Graph: TylerVigen.com) If correlation implied causation, we might assume that Nicolas Cage movies are deadly around water. But this would be at best a hasty conclusion. As with the windmill example above, correlation alone is not proof of causation. If we truly wanted to say that one of these variables caused the other one, we would need to explain how Nicolas Cage movies are related to pool deaths. And we’d need evidence that the two things were connected. Without this, we’re left with a spurious correlation (i.e., two things that coincidentally overlap in some way). And we cannot draw any useful conclusions from this kind of relationship between variables. How to Avoid False Cause Fallacies So, then, how do you avoid the false cause fallacy in your own work? We have a few tips that you might want to follow: Remember that correlation does not equal causation. It is fine to report a correlation in your data, but you cannot assume a cause and effect relationship from that alone. Always consider how variables in a correlation are related. Think about non-causal explanations, such as pure coincidence. Is there enough data to suggest a strong correlation between two variables? Consider whether other variables could explain the correlation. For example, ice-cream sales and hospital admissions for heat stroke are positively correlated because both are influenced by a third variable (i.e., high temperatures), not because eating ice-cream causes heat stroke. If you are going to argue that a correlation suggests a causal relationship between variables, back this up with evidence. Don’t forget, too, that having your work proofread can help you express yourself clearly. And the more clearly you can set out your arguments, the easier it will be to avoid false cause fallacies.