In the Mexican song Cielito Lindo, the refrain starts out like this:

Ay, ay, ay, ay,
Canta y no llores...

I can't work out the endings. Canta looks like 3p sing. present tense; chores looks like 2p sing. present. Seems like both should be imperative: "Sing and don't cry." Wassup? Or is it just a dialect thang?

Slipped into Portuguese did we?

oh, oops. I won't go back and edit it because then your comment won't make sense.

llores[sp] = chores[pt]

Canta y no llores

Looks like an imperative followed by a 2nd person singular present subjunctive. Iberian Romance is not my strong suit, but I believe the negative subjunctive is used in Spanish as a sort of hortative subjunctive for commands. 'Sing and don't cry'.

Llorar is first conjugation (or whatever you call it) so the form with an -e- would be the subjunctive. Sounds good. Thanks, Nunc.

Thanks, Nuncle, and I'm still waiting for twosleepy to weigh in. Meanwhile, seems to me cante would be the imperative since the infinitive is cantar.

seems to me cante would be the imperative since the infinitive is cantar.

Cante is the 3rd person singular imperative 'let her/him sing'. Canta is the 2nd person singular informal imperative 'sing (you)'.

[Corrected error of omission.]

Here ya go, Anna:

They are both correct and in the imperative. Negative tú commands are different than positive.

Cantar = to sing

present: canto, cantas, canta, cantamos, cantan
subjunctive: cante, cantes, cante, cantemos, canten
commands: tú: canta; Usted (Ud.): cante
neg. commands: tú: no cantes; Ud.: no cante

Yes, it's confusing! Plus, there are irregular verbs and all the usual nonsense, but in regular verbs it's just the negative tú that is different.
:0)

Wrong! As far as I know, the only imperatives are second person. If you address a third person, s/he becomes second. You might say a third person should do something, but that would not be the imperative.



Wrong again! The second person singular is "cantas", as shown in my previous post. "Canta" is the third person singular.

Wow! I got to say "wrong" to Zmjezhd, twice! I better figure out what "Zmjezhd" is in numbers and get a lottery ticket... ;0)

and if I'm wrong, I'll have a heap o' slinkin' away to do...

Wow! I got to say "wrong" to Zmjezhd, twice!

I am wrong on occasion and when I am I admit it. The second error was one of omission. I left out the mood: i.e., imperative. I've fixed that.

Now about imperatives in Spanish in persons other than the 2nd person. Spanish, as other Romance languages, has imperatives in more than the 2nd person. For example: ¡Viva el rey! Just as the present subjunctive (no llores) is used for the negative imperative ("don't cry"), the present subjunctive is used for 3rd person imperatives, which usually have to be translated in English as, "let her/him X".

References

Wikipedia article

Discussion of the third person imperative

Thank you both -- muchas gracias -- obrigada.

I checked both of those links. The first appears to be incorrectly written, as it says the plural third person is vosotros, where vosotros is actually the plural second person (informal), that is, the plural form of tú. I'm not sure I trust that page.

You're referencing Wikipedia! I thought you were on my Wiki-haters list....

There may be some confusion and/or controversy regarding the "third person" label. In Spanish, the forms for the third person are the same as those for the second person formal (Usted and Ustedes). I don't believe the imperative forms are truly third person, but the forms are used for Usted and Ustedes. Since the labels are debatable, I'll leave it at you pick yours and I'll pick mine.

Regarding ¡Viva el rey!, I believe it is a shortening of ¡Que viva el rey!, which can be translated "That the king (should) live" but is generally "Long live the king". This would be the subjunctive.

On a personal note, zmjezhd, my intent was to be humorous about the corrections, with a little added jubilation (I rarely get to be the "expert"), which should indicate to you that I rarely see mistakes from you, and that your knowledge base is deep and awe-inspiring. I did not intend any disrespect, so if you felt that, I do apologize, as I did not wish to even imply any such thing! :0)

You're referencing Wikipedia! I thought you were on my Wiki-haters list....

Moi? Nope, I find Wikipedia useful, and cite it often.

here may be some confusion and/or controversy regarding the "third person" label.

Agreed. I was using it because that's how I have often seen it referred to in linguistics texts and grammars. But, if you're going to call no llores a 2nd person negative imperative, then I guess I can call llore a 3rd person imperative. Latin had these, too. Vivat rex 'let the king live', fiat lux 'let there be light', etc.

The problem in the end is one of terminology. Some people like their terminology to be based on forms. And others on function.

my intent was to be humorous about the corrections, with a little added jubilation (I rarely get to be the "expert")

I appreciated that you pointed out some problems with my post, and I tried to rectify them. I hope I did not seem to be taking umbrage.

[Addendum: a discussion of imperative mood in the Gramática de la lengua castellana by Real Academia Española (link), including examples of 3PS and 1PP.]

With compliments from the Mexican connection:
"Sing and don't cry",
ay ay ay ay

You are one FUNNY guy! Thanks for the chortle... Nothing like a text over 100 years old to help me brush up on my grammar... I know these guys, anyway. They probably changed most of what's in there in the last 100 years. Heck, they even deleted 2 letters from the alphabet in 1994! :0)

So, how old is the song Cielito Lindo? I would say consulting a grammar book that's over 100 years old would be perfectly appropriate for examining the grammar of a song that's over 100 years old. But that's just me. YMMV.

Nothing like a text over 100 years old to help me brush up on my grammar...

Well, I did try to find something in between Wikipedia and the Real Academia Española. I was somewhat hampered in my quest by the length of copyright being what it is these days, and basically having been extended to a century. Also, on a lighter side, maybe I'm just a centenarian grammarian.

Okay, now that's cute! Sounds like something from Grammar Rock! I really loved that Schoolhouse Rock stuff... classic!


My question is: What the heck were they smokin' when they wrote it???

What the heck were they smokin' when they wrote it?

Rope? Not ropas.

Not even made of hemp? ;0)

hemp

Nope, these days a lot of rope is made from petrochemicals.