Terms such as “Perfecto anterior” or “relativa semilibre” are encountered when reading an advanced grammar of the Spanish language. A poet could extract transcendental and intimate meaning from these grammatical technicalities. The pretérito anterior is “hubo cantado” in grammars, while in our lives, we mostly use the pretéritos imperfectos, because the former never truly become posterior and disappear. The character of relativa semilibre is given in grammar to phrases like “los que vienen” or “la que vive en tu calle”, but in reality, most humans are free in theory and slaves in practice, functioning as semilibres relativos of the manual. Our entire life lends itself to a linguistic metaphor.
When studying the grammar of a language, one often encounters these terms, and in language classes, it is not commonly explained that many of them originate in rhetoric or the logic of the Greco-Roman tradition. One of these technicalities is “oración subordinada concesiva”. Sentences called concessive in grammar are those that start, for example, with aunque, and hold that name because they are based on an idea of indulgence and mercy. In debates and arguments, concessive sentences are plentiful; they link conceding to the other’s argument and then declare that argument is actually an ineffective impediment: “Although it’s not the right time, we have to push this forward”.
Conceding is not insignificant. Every negotiation, to be true, involves concessions from the parties involved. The scholastics, who argued about abstruse or absurd theological disquisitions, found that there was no way out of the dialectical impasse if each party did not concede something in their argumentation to the other. The word “tiquismiquis” comes from this scholastic negotiation framework. Deriving from “tibi, mihi” (in Latin, “for you, for me”), it has evolved into the current Spanish term used to describe the niceties that arose in these conventual disputes.
For centuries, we have assumed that in a negotiation, both parties concede and then yield. However, this paradigm is outdated. Nowadays, when partially granted the point, they say “I’ll buy it”. Welcome to the new metaphor of the mercantilist society. There are no cessions or convictions; reasons are not given or adopted. The metaphor of argumentative combat diminishes, as arguments are no longer wielded; we exit the language of dialectics: no evidence is cited or reasons are claimed. Now, the reasoning of understanding, the motivations to contradict or defend something, and the foundations upon which we uphold an ideology… are bought.
The idea of purchasing indicates an ideological immaturity that has seemingly permeated the current political climate. In Spain, there have been recent elections, with more to come. When the day after the elections agreements or alliances are announced, will they be bought? Will the agreements be sold or concessions based on ideological conviction? These negotiations lately smell like sales, buying and selling, but not of grammar or poetry books.
