If someone needs to learn how to say "Don't touch" using the formal command, which should be used: "No se toca", or "No se toque"?

Question

I recently came across the phrase "No se toca" over at Reverso. Had I not seen so many instances of this (both at Reverso and in a regular Google search), I would have thought that it was some sort of translation mistake. In fact, there are far more instances of "no se toca" than there are of "no se toque" at least on web pages (about 20 times more) and books scanned by Google:

Granted, many of these might be instances of passive voice rather than the imperative, but the examples at Reverso clearly show that this combination of words is closely related to the command and that it is more commonly translated as such. Is this considered standard Spanish? Will I find other exceptions to standard rules of command conjugation?

---

¿Si alguien necesita aprender a decir "No tocar" como orden formal, qué debería usarse: "No se toca", o "No se toque"?

Recientemente me topé con la frase "No se toca" en Reverso. Si no hubiera visto tantas instancias de ésta (tanto en Reverso como en una búsqueda regular de Google) habría pensado que era algún tipo de error. De hecho, hay muchas más instancias de "no se toca" que las que existen para "no se toque", al menos en las páginas web (aproximadamente 20 veces más) y libros escaneados por Google:

[Véanse arriba.]

Concedido, muchas de estas podrían ser en voz pasiva, más que el imperativo, pero los ejemplos en Reverso muestran claramente que esta combinación de palabras está estrechamente relacionada con el mandato y que es más comúnmente traducida en ese sentido. ¿Es esta traducción considerada español estándar? ¿Encontraré otras excepciones a las reglas estándares de conjugación de órdenes?

Answer 1

The translation for

"no se toca"

should be

"is not for touching"

as "no se toca" leans more towards the idea that something specific should not be touched. Also, it is a Declarative, not an Imperative, making "don't touch" invalid.

"Don't touch" should be just translated as "no tocar", but it will change depending on who you are giving the command to.

So answering your question

"No tocar" and "No se toca" and "No toque/toques" are three completely different cases.

"No tocar" is the Formal impersonal(general) Command (no one can touch it)
"No toques" is the Informal personal Command (only you can't touch it)
"No toque" is the Formal personal Command (only you can't touch it)
"No se toca" is the item specific Formal impersonal Declaration (the item is not for touching)

Examples:

No tocar el jarrón -- this is likely to be found on a sign/placard

don't touch the jar

No toques el jarrón --this is the informal way you command someone

(you) don't touch the jar

No toque el jarrón -- this is the formal way you command someone

(formal you) don't touch the jar

El jarrón no se toca -- this is the formal way to tell someone

the jar is not for touching

Answer 2

Let's paint the scene. You are a guard at a museum, or you are a parent guiding a small child, during a visit to someone's house or office. In both cases, a gentle but firm way of getting your idea across is indeed

No se toca.

In many cases the specific object is spelled out, e.g.

No se tocan los cuadros.
La estatua no se toca.
Estos vasos no se tocan, son frágiles.

This is gentler than "No toques" because it makes clear that the constraint is for everyone, not just for the one person. It's a gentle, firm way of explaining what is done, what is not done, what behavior is expected in the particular situation.¹

It's also possible to say

Prefiero que no toques ______ .

Preferiría que no tocaras ______ .

Notice how the subjunctive is introduced with "que." However, a museum guard would not say that; and your host might say that to the adult, but not to the small child.

If you want to use the imperative, which you certainly could do -- it would not be grammatically incorrect -- it would be without the "se":

No toque (formal) / No toques (informal)

If you were to say, in the formal, "No se toque," that would mean "Do not touch yourself." Perhaps you were intending to include a direct object pronoun. In that case, the correct pronoun would be "lo": "No lo toque / No lo toques."

And that could certainly be said. (It sounds a notch less gentle.)

More generally: yes, "No se toca" is indeed standard Spanish; here are some examples of behavioral expectations given with some other verb form than the imperative:

Eso no se hace.

Cada quien lleva su propio plato a la cocina.

A bañarse, se ha dicho.

Ya es hora de acostarse.

Hay que dar las gracias.

¿Te despides, por favor?

As you can see, there is plenty of variety available, that will help you avoid sounding like a drill sergeant (barking orders).

Note, all of the above examples that I gave in the informal (tú) can also be expressed with the formal (usted). The museum guard, for example, would probably use the formal, at least with adults.

---

_{1 Editorial comment: this is one of the things that makes Spanish a more user-friendly language, culturally speaking, in my personal opinion, than another second language of mine, German, which says that riding your bike while your dog runs alongside, on a leash, is verboten (forbidden). In Spanish this would be No se permite (not allowed), although in Mexico, at least, there are much fewer rules, in general, than in Germany, and so frankly I can't even imagine anyone ever saying this.}

Answer 3

Both are correct. However, the difference in declension for this statement arises from using a different mode of address

• "No se toca"
• "No lo toque"

are both instances of the formal mode of address, the first being a passive voice as no explicit subject is the recipient of the order not to touch.

The second one is an imperative proper using an implicit subject (it's understood between parties to the conversation what is not to be touched, the sentence itself carries insufficient information to make such a determination which would have to be inferred from context by an uninvolved third party) while this sentence makes clear that one of the participants in the conversation is not to touch that preciously agreed to object)

• no lo toques

Could be easily mistaken for a plural of several touches except the plural forms don't agree between lo and toques.

Los toques would be a proper plural except that it's nonsensical to negate a set of touches, rendering necessary a different explanation for the meaning of such a phrase.

In this case we are looking at the informal mode of address, opposite to the formal no lo toque that final /s/ in the declension diffuses the rigidity and deference of the first case and conveys trust and familiarity between the parties to the conversation regarding the agreed rule not to touch an understood object.

---

Often modes of address bring subtle but important changes to some phrases. Some may even have different intended meanings depending on the mode of address.

It is a difficult subject to convey in translation since there is no such concept in the English language. This makes for interesting challenges to students of Spanish as a foreign language and is one of the most difficult aspects to translate. In English, most of the time formality is resolved on verbosity, thus simple phrases are thought of as informal while verbosity approaching legalese has a "formal" sound to it.