I found this on Spanishdict.com. Hope it helps. http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/116091/ir-vs-irse#.UkM0h4ash8E
..................................Facts About "Ir" and "Irse"....................................<pre>
• Ir = To go, to go to</pre>
"Ir" is an irregularly conjugated verb.
It is not idiomatic, not pronominal and not a reflexive verb.
"Ir" makes no use of reflexive pronouns.
"Ir" requires a destination. The destination may be clearly stated or may simply be implied.
It is said that "ir" focuses on the destination. No starting point needs to be stated or implied.
When "ir" is used, a starting point may optionally be stated. Even so, the focus or emphasis of "ir" is on the destination.
"Ir" is used with prepositions like "a", "hacia" and "hasta" (as references to a destination).
It is also used to indicate a mode of transportation as in "en tren" or "a pie".<pre>
• Irse = To leave, to leave from</pre>
"Irse" is an idiomatic pronominal verb.
While "irse" shares the reflexive pronouns, me, te, se, nos, os, and se, it is not a reflexive verb.
"Irse" requires neither a starting point nor a destination.
The starting point for "irse" is always presumed to be here or there where the subject is at the time. "Irse" is focused on the starting point.
When using "irse", a destination may optionally be stated. Even so, the focus or emphasis of "irse" is the act of leaving or going away.
"Irse" is used with prepositions like "de" or "desde" as references to a starting point.
We have learned that se reflects back to the Subject because its the Subject performing the action. However in checking this out I found several examples of 'se fue' meaning Went off Leaked out Walked away
So it appears to be an idiom that means the subject has moved from the previous place be it a person or in the second example the wine leaked out. Hope it helps.
She simply went away. At first marked wrong. Now in 2016: Duolingo accepts this translation.
It does but se fue is the third person conjugation for the verb irse. But I don't know how you would say "she simply was herself". Ella simplemente fue se/misma. Translator says 'simplemente era' Anyone?
Yep, I believe you would need to use imperfect rather than preterite for it in most cases. I would say "Simplemente era ella misma." But I'm not entirely sure, and I think a lot of it would depend on the context.
Either way, because "se fue" is reflexive, it has to mean "leave" in this sentence. I can't really think of any situation where "ser" is ever reflexive. There might be, but I haven't run across it yet.
Context Reverso suggests that "she was herself" is usually translated as "era ella misma". Unlike in English, it appears that the reflexive (herself/himself) form is not used for this meaning in Spanish.
I also thought it could be "She simply was herself". I don't understand why that would have to be imperfect rather than preterite.
The use of se, te, me is confusing me. Ella simplemente se fue. Here, se seems entirely unnecessary. I understand what it means and why but i alsi see it as unneeded. Maybe im missing something here. I would think that "ella simplemente fue" would work just fine. Or maybe even "se fue" but i dont understand why the repetition nor do i understand why duolingo is marking me wrong on some of these questions when i leave out the redundancy. Can someone help me understand?
The se, te, and me do not cause repetition. They make a verb reflexive, in other words, they make the subject of the sentence the object as well (they are also used often to make a sentence passive). If the subject is third person, you use 'se' to reflect back to the subject and make it the object. For example: Él se ducha por la mañana. = He showers (himself) in the morning. or He gets a shower in the morning. The reason you need to use the 'se' to make it reflexive is because the thing 'él' is showering is himself, so he is not only the subject but also the object of the action. And 'te' is the reflexive pronoun for tú, and 'me' for 'yo'. Only when used with their respective subjects do they make a sentence reflexive.
- Yo me ducho por la mañana. (Can also be written as: Me ducho por la mañana.)
- Tú te duchas por la mañana. (Can also be written as: Te duchas por la mañana.)
Then there are cases where making a verb reflexive changes its meaning a bit. For this sentence, when you make 'ir' reflexive, that means 'to leave' rather than 'to go' as it would mean when it's not reflexive. So since in the English sentence it says "She simply left." you need to have "se fue" for the 'left'. If you had "Ella simplemente fue." that would mean "She simply went", which is kind of incomplete as you probably need to say where if you use 'fue' like that...ella simplemente fue a la biblioteca.
I hope that makes sense and is actually what you were asking about!
It does make sense. Thank you for the explanation. I still see some redundancy though. In the example "Él se ducha por la mañana." I understand that he is reflexive but I'm not sure why it's necessary to call it out by adding se. To me "Él ducha por la mañana" says the same thing. Why define that's it's reflexive? It doesn't seem needed. I don't understand why, in any situation, I would say "Yo me ducho por la mañana. " this seems triple repetitive by saying i, then me for I again, then ducho...again defining that I am the one showering. Why not just "ducho por la mañana" and why the need to define se or te in reflexive sentences when they are already clear in what they are referring to? Thanks again for helping. I've been having a lot of trouble with this
Some verbs in Spanish, like duchar, just have to be reflexive when you use them to mean certain things. If you say, "Ducho por la mañana" a native speaker will probably be wondering, who do you shower? Are you helping your little son get a shower? Or maybe giving your dog a shower? So if you ever refer to someone giving themselves a shower, you have to make the verb reflexive. Same with levantar, you have to make it reflexive when you mean "to get up" (levantar = to lift, levantarse = to lift oneself = to get up). And many other words need to be reflexive to mean certain things and are incorrect to leave out the reflexive pronoun. It seems weird to us in English at first because it is redundant in our language to specify that it is ourselves. All we need to say in English is, "I get a shower" or "I get up". But that's just one of the things in Spanish grammar that is different. The "yo" and "tú" I added, though, were not necessary. I was just using them to emphasize the subject that it had to agree with the object pronoun in order to be reflexive.
Ooohhh. That makes sense now. So "ducho", in your example would just mean that "I shower" but it's not assumed that I'm giving myself one because I could be showering my dog or kid as you mentioned. That makes sense. As opposed to something like "I eat" and "como". I can't be eating for someone else so "me como" is not needed. Is that right?
Well, "me como" would mean that you are eating yourself! :) The reason comer is never used reflexively is because you are always eating something other than yourself...hopefully just food!...but even if you were eating someone else or describing cannibals eating people, comer is still not used reflexively because the thing being eaten is something other than the one eating. But yes, "ducho" just means you are showering something, and if you don't specify that something is yourself by adding a 'me' before it, then it means you are showering something else.
Interesting question, whether "ser" has a reflexive form. I can't find much evidence that serse exists, or whether all Spanish verbs can be reflexive. http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/reflexive1.htm says "many, many verbs can be reflexive" but it doesn't say which ones can't be.
http://www.spanish-kit.net/grammar/163.html says that "Any transitive verb may be made reflexive if the meaning permits it". It doesn't actually say that intransitive verbs can't be made reflexive but it doesn't seem to have any examples of reflexive intransitive verbs.
About "she was simply herself", my guess is "Ella fue simplemente sí misma".
I do not have a clue how this means "she simply left." That's not how the words translate.
Anyone else having a HUGE frustration with how this website teaches "fue" and other aspects of that verb? For the life of me I cannot understand it, cannot find a good explanation anywhere or one in layman's terms so I can understand. I feel trapped at this level because I simply cannot process how this works at all.
I understand your frustration. Actually I don't think Duolingo teaches anything. It is a business model to make money obtaining translators the quickest, cheapest way possible. The kind users in this forum do teach, but due to the way the forums are set up, it can get confusing. I use Duolingo for practice, but I do other programs to really learn. I like the free version of the podcast program "Coffee Break Spanish" a lot and there are many others on the web. Duolingo is good for what it is, but it's not really so educational.
Yes! Coffee Break Spanish is WHY I can speak Spanish in the first place! Everything else was supplementary until I got so far into the program.
I had originally put she simply went away, but the definition say went out, so I changed it and was counted wrong. Which is it?
I did the same -- I used the definition (went out) and it was marked wrong. I do wonder about the definition or is it an idiomatic expression. But, then, the definition needs to include it.
I think it is because of the "se"
Pedrotaylor-I think you have a point.I did find se salió and it was translated she left... We need the opinion of a native spanish speaker to really know what is common.
yeah, it could be grammatically wrong. but i think both have the same meaning "has gone" = "se fue" . or maybe not?
I don´t think so, i think "has gone" would be "ha ido" (present perfect form) and "se fue" means "left" or "went away".
I am weak on identifying verb tenses I haven't used yet learning Spanish because I go over the details of tenses as I experience them. So I took the opportunity to check "ha ido" and my dictionary doesn't have the 'present perfect' form. It does have the 'preterit perfect' tense and shows 'ha ido'. Are we talking about the same thing?
I don´t know, probably (I am not good at the names), what I meant was the form that Duolingo calls present perfect :)
There is no auxiliary verb in the Spanish sentence here, so you cannot add one in the English translation when you are doing Duoloingo. But in normal conversation, things are different. There are rules here which the computer has been programmed with.
So, I might be the only one out here wondering about the "se" after the infinitive of the verb...in this case "ir" and "irse". I was really confused until I found the following at http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/reflexive1.htm <When the verb is reflexive, the infinitive ends in "se"> Of course!
Why is there a "se" before fue? Why not just write "Ella simplemente fue?"
"ir" (fue) means to go (focusing on where to). "irse" (se fue) means to leave (focusing on where from).
This has some good examples and a great quiz at the end.
irse - to leave ( a reflexive verb). Reflexive verbs are used with relexive pronouns.
It wants me to choose "She just left" as one of the multiple choices. ("She simply left" is also on the list.)
I'm going to report that "She just left" shouldn't be accepted, since I think "She just left" can only mean "She left a very short time ago". But I'd be interested to know if anyone might ever interpret that as meaning "She left and she didn't do anything else but leave".
Editing my comment a minute later: I didn't report it. I realized that the Spanish sentence "Ella simplemente fue" might be a Spanish idiom for "She left a very short time ago". (I'm guessing no, but who knows with idioms.)
Editing my comment a few minutes later: What was I thinking?!? Of course it's possible for "She just left" to mean "She left and she didn't do anything else but leave". "I told her she had to clean the whole house but she just left."
"She simply left" is pretty literal.
I think the confusion (or at least it was for me) is that the infinitives "ir" (to be) and "ser" (to be) have identical conjugations for the préterito (the simple past): fui, fuiste, fue, fuimos, fuisteis, fueron.
"Irse" also shares identical conjugations with the addition of the reflexive.
So, the reflexive in this phrase ("se") is a clue: the infinitive we are talking about in a possible choice of three is narrowed to one: "irse" — to go away, leave, which always carries the reflexive. The only conjugation for this 3rd person form of the past is "se fue."
dejo= (he/she/it/you) left /abandoned | dejaron= they left | izquierda = left [turn left] Fue - used to be/was /to go  se fue= he left
I am having the hardest time reading this post. Izquierda and dejado both indeed mean "left" but they mean different lefts. "Voy a la izquierda" would mean "I go to the left", while "dejado" means more like "left behind". Neither of which capture the past tense of leave.
"Irse" means to leave, similar to "salir" (but not quite the same meaning). The past tense of "irse" conjugated for the el/ella/usted form is "se fue". Thus, "ella simplemente se fue" means "she simply left".
For more details:
Reflexive verbs (-se verbs): https://www.spanishdict.com/guide/reflexive-verbs-and-reflexive-pronouns
Past tense verbs in the preterite tense (note ir is an irregular verb): https://www.spanishdict.com/guide/spanish-preterite-tense-forms/
Have I missed a lesson or two, i dont even understand the explanations