Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Al ver que la fiebre sube, mi padre se pone preocupado y llama al médico. - When he sees that the fever is going up, my father gets worried and calls the doctor.

al + infinitive = upon/when doing X
- Al salir de casa, te llamo. → When I leave / Upon leaving the house, I’ll call you.
- Al ver que la fiebre sube, … → When he sees / On seeing that the fever goes up, …

It expresses an action that happens at the same time or just before the main action.

What’s the difference between “Al ver que…” and “Cuando ve que…”?

Both can often be translated as “When he sees that…”, but there’s a nuance:

Al ver que…
- Literally “on seeing that…”
- Slightly more formal/literary.
- Focuses on the moment of seeing as the trigger.
Cuando ve que…
- More neutral and everyday.
- Just “when(ever) he sees that…”

In this context, both could work:

Al ver que la fiebre sube, mi padre…
Cuando ve que la fiebre sube, mi padre…

Meaning is almost the same; the original just sounds a bit more descriptive or narrative.

Why is it “que la fiebre sube” and not just “ver la fiebre sube”?

In Spanish, after verbs like ver, notar, observar, etc., when what follows is a full clause (subject + verb), you normally need the conjunction “que”:

Ver que la fiebre sube → to see that the fever is going up
✗ ver la fiebre sube → ungrammatical

Compare:

Veo la fiebre. → I see the fever. (direct object, no verb after fiebre)
Veo que la fiebre sube. → I see that the fever is going up. (clause, needs que)

Why is it “la fiebre sube” and not “la fiebre está subiendo”?

Spanish often uses the simple present where English uses the present continuous:

La fiebre sube.
Literally: the fever rises/goes up.
Natural English: the fever is going up / the fever is rising.

You could say “la fiebre está subiendo”, but:

La fiebre sube is shorter and sounds very normal, especially in descriptions and general/habitual situations.
English prefers “the fever is going up” but Spanish does not need the progressive form to express that something is happening now.

What does “se pone preocupado” mean exactly, and why is it reflexive (se pone)?

Ponerse + adjective means “to become / to get (a certain way)” emotionally or physically:

ponerse preocupado → to get worried / to become worried
mi padre se pone preocupado → my father gets worried

Here, “se” marks that the subject undergoes a change of state:

poner (non‑reflexive) is “to put / to place / to set (something)”
ponerse (reflexive) is “to become / to get (into a state)”

Examples:

Se pone nervioso. → He gets nervous.
Se pone rojo. → He turns red / blushes.
Se pone triste. → He becomes sad.

What’s the difference between “se pone preocupado”, “se preocupa”, and “está preocupado”?

All involve worry, but they focus on different aspects:

Se pone preocupado
- Emphasizes the change: he starts to get worried.
- Focus on the moment the feeling appears.
- Good translation: “he gets worried / becomes worried.”
Se preocupa
- Literally “he worries (himself)”.
- Can be:
  - Habitual: “Mi padre se preocupa mucho por mí.” → My father worries about me a lot.
  - Or event-based: “Se preocupa cuando la fiebre sube.” → He worries when the fever goes up.
- Less direct focus on the moment of change than se pone preocupado.
Está preocupado
- Describes the state: he is (currently) worried.
- No built-in notion of how or when he became worried.

In the sentence:

se pone preocupado matches “when he sees the fever go up, he gets worried (at that moment).”

Could we say “mi padre se preocupa y llama al médico” instead? How would it sound?

Yes, grammatically that works:

Al ver que la fiebre sube, mi padre se preocupa y llama al médico.

Nuance:

se preocupa shifts the focus to the feeling of worry in general.
se pone preocupado highlights the transition (he becomes worried right then).

Both are understandable. The original “se pone preocupado” feels slightly more vivid: it describes the onset of the worry.

Why is it “llama al médico” and not “llama el médico” or “llama a el médico”?

Several points:

With llamar (to call) and a person as the direct object, Spanish usually uses the personal “a”:
- Llama a su madre. → He calls his mother.
- Llama al médico. → He calls the doctor.
“a” + “el” contract to “al”:
- a + el médico → al médico
So:
- llama al médico is the correct contracted form.
- ✗ llama a el médico → grammatically wrong spelling (should be contracted).
- ✗ llama el médico normally means “the doctor calls” (doctor = subject), not “he calls the doctor”.

Hence: “llama al médico” = he calls the doctor.

Is there a difference between “médico” and “doctor” in Spain?

In Spain:

médico = doctor (medical), the more neutral and standard word.
doctor is also used, but:
- Traditionally more linked to the academic title (someone with a doctorate).
- In everyday speech, people do say “el doctor”, especially addressing them politely:
  - “Doctor, buenos días.”

In many contexts, “médico” and “doctor” can be used interchangeably for a physician, but “médico” is the default neutral term, so “llama al médico” sounds perfectly natural.

Why is there no “él” before “se pone preocupado”? How do we know the subject?

Spanish often drops subject pronouns because the verb ending and context already show the subject.

se pone is 3rd person singular (he/she/it).
The previous noun “mi padre” is the clear subject.

So:

mi padre se pone preocupado = my father gets worried (no need for él).
You could say “Él se pone preocupado” if you wanted to emphasize he (e.g. in contrast to someone else), but it’s not necessary here.

Could the sentence start with “Cuando ve que la fiebre sube, mi padre…” instead of “Al ver…”?

Yes:

Cuando ve que la fiebre sube, mi padre se pone preocupado y llama al médico.

Differences:

Cuando ve que… is more conversational and straightforward.
Al ver que… is slightly more narrative/literary, with a focus on the instant of seeing as the trigger.

Both are correct and commonly used; choice depends mostly on stylistic preference.

Why is it “la fiebre” and not just “fiebre” without the article?

Spanish uses the definite article (el / la) more often than English, especially with:

Body conditions / illnesses / abstract things in specific contexts.

Here, “la fiebre” refers to a specific, known fever that the father is observing (the child’s fever).

Compare:

Tiene fiebre. → He has a fever. (general, no article)
La fiebre sube. → The fever is going up. (a particular fever already in the situation)

So “la fiebre sube” is natural because we’re talking about that fever the father is watching.

What role does the comma play after “Al ver que la fiebre sube”? Could we remove it?

The comma marks the end of the introductory clause:

Al ver que la fiebre sube, mi padre se pone preocupado y llama al médico.

It separates:

The circumstantial clause of time/condition: Al ver que la fiebre sube
The main clause: mi padre se pone preocupado y llama al médico

You normally keep the comma when a sentence begins with such an introductory clause. Writing it without a comma:

✗ Al ver que la fiebre sube mi padre se pone preocupado…

is not standard punctuation and can momentarily confuse the reader.