Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Si ves el tractor cerca de la casa, no corras; aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas y casi nunca hay peligro. - If you see the tractor near the house, don’t run; here everyone respects the rules and there is hardly ever any danger.

Present indicative for real or likely situations:
- Si ves el tractor… = If you see the tractor… (it’s a realistic possibility)
Imperfect subjunctive for unreal/hypothetical situations:
- Si vieras el tractor… = If you (ever) saw the tractor… (more hypothetical)
You do not use the future after si in this kind of clause:
- ❌ Si verás el tractor… is incorrect here.
  Spanish uses the present indicative where English uses the future.

“Si veas” is also wrong, because the present subjunctive is not used after si in this type of conditional. For conditionals introduced by si, the subjunctive appears only in forms like si viera / si viese, not si vea.

Could you say “si tú ves” instead of “si ves”?

Yes, you can say “si tú ves el tractor…”, but it sounds more marked and a bit heavier.

Si ves el tractor…
– “tú” is understood from the verb ending -es (2nd person singular).
– This is the most natural option in everyday speech.
Si tú ves el tractor…
– You normally add tú only for emphasis or contrast:
- Si tú ves el tractor, avísame, no tu hermano.
  If you see the tractor, tell me, not your brother.

So the sentence as given, without tú, is the neutral, natural version.

Why is it “no corras” and not “no corres”?

Because “no corras” is a negative command (negative imperative).

In Spanish:

Affirmative tú command of correr: corre
- Corre = Run.
Negative tú command uses the present subjunctive:
- No corras = Don’t run.

“No corres” is present indicative: you don’t run / you aren’t running, a statement, not a command.

So:

No corras = Don’t run (order/advice).
No corres = You don’t run (description, wrong meaning here).

What forms would change if I spoke formally or to more than one person?

The verb forms that depend on who you’re addressing are ves and no corras. Here’s how the whole sentence would look with different “you” forms (Spain vs. Latin America):

Informal singular (tú) – original sentence
- Si ves el tractor…, no corras…
Formal singular (usted)
- Si ve el tractor cerca de la casa, no corra; aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas y casi nunca hay peligro.
Informal plural (vosotros, Spain)
- Si veis el tractor cerca de la casa, no corráis; aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas y casi nunca hay peligro.
Plural (ustedes, Latin America and formal in Spain)
- Si ven el tractor cerca de la casa, no corran; aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas y casi nunca hay peligro.

What exactly does “todo el mundo” mean here? Does it really mean “the whole world”?

Literally, todo el mundo = the whole world, but in everyday Spanish it very often means “everybody / everyone”, just like in this sentence:

Aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas.
= Here everybody respects the rules.

It’s an idiomatic expression and extremely common in this sense.
You could also say toda la gente (all the people), but todo el mundo is more frequent and very natural.

What’s the difference between “las normas” and “las reglas”?

Both can be translated as “rules”, but there are nuances:

Normas is a bit broader and often suggests regulations, codes of conduct, standards, or officially accepted ways of doing things.
Reglas are more like specific rules (e.g. rules of a game, grammar rules).

In this context:

…todo el mundo respeta las normas…
suggests safety regulations / rules of behaviour that people respect.

You could say “las reglas” and it would be understood, but “las normas” sounds slightly more institutional or general, so it fits better with safety and social behaviour.

What does “aquí” add exactly? Could we leave it out?

Aquí literally means “here”, but in this kind of sentence it has the nuance of “around here / in this place / in this area”, often including the local culture or habits.

Aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas
→ Around here, everyone respects the rules.

If you remove it:

Todo el mundo respeta las normas…
still makes sense, but you lose the contrast with other places and the “local” flavour.

So aquí is emphasizing: in this place, unlike maybe elsewhere, people behave well and it’s usually safe.

Why is the word order “el tractor cerca de la casa” and not “cerca de la casa el tractor”?

The most neutral order in Spanish is:

Si ves el tractor cerca de la casa…
→ [verb] + [direct object] + [extra information].

“Cerca de la casa el tractor” would sound awkward and unnatural in this context.

You can move cerca de la casa to the beginning if you want to emphasize the location:

Si, cerca de la casa, ves el tractor…
– possible, but sounds more formal and a bit “written style”.

The given order is the standard, natural spoken word order.

Could “casi nunca” go in another place? What’s the difference from just “nunca”?

In the sentence:

…casi nunca hay peligro.

The usual position is:

casi nunca
- verb
  (adverbial phrase before the verb).

Other positions are possible but less natural here, like “hay casi nunca peligro” (unnatural) or “aquí casi nunca hay peligro” (this one is fine and common).

Meaning:

nunca hay peligro = there is never any danger
(absolute: no danger at all, ever)
casi nunca hay peligro = there is almost never any danger
(very rare, but not impossible)

So casi softens nunca, making the statement less absolute and more realistic.

Why “hay peligro” and not “es peligroso”?

Both are correct Spanish, but they focus on slightly different things:

Hay peligro
- literally: there is danger
- emphasizes the existence or presence of danger.
Es peligroso
- literally: it is dangerous
- emphasizes the quality of something (the situation, the place, the activity).

In this context:

…casi nunca hay peligro.
= there is almost never any danger (here).

If you said:

…casi nunca es peligroso.
you’d probably be referring more to “it” = the activity, situation, or place is almost never dangerous. It would still be understandable, but hay peligro sounds a bit more concrete and standard here.

What’s the function of the semicolon (;) in “no corras; aquí todo el mundo…”? Could I just use a comma or a full stop?

The semicolon is linking two closely related ideas:

No corras (don’t run).
Aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas y casi nunca hay peligro (explanation/justification).

You could write:

No corras. Aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas…
→ more separation; each idea feels more independent.
Using just a comma:
No corras, aquí todo el mundo respeta las normas…
is quite common in informal writing, but in careful writing it can be seen as a comma splice; the semicolon is more correct.

So the semicolon nicely shows: Don’t run; after all, around here people follow the rules and it’s almost never dangerous.

Is this sentence specifically “Spanish from Spain”, or would it sound different in Latin America?

Everything in the sentence is perfectly understandable everywhere in the Spanish‑speaking world. However:

In Spain, this exact sentence is completely natural.
In many Latin American countries, it’s still fine, but you might more often hear small variations, e.g.:
- aquí la gente respeta las normas instead of todo el mundo,
- or a different closing like casi nunca pasa nada (nothing almost ever happens).

Grammatically and lexically, though, the sentence works in both Spain and Latin America; it’s just that the original is especially typical of everyday speech in Spain.