You've stated this:
Quote:
|
we can only use indicative with things that are happening (no matter when) or things that do exist, at least in an abstract level...
|
And I have stated this
Quote:
|
But I'm the one reporting it and to me it's a fact. Ergo use indicative.
|
To be honest, I think that yours actually needs some modification because I could say, for example:
"Creo que dos más dos es igual a cinco". Grammatically this is correct, but even invoking the caveat "at an abstract level" does not help us understand
why the indicative is being used. After all, math is
by nature abstract, and in that abstract realm we can clearly see it is wrong and by many definitions non-existent, so we should be rejecting the indicative by your criteria. Shouldn't we? This is why I'm careful to stress that the reality (nature as fact) is in the mind of the narrator or writer.
That quibble aside, I've never seen a case where the subjunctive
didn't involve a hypothetical or subjective aspect. I'm unclear why this fact is being written off as "CliffNotes" Indeed, looking at most explanations on this thread, aside from requiring two separate subjects, the most common one seems to be that there is such an aspect. If I say "the sky is red" that, to me, is a fact. When I start speculating whether it is necessary, good, bad, etc. those speculations aren't facts. Even the famous example of the dead/living brother shows that the clause that reveals he, in fact, killed his brother is precisely the speculative(subjunctive) one by focusing the certainty onto the first clause.