Quote:
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN
IAll the "antes de que" phrases have a logical structure like this time line:
|---- se encontraron ---|) xxxxxx (----aparecieron los demás ---->
so both actions exclude each other, then no reality can have both happening at the same time. The focus is in "se encontraron", so the other action -just a reference (adverbial clause)- is shown muffled. If the focus was in the latter action, the phrase has to be:
Elizabeth y Collin ya se habían encontrado unos minutos antes, cuando aparecieron los demás
(se habían encontrado | ------------------------------------>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (---- aparecieron los demás --->
|
I accept your logical explanation, it makes complete sense, thank you.
In my previous post, I said native grammarians can justify their own use of the subjunctive and make it sound totally logical. Here is a good example. You see, the justification of the subjunctive is based on
focus, with one verb being muffled, hence subjunctive. But analysis of the sentence is the same in all languages:
(main clause)
Elizabeth and Mr Collins met for breakfast
(subordinate clause: adverbial clause of time)
before the others appeared
It is obvious that the focus is on the main clause: the sentence structure with the subordinate conjunction 'antes de que'
demands this,
thus the subjunctive mood is redundant. It adds colour, but in English and German etc. the indicative is used because the conjunction provides the focus.
My point is that the rational explanation is stretched to incorporate a grammatical point, when really it is just a convention. In this case, the 'antes de que' justifiably takes a subjunctive for a possible future action, but the extension to past and completed actions is a convention, and actually unjustifiable.
Just my opinion.
