Pluscuamperfecto vs. el pretérito anterior

[laepelba]

Another nit-picky grammar question for this morning. Thanks (again) for bearing with me!

I am reading that the "preterit perfect" tense is not widely used. That it is mostly limited to a formal or literary style but not really in every day communication.

Keeping that fact in mind, I still have a question about this construction. Please explain to me the difference in meaning between the pluscuamperfect and the preterit perfect.

Here are some examples:
- En cuanto había empezado la película, Ángela se sentó. (pluscuamperfecto)
- En cuanto hubo empezado la película, Ángela se sentó. (pretérito anterior)

To me, it seems that both of these sentences mean: "As soon as the movie had started, Angela sat down."

How does the difference of "había" vs. "hubo" change the sentence? Or does it? Hmmmm......

[Perikles]

Have a look at Onoma and tick all the verb forms to be displayed:

pretérito perfecto compuesto

• he empezado

pretérito anterior

• hube empezado

condicional perfecto

• habría empezado

pretérito pluscoamperfecto

• había empezado

I'll stick my neck out here, and say that the two forms, pretérito pluscoamperfecto and pretérito anterior have the same translation in English, simply because the auxiliary verb haber is preterite in one and imperfect in the other, both translated as had in English.

The difference is possible in Spanish simply because the auxiliary verb has two forms which are identical in English.

[laepelba]

Okay, FIRST, I LOVE that website!! And do I understand correctly that they pull their conjugations from RAE and Molina, so they are rather accurate?? Wonderful!!!

Second, I am following everything you're saying here ... and that the translation in both cases goes to "had" in English...

But what is the difference in the SENSE in Spanish. Why would an author choose to say "había empezado" one time and "hubo empezado" another time?

[Perikles]

Escrito originalmente por laepelba

But what is the difference in the SENSE in Spanish. Why would an author choose to say "había empezado" one time and "hubo empezado" another time?

My grammar book says there is no expressable difference in sense, other than that difference generate by a different register. The past anterior with hubo etc. is not used in speech, it belongs to a formal written register.

I think you have to get used to the idea that there are nuances in any language which you can't translate into others, and I think this is one of them. Please somebody correct me there if I'm wrong.

[irmamar]

Quite difficult question, even more difficult to explain it in English... , but I'll try.

Pretérito anterior is used to give an idea of immediateness ( inmediatez), something very close in time:

En cuanto hubo empezado la película: almost just at the moment it started, just a few seconds later.

However your first sentence (en cuanto había...) makes no sense for me (although Spanish speaking world is large and what I said doesn't mean that it is not used somewhere), I wouldn't use pluscuamperfecto with this sentence, I would have said:

Se sentó cuando ya había empezado la película (this sentence doesn't have the sense of immediateness that p. anterior has).

Bear in mind that p. anterior is not widely used, you may find it in written texts, but it's difficult to find it in spoken sentences. People is used to say the same with another words and another tenses:

Nada más empezar la película, se sentó.
En cuanto empezó la película, se sentó.
No se sentó hasta que empezó la película.

I hope it helps.

[laepelba]

Thanks, Perikles & Irmamar - yes that is helpful. I know that not everything can be translated ... that's why I wanted to see if the *sense* could be explained to me. And I DO understand what you've said.

The sentence I gave as an example was the one used in the workbook, and I thought it was a bit strange myself with the "en cuanto" part...

Anyway - this is all very helpful. Thank you all!!

[irmamar]

You're welcome.

Perikles, there is a what I would define as a "barbaridad gramatical" in your link. When you look for a pronominal verb, you can see that both infinitivo and gerundio are conjugated . But they are formas no personales, ¡no pueden conjugarse!

[Perikles]

Escrito originalmente por irmamar

You're welcome.

Perikles, there is a what I would define as a "barbaridad gramatical" in your link. When you look for a pronominal verb, you can see that both infinitivo and gerundio are conjugated . But they are formas no personales, ¡no pueden conjugarse!

I suppose it depends on your definition again. True, the infinitive does not conjugate, but the word it forms does:

infinitivo

• poderme
• poderte
• poderse
• podernos
• poderos
• poderse

OK - you are quite correct, but if you tick the box and force it to give pronomial forms, even though they don't exist, I can see why they do it.

[laepelba]

I would have to say that, even though they ought not be called "conjugations" for the infinitivo and gerundio, it helps to see those forms spelled out with the accents....

[irmamar]

But you must be very careful with that, since they say:

yo poderme
tú poderte
etc.

as if yo were only able to be used with poderme, tú with poderte, etc., which can be missguiding, since:

Yo quisiera poderme contentar con lo que tengo - Tú quisieras poderme liberar - A él le gustaría poderme ayudar - etc.

Yo desearía poderte librar de tus ataduras - Tú deseas poderte vestir solo - Él quisiera poderte ayudar - etc.
etc.

By the way, I.O. pronoun, known as enclítico.