Use of the pluperfect subjunctive

[laepelba]

Okay, so my workbook is giving me some statements and examples that are confusing to me, and I am hoping to gain some clarification.

I'll start by quoting the introductory material in the book:

The pluperfect subjunctive tells what was happeneing in the past, in a noun, adverb, or relative clause. The verb in the main clause must be in a past tense: the imperfect, the preterit, the pluperfect, or the conditional perfect. Observe the following examples:

- Los meteorólogos no creyeron que hubiera nevado por tanto tiempo.
The meteorologists did not think it would have snowed for so long.

- Silvia había comprado los televisores antes de que la venta especial hubiera acabado.
Silvia bought the televisions before the special sale had ended.

- Yo habría exigido que el servicio hubiera sido incluido en la cuenta.
I would have demanded that the service be included in the bill.

Note that the action in the pluperfect subjunctive (after que) happens before the action in the main clause. Remember: if the subject of the main clause and the dependent clause are the same, the infinitive is used in the dependent clause.

My questions are as follows:
(1) I don't really understand the third example. I mean, I sort of see how the English and the Spanish are roughly equivalent. The main clause ("yo habría exigido...") makes sense to me as "I would have demanded..." But I don't see how the subjunctive clause would be "had been included" (roughly). Is that a decent translation?

(2) My main question is about the statement "Note that the action in the pluperfect subjunctive (after que) happens before the action in the main clause." I don't think that is the case in any of the three examples. In the first, about the snow, it seems to me that the meteorologists did their thinking/forecasting BEFORE the snow happened for a long time... Right? And in the second, it actually states that Silvia bought the TVs BEFORE the sale ended (that's the point of the sentence, right?) And in the third example, the demanding would have happened BEFORE the service ended up being/not being included. What am I missing? Is it important which happened first, if I look for the tense in the main clause and it's past tense, then if a perfect subjunctive is required, then it should be the pluperfect. Right?

(3) I've asked this question previously, but am still not so convinced of how it works. The final note to remember: " if the subject of the main clause and the dependent clause are the same, the infinitive is used in the dependent clause." Yet there are examples in the exercises like this: "Sus colegas reaccionaron como si hubieran visto a un extraterrestre." In that sentence, clearly "sus colegas" is the subject in both the main AND the dependent clause. Yet the pluperfect subjunctive is used, not the infinitive. Is it more about the connecting clause (here, "como si") than it is about the subjects? Argh!

Thanks, all, for any suggestions you can give me!

[Rusty]

My :
1) '... had been included' would have been a better translation, yes.
2) In the first sentence, it snowed first, then the meteorologists were in disbelief that it 'had snowed' (not 'would have snowed') so much. In the second sentence, the connector is not a simple conjunction; it is a set phrase that always takes the subjunctive. So, the ruling you cited doesn't apply. In the third sentence, the bill was already printed (remember that the correct translation should have been 'had been printed') and it was being reviewed when the action in the main clause took place.
3) The connection between the clauses is the reason. The ruling you cited is for those cases when the connector is the conjunction 'que'.

[laepelba]

Thanks, Rusty. Explanations are clear enough, and I can see what you're saying about the examples. My ability to use this in my own sentences is still in question, though...

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by laepelba

My main question is about the statement "Note that the action in the pluperfect subjunctive (after que) happens before the action in the main clause." ... In the first, about the snow, it seems to me that the meteorologists did their thinking/forecasting BEFORE the snow happened for a long time... Right?

Wrong! Well, yes, that is what they originally thought, but then it is reporting the situation after it had unexpectedly snowed. Compare the pluperfect subjunctive with the imperfect subjunctive:

- Los meteorólogos no creyeron que hubiera nevado por tanto tiempo.
The meteorologists did not think it would have snowed for so long. (But it already has done)

- Los meteorólogos no creyeron que nevera por tanto tiempo.
The meteorologists did not think it would snow for so long. (The snow has not yet happened at that point)

Am I right?

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by Perikles

- Los meteorólogos no creyeron que hubiera nevado por tanto tiempo.
The meteorologists did not think it would have snowed for so long. (But it already has done)

- Los meteorólogos no creyeron que nevera por tanto tiempo.
The meteorologists did not think it would snow for so long. (The snow has not yet happened at that point)

Am I right?

Maybe part of my problem is that, in English, I don't really see much difference (in common usage) of those two sentences. In fact, I would avoid using "would have snowed" often in favor of "would snow" to avoid the bulkiness of the wording... (sigh....) I'm getting there...........

PS, Perikles, I've been waiting for you to jump in on the discussion about finite/infinite sets in the Mathematics thread....

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Maybe part of my problem is that, in English, I don't really see much difference (in common usage) of those two sentences. In fact, I would avoid using "would have snowed" often in favor of "would snow" to avoid the bulkiness of the wording... (sigh....) I'm getting there...........

But "would snow" and "would have snowed" can have entirely different meanings, or at least "would snow" is ambiguous in that it could mean future or past, depending on the context.

Originally Posted by laepelba

PS, Perikles, I've been waiting for you to jump in on the discussion about finite/infinite sets in the Mathematics thread....

Hmm, I'm not really so confident about set theory. It occurred to me that what Irma said was not inconsistent with your statement about an infinite set. I'll have another look.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Okay, so my workbook is giving me some statements and examples that are confusing to me, and I am hoping to gain some clarification.

I'll start by quoting the introductory material in the book:



My questions are as follows:
(1) I don't really understand the third example. I mean, I sort of see how the English and the Spanish are roughly equivalent. The main clause ("yo habría exigido...") makes sense to me as "I would have demanded..." But I don't see how the subjunctive clause would be "had been included" (roughly). Is that a decent translation?

(2) My main question is about the statement "Note that the action in the pluperfect subjunctive (after que) happens before the action in the main clause." I don't think that is the case in any of the three examples. In the first, about the snow, it seems to me that the meteorologists did their thinking/forecasting BEFORE the snow happened for a long time... Right? And in the second, it actually states that Silvia bought the TVs BEFORE the sale ended (that's the point of the sentence, right?) And in the third example, the demanding would have happened BEFORE the service ended up being/not being included. What am I missing? Is it important which happened first, if I look for the tense in the main clause and it's past tense, then if a perfect subjunctive is required, then it should be the pluperfect. Right?

(3) I've asked this question previously, but am still not so convinced of how it works. The final note to remember: " if the subject of the main clause and the dependent clause are the same, the infinitive is used in the dependent clause." Yet there are examples in the exercises like this: "Sus colegas reaccionaron como si hubieran visto a un extraterrestre." In that sentence, clearly "sus colegas" is the subject in both the main AND the dependent clause. Yet the pluperfect subjunctive is used, not the infinitive. Is it more about the connecting clause (here, "como si") than it is about the subjects? Argh!

Thanks, all, for any suggestions you can give me!

Como dijo Jack el Destripador, vayamos parte por parte.

1) The example is quite artificial. Reason demands an agent to include the service, so the normal sentence would be:

Yo hubiera exigido que incluyeran el servicio en la cuenta.

(translated exactly as the book states). Replacing it by "hubieran incluido" only adds a dramatic nuance like "now you can't do anything about it" and the impersonal forms has hidden implications ("it's all your fault" or "it's difficult to you to get such things done"). Remember "yo hubiera exigido eso" and "eso" is a thing, so the simple subjunctive tense (past subjunctive) is enough, and any arabesque there is trying to add information.

2) All the examples are pretty wrong.

Sentence 1 strictly means those meteorologist being posted about the snowfall and they saying to the messenger "I don't believe you". The normal sentences are "los meteorólogos no creyeron que nevara por tanto tiempo" and "los meteorólogos no creyeron que nevaría por tanto tiempo" (they were wrong in their forecast / they were wrong in their forecast and they ignored or dismissed some hints about that snowfall would be as it really was).

Sentence 2 contains unnecessary information: "Silvia había comprado los televisores antes de que la ''''venta especial'''' terminara" is done with imperfect meaning contextual information; in this case imperfect subjunctive.

Already said about sentence 3.

Different if you say "Silvia se apresuró demasiado y ya había comprado los televisores antes de que la oferta especial hubiera comenzado". But this finally ditches the questionable theory that the action in the secondary clause happens before that one in the main clause.

3) Valid with "que" and the same person : "De nada le hubiera servido que se hubiera disculpado" = "De nada le hubiera servido (el) haberse disculpado" = "Haberse disculpado no le hubiera servido de nada"

[laepelba]

Thanks, Perikles and Alec. I know that the examples in the book are often forced and, as you say, artificial. But they have to have some kind of examples of what they're talking about. Is the *pluperfect subjunctive* something that is not used much anyway?

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Is the *pluperfect subjunctive* something that is not used much anyway?

I think this must depend on the kind of text. I admit to reading Harry Potter in Spanish as a brilliant introduction to conversations and some very interesting vocabulary. That text is littered with pluperfect subjunctives, because it's full of suppositions of the kind (book opened at random) De buena gana les hubiera dado la mitad de lo que tenía..

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by Perikles

I think this must depend on the kind of text. I admit to reading Harry Potter in Spanish as a brilliant introduction to conversations and some very interesting vocabulary. That text is littered with pluperfect subjunctives, because it's full of suppositions of the kind (book opened at random) De buena gana les hubiera dado la mitad de lo que tenía..

You're so cool, Perikles! I love that you're reading Harry Potter. In Spanish. Which book? I've got the first book in Spanish, but haven't read it yet.

How about usage in spoken Spanish? Common? Not so much?