Podría ser que / podría ser mejor si

[dupond]

What does it mean when "podría ser que" is used with the indicative?

I've been looking at examples of the phrase here: http://context.reverso.net/translati...podria+ser+que

Most of the examples use the subjunctive, which makes sense since "podría ser que" seems to be a phrase of doubt. However, the indicative is used in "Podría ser que está preocupado por usted," and "Podría ser que hemos localizado la obstrucción a tiempo." How does this change the meaning from when the subjunctive is used?

Also, I've been looking at examples of the use of "podría ser mejor si" here: http://context.reverso.net/translati...a+ser+mejor+si

This phrase is followed by either the indicative or the imperfect subjunctive, which makes sense because of the presence of "si".

Would it be correct to say that when using "podría ser mejor si," si + the imperfect subjunctive is not posing a counterfactual?

"De todos modos, podría ser mejor si no montaras aquí hoy," is translated as
"All the same, it might be best if you didn't saddle up here today."

If I wanted to say, "It would have been better had you not saddled up," would the translation be "Podria haber sido mejo si no montaras"?

If that's the case, is it fair to say there's very little difference between using the indicative and subjunctive after "podría ser mejor si"? That is, the indicative would say, "It might be better if you don't saddle up," whereas the subjunctive would say, "It might be better if you didn't saddle up"?


Thanks

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Podría ser que + past subjunctive => Hypothesis of something that happened in the past.

- Podría ser que Juan estuviera planeando una maldad.
It could be that Juan was planning to do something wrong.
- Podría ser que los niños tuvieran hambre.
It could be that the children were hungry.
- Podría ser que el teléfono estuviera descompuesto.
It could be that the phone was broken.


Podría ser que + present indicative => Guessing that something will happen in the future (or present, depending on the context).
- Podría ser que Juan esté planeando una maldad.
It could be that Juan is planning to do something wrong.
- Podría ser que los niños tengan hambre.
It could be that children are hungry.
- Podría ser que el teléfono esté descompuesto.
It could be that the phone is broken.


Since there is not much context of those examples with "podría ser mejor si", some sound strange, but mostly, the difference between the usage of past subjunctive and present indicative, is in how possible the speaker believes things will improve if something happens; the present indicative is for situations more likely to happen than the past subjunctive. And sometimes, it just feels more polite to use the past subjunctive, like in your saddling example than using the present indicative.

- Podría ser mejor si no montas aquí. -> This could be felt slightly rude, so the speaker prefers a more polite "si no montaras".
- Podría ser mejor si regresara otro día. -> I might come back, but it's not likely. Yet if I say "si regreso otro día", I will come back and try being more opportune.
- Podría ser mejor si vienen a vivir con nosotros. -> More like an invitation, as it is with "si vinieran", it feels rather like an imposition.

[dupond]

Would the difference between podría ser que + present indicative and podría ser que + present subjunctive be the degree of certainty you have in the guess? I.e. Podría ser que los niños tienen hambre expresses more confidence in the guess than podría ser que los niños tengan hambre.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

More or less, yes. In the case of the indicative, something in the behavior of the children makes me think they're hungry; and, in the case of the present subjunctive, I'm only guessing --maybe because it's late and they haven't eaten yet...

[dupond]

Thanks. It's all making sense now.