Sequence or concordance of tenses

[echorad]

Situation:

I want to use a verb in the present tense that requires the subjunctive to make a comment about an event in the past which could be recent past (yesterday) or a long time ago (months or years).

For example:

I hope that you had a successful interview yesterday. (recent past)

I'm glad that you used my recipe at your party last summer. (long past)

Of course in these types of sentences the verb in the dependent clause has to be in the subjunctive. I was taught that when the first verb was in the present tense one had to use the present perfect subjunctive tense in the dependent clause--so:

Espero que hayas tenido una entrevista exitosa ayer. ...and

Me alegro de que hayas usado mi receta en tu fiesta el verano pasado.

However, my very educated friend in Spain (native) tells me that it should be as follows using the imperfect subjunctive:

Espero que tuvieras una entrevista exitosa ayer.

Me alegro de que usaras mi receta en tu fiesta el verano pasado.

I thought the imperfect subjunctive was only used following verbs in one of the past tenses like the imperfect or preterite (or, of course in constructions with the conditional).

So please can someone help me with this grammar point?

Then, another question I have is: would grammar rules and the sequence of tenses rules permit us to say?:

Espero que hubieras tenido una entrevista exitosa ayer. and

Me alegro de que hubieras usado mi receta en tu fiesta el verano pasado.

Gracias de antemano.

[Rusty]

You may indicate a past event in the subjunctive clause even if the tense in the main clause is not in the past. How else would you say "I'm glad (right now) that you (did something in the past)."?
Your Spanish friend is correct.

It is certainly possible to use the perfect present tense in the subjunctive clause, but make sure that the meaning of that tense is the right one for the clause. In other words, use the tense that applies to the situation.

Also, be aware that there are two schools of thought. In BrE, they are more prone to choose the perfect tense over the preterit. This seems to be the prevailing thought process in Spain, too. In AmE, the preterit would prevail. Latin American Spanish follows the same trend.

So, in a nutshell, both the perfect and the imperfect past tenses are allowed in the subjunctive clause that has an indicative present tense verb in the main clause.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

For the first case, I tend to see both structures, "espero que hayas tenido" and "espero que tuvieras", as equivalent expressions. I prefer the first one though, as I definitely think that "tuvieras" must agree with another verb in a past tense.
For using the imperfect subjunctive you could say "esperaba que tuvieras" or "hubiera esperado que tuvieras".

As for your construction "espero que hubieras tenido", it definitely sounds wrong to my ears. It needs a past tense: "esperaba que hubieras tenido" would be a better tense agreement.
Someone has just told me that your second sentence with "me alegro de que", might work somehow, because you're saying you're satisfied about something that happened in the past. Still, I don't agree completely and I think "me alegro de que hayas usado" and "me alegro de que usaras" sound way better. :)


Oh, Rusty beat me to answer, but a second opinion won't harm. ;)

[Rusty]

This same kind of question has been asked before (http://forums.tomisimo.org/archive/index.php/t-12474.html), and there were some members saying that the present indicative in the main clause and the imperfect tense in the subjunctive clause didn't sound right.

I'm certain I've heard this mix many times.
Can it be that it was always ungrammatical?

If I just now learned that someone did something in the past and I'm happy to be hearing about it now, how do you express that in Spanish?

Update: There are well over 3,000,000 hits on Google for "me alegro de que hubiera".
There is a small difference in the number of hits for "me alegro de que usaras" and "me alegro de que hayas usado".

[echorad]

Wow, I can't believe that my thread of tonight so closely matches the thread of a few days ago about the proper use of imperfect subjunctive but really we are both asking the same question; maybe a moderator could merge the two threads.

Rusty, I am aware of the Iberian Spanish preference for using the present perfect indicative instead of the preterite. But we are talking about a present tense indicative verb (which requires the subjunctive) to make a comment about some past event. My teaching has always been that you can only use the present perfect subjunctive in the dependent clause and this is supported by several natives in the previous thread, especially those from our side of the ocean.
Why is it, then, that my friend from Spain would chose NOT to use the present perfect subjunctive following a present tense verb? And you say they are correct.

Everybody agrees that imperfect subjunctive follows a PAST tense verb in the independent clause.
How can the Spaniards say it is also the correct tense to use for a present tense verb?
Moreover, how is it that we're having this discussion--is there not some grammatical reference that governs these things?

Obviously, if I say: Si yo fuera tú....then I HAVE TO follow this with a verb in the conditional.

I guess my main issue is this: how can the imperfect subjunctive be the right choice to follow a subjunctive-demanding verb in BOTH the present tense and one of the past tenses?
Thank you

[Rusty]

The other thread I linked wasn't written a few days ago. :)
I linked to it so that you could see what has already been said on the subject.

There are grammatical references for all things Spanish, just like there are for all things English. Prescriptive grammar (that which you'll find in those grammatical references) isn't always what you'll hear in conversaciones cotidianas. Indeed, there is a chance that you'll seldom hear the right grammar used by some folks.

I state again that BrE and AmE differ in usage when it comes to expressing some events that occurred in the past. Even in the last sentence I wrote, the British would tend to use the past perfect tense (have occurred) instead of the simple preterit (occurred) that an American would use.

Now, Spanish will either agree with BrE usage or it will agree with AmE usage.
There are some folks who believe that Spanish agrees with BrE. There are those who believe that Spanish agrees with AmE. I have heard both arguments and have presented both arguments. Your Spanish friend has presented his thoughts, and they disagree with the thoughts of others. What does this tell you? That there are different ideas out there about how it's supposed to be said. That different schools of thought exist. Which grammar rule is right and which is the one you're going to use?

I doubt that John has read the book.
I doubt that John read the book.

Both of these sentences are valid in English. The focus is the only difference. The former has its focus on the present, looking at the past event as a characteristic that John still possesses, while the latter focuses on the event that had an end in the past and not on John's present state.
How are these ideas expressed in Spanish? How is the focus, which is the only difference between the two sentences, expressed?

No creo que lo haya leído.
No creo que lo leyera.

You'll find supporting evidence that both of these constructions are used in Spanish, despite what grammatical references might say about their validity. In fact, you might find a reference that supports both constructions.

There is also a third possibility: No creo que lo hubiera/hubiese leído.

You'll find all of these sentences on the internet.
No creo que lo haya leído. (736,000 hits)
No creo que lo hubiera leído. (303,000 hits)
No creo que lo leyera. (253,000 hits)
No creo que lo hubiese leído. (85,900 hits)

Whether they are regional, right or wrong is up to the grammarians to debate.
I don't think the jury's out on this topic. :)

[aleCcowaN]

Update: There are well over 3,000,000 hits on Google for "me alegro de que hubiera".
There is a small difference in the number of hits for "me alegro de que usaras" and "me alegro de que hayas usado".

"me alegro de que hubiera" ---> 86 hits in Google
"me alegro de que usaras" ---> 9 hits in Google
"me alegro de que hayas usado" ---> 76 hits in Google



You'll find all of these sentences on the internet.
No creo que lo haya leído. (736,000 hits)
No creo que lo hubiera leído. (303,000 hits)
No creo que lo leyera. (253,000 hits)
No creo que lo hubiese leído. (85,900 hits)



"No creo que lo haya leído" ---> 182 hits in Google
"No creo que lo hubiera leído" ---> 44 hits in Google
"No creo que lo leyera" ---> 45 hits in Google
"No creo que lo hubiese leído" ---> 13 hits in Google

There's no point in using Google -the right or wrong way- to state frequency. For instance, the last group implies different meanings and situations that have a different frequency in daily life, and only two of them are comparable in most instances.

------------------------

The sentences in the opening post don't make total sense in Spanish as they look like forced translations. First of all, it's very difficult to match "I hope" with "espero" when what is hoped has already happened.

To illustrate that, the most natural situation in Spanish would be a letter:

"Espero que la entrevista de ayer haya sido un éxito" (I)

as "tener una entrevista" is an on-going event and what we care is about the outcome, not the interview.

"Espero que la entrevista de ayer fuera un éxito" (II)

can be "equivalent" in a context of young age or adults with a not very polished education, but they carry different nuances. (I) suggests the most sincere hope and/or an important probability for the interview to have gone wrong. (II) suggests that "ser un éxito" is the expected outcome, and the contrary would be a surprise, so, it puts a bit of a distance.

About the other sentence I would say "Me alegra que usaras mi receta el verano pasado" (III) and never, never, never "Me alegra que hayas usado mi receta el verano pasado" (IV). Why? Because (IV) suggests I may have now in the extreme of my fork a piece of the result of you using my recipe last Summer, so the wrong tenses would imply to suffer a severe case of Cervantes revenge. Of course (IV) makes sense in contexts of less precipitation, but it carries the notion that "using my recipe" has a strong importance to me now, and not that I am glad about it now.

[Rusty]

Thanks for this, Alec.

Using Google hits is not a good way to prove anything, true, but your Google hits and my Google hits do show some preponderance to use what textbooks say cannot be used. That was my point.

Knowing how to use the language is what escapes us learners when all we have are textbooks to read with rules to follow, rules that you just broke. ;) That is also my point. There is a good reason to use the language outside of the rules we've been taught. We just need to get our heads around the nuances of the meanings. There is a nuance of meanings in the English versions, too, and the meanings aren't necessarily the same in BrE and AmE.

[echorad]

Thanks to all for your thoughtful and at times humerous replies.

Rusty, regarding this comment: the British would tend to use the past perfect tense (have occurred) instead of the simple preterit (occurred) that an American would use

I would respectfully suggest that "have occurred or has occurred" is present perfect NOT past perfect which would be "had occurred".

Alec's points are really well taken and drive to the heart of communication between two people--what are the nuances intended, what is the state of mind of the speaker, what are the sub-texts of the spoken phrase. Taking any sentence out of context (especially when the subjunctive mood is involved) to talk about a grammar point is risky.

I'm actually delighted to learn that some peninsular Spanish speakers use the present perfect subjunctive and the imperfect subjunctive following a present tense statement about the past to distinguish recent past events (say yesterday) from more remote past events (say a year or a lifetime ago). But then what if the long ago event has some continuing connection or meaning for the present--could you then give to the listener that clue that you think the past event has some current relevance but changing to the present perfect subjunctive to talk about even a long ago event.

Ah, maybe we're just talking about angels on the proverbial pinhead.

Alec, rest assured there is no moldering whatever on the end of the fork--rermember I said "I'm glad you used my recipe at your party last summer."

BTW, you constructed your sentences (in Spanish) about the recipe such that they emphasize the use of the recipe rather than my original one where I focussed on me being or feeling glad or happy.

Mine: I'm glad that you used my recipe at your party last summer.
Me alegro de que....

Yours: Me alegra que...
That you used my recipe last summer at your party makes me glad.

That of course is a perfectly acceptable thing to say in English or Spanish but the emphasis is different from my original example.

Again, thanks

[Rusty]

Oops! Yes, past perfect 'had occurred' instead of present perfect 'have occurred' was a typo. Sorry about the confusion!