Pluscuamperfecto vs. el pretérito anterior - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perikles (Post 90430)

Yes, but Irma, this is only conjugated like that for pronomial verbs, and when used pronomially, then they are only ever yo ... me; tu ...te and so on. Is that correct? :)

You might even be interested to know that in comes from the Greek en- onto and klinein to lean, because it leans backwards onto the previous word. :):)

Right. :thumbsup: :)

Here also clítico and proclítico, of course. And you can use them as a noun: "Un clítico es una partícula átona...". :)

Forgive me because I still don't get it. With regards to the difference between preterito anterior and pluscuamperfecto. The difinitions and examples given for each are similar on the sites that I have visited. Can this two be used interchangeably?

There is almost no difference between them, although I wouldn't say that they can be used interchangeably. Both of them express something happened before another action also happened. However, the pretérito anterior shows that the first action is done just before the second, there is an idea of immediacy that the pretérito pluscuamperfecto doesn't have.

Remember that pretérito anterior is usually preceded by a temporal adverb, such as "apenas", "tan pronto", "en cuanto", "así que", "cuando", "no bien", among others:

En cuanto hubo terminado de comer, se fue a trabajar.
Tan pronto hubo hecho los deberes, llamó a su amigo.
Así que hubo limpiado el piso, se tumbó en el sofá.

You can't use pretérito pluscuamperfecto in these sentences, but you could use pretérito perfecto simple (also called indefinido) instead:

En cuanto terminó de comer, se fue a trabajar.
Tan pronto hizo los deberes, llamó a su amigo.
Así que limpió el piso, se tumbó en el sofá.

Pretérito anterior is scarcely used, these kind of sentences are commonly used with p. perfecto simple. Remember that the idea that exists in that sort of sentences is that something has happened (or has been done) just before the second action: hizo los deberes (e inmediatamente) llamó a su amigo.

The pretérito pluscuamperfecto is used also in sentences where something happened after another action, but here there is not the sense of immediacy:

Cuando llegué a casa, Juan ya se había ido.
Ya había terminado el programa cuando encendí la tele.

Look the difference between:

Cuando llegué a casa, Juan ya se había ido (it doesn't matter when Juan had left: 5 minutes, 1 hour, ...).
Tan pronto Juan se hubo marchado, yo llegué a casa. (just immediately after Juan had left, I arrived at home) = Tan pronto Juan se marchó, yo llegué a casa.

I hope it helps. And remember that pretérito anterior is scarcely used. :)

Irmamar, thank you, your explanations and examples really help. :)

I'm glad I can help. You're welcome. :)

Apenas hay diferencia de significado, Vita32, aunque el uso del pluscuamperfecto es este caso suena raro, y hasta agramatical. Al referirse a un momento puntual (el inicio de la película), más que a un proceso de mayor duración, dentro del cual pasan cosas, el uso del pretérito anterior es, sin ninguna duda, más adecuado.
Es cierto, como se ha dicho ya en este foro, que el pretérito anterior está cayendo en cierto olvido (como también, por ejemplo, el futuro de subjuntivo, relegado casi exclusivamente al ámbito jurídico).
A efectos de traducción, ambos ejemplos pueden traducirse de la misma forma.
Furthermore: if you were to drop the "had", the translation would still be correct ("As soon as the movie started, Angela sat down.")

Nota: Advierto al distinguido público que mi español es "peninsular", o sea, de España. Lo digo porque tú pedías específicamente opiniones del ámbito americano, así que... ¡perdón por haberme inmiscuido! :) (Y perdón por los posibles errores ortotipográficos, pero estoy escribiendo desde un diabólico y minúsculo teléfono móvil, de teclado liliputiense).

Luis

Quote:

Originally Posted by irmamar (Post 90399)

Quite difficult question, even more difficult to explain it in English... :thinking: , 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. :)

Did you mean 'en cuando' instead of 'en cuanto'? If not, I do not see why the word 'cuanto' should be used or what it means in this context, even if it is just an expression. Could you enlighten me? I'm still acquiring the Spanish grammar on a more basic level...

Irmamar meant 'en cuanto'. The original poster also used the same set phrase.

There was never a question about this expression meaning 'as soon as'.
Expressions or set phrases can rarely be understood by looking at the words individually.