Use of the pluperfect subjunctive - Page 2

Sirius had hoped ¿the? if ... :confused:

Maybe:

Sirius se había esperanzado con que si éste regresaba a la cocina, él podría haber cerrado la puerta detrás de él y luego haberse sentado a la mesa como antes.

I need more context :thinking:

Harry Popote ¡ayúdanos con tu magia!

Now that's interesting. I have always had a problem with the meaning of esperar: hope/expect/wait ???

Sirius esperó a que éste hubiera regresado a la cocina, hubiera cerrado la puerta tras él y se hubiera sentado de neuvo a la mesa, y entonces habló....

Sirius waited until he had returned into the kitchen, had closed the door behind him, and had sat down again at the table, and then he spoke....

Why was the subjunctive used if in this case esperar means wait? Sometimes Spanish confuses me. The sentence seems fuzzier than it needs to be.

So the sentence IS "Sirius had hoped the if ... " :thinking:

Oh! Duh! It was a translation from Spanish to English.

OK - this thread is about the use of pluperfect subjunctive and the question was raised whether it was used often. In reply, I gave an example of one sentence I have just read with three such verbs in it. In Spanish :rolleyes:. As to why these are subjunctives when esperar clearly means to wait in this context, I'll leave that to @aleCcowaN. :D

¡Gracias, Perikles!

That example is a bit abusive of pluperfect. We have options:

1) Sirius esperó a que éste hubiera regresado a la cocina, cerrado la puerta tras él y se hubiera sentado de nuevo a la mesa, y entonces habló....

2) Sirius esperó a que éste regresara a la cocina, cerrara la puerta tras él y se sentara de nuevo a la mesa, y entonces habló....

3) Sirius esperó hasta que éste regresó a la cocina, cerró la puerta tras él y se sentó de nuevo a la mesa, y entonces habló....

1) and 3) are 'perfect' tenses, that is, it's important to state the actions as completed at the time of other action (Sirius speech)
1) and 2) use subjunctive, so that actions are referred as "things" -un regreso, un cierre y la asunción de la posición de sentado-. It looks like a checking list, and some way it is.
1) have both qualities but is a bit 'heavy' -you don't need three pluperfects in a row to state clearly you expect those actions to be completed; it's overkilling-.

A better option may be combining 1) and 2)

Sirius esperó a que éste hubiera regresado a la cocina, cerrara la puerta tras él y se sentara de nuevo a la mesa, y entonces habló....

¡Gracias, y regresamos al estudio central! ¡Adelante ustedes!

Pues sí que vas a aprender bien con este libro, sí... :rolleyes:

Hubiera cerrado la puerta detrás de él. :good:
Hubiera cerrado la puerta tras de sí. :good:
Hubiera cerrado la puerta tras él. :bad:
Hubiera corrido/andado/ tras él. :good:

Verbos de movimiento tras X. :good: Otros verbos: "tras de + dativo" o "detrás de".

And this is a tense commonly used. We use it when talking about the past to say something that happened, but before the action we are referring. This tense is used in other occasions:

a) Talking about the past when something happened before the action:

Esperó a que hubiera regresado antes de hablar con él.

b) Hypothetical actions:

Ojalá hubiera estudiado más.

c) A past action which was not known:

No sabía que hubiera venido Pepe.

d) "Impossible" conditional sentences:

Si hubiera estudiado más, habría aprobado.

e) Instead of conditional compound (habría(+desinencias) + participio:

Si hubiera sabido que el examen iba a ser tan difícil, hubiese estudiado más (= habría estudiado más).

f) To give advice (past action):

En tu lugar, no lo hubiese dicho.

g) To express a wish (past and "impossible"):

Me hubiera gustado ir a verte, pero estaba de viaje.

In short, a very common tense in normal speech, which even is displacing (desplazando :?:) conditional compound tense in conditional sentences. :twocents:

Yes, in context this is exactly what it is.

Your list a - g is very useful. To me, the subjunctive is entirely logical in b - g, but not a, which is the use in the above sentences.

I would never challenge your use of Spanish :crazy::crazy: :D, but this is what the Gran diccionario Oxford says:

B (detrás de) behind; la puerta se cerró tras él the door closed behind him; la policía anda tras él the police are looking for him o are after him; todos van or están tras la recompensa they are all after the reward

la puerta se cerró is surely not a verb of movement :thinking:

Thanks both! :thumbsup:

I have thought of "tras de él" but it sounded 'bad', because 'closing the door' is an integral part of the movement. Let's the Nobel Prize awarded and RAE member to tell us:

[emphasis added]
[Fiesta del Chivo con mayúsculas, porque así es el nombre del libro, porque así se llama la fiesta]
But the preposition "de" is added when another person or force closes the door, or the door is showed as closing by a symbolic force (fate, contempt, etc.):

"Ella cerró la puerta tras de él, ..."
"Buenas noches -dijo y se esfumó cerrándose la puerta tras de él."



Se fue antes de que volviera.

you certainly found this subjunctive natural ("Se fue antes de que volvió":bad: has two actions occurring simultaneously or independently, but not coordinately. Besides, one action is used as a milestone or hourglass)

Éste se había ido antes de que Juana hubiera vuelto, violando lo acordado.

(same)

You don't have to keep the wording to use the same structure. It suffices you have two actions and you want to coordinate both using one action as a meter for the other one:

Esperó a que hubiera regresado para hablar con él.

When pluperfect is used, it is not only a meter but sort of a prerequisite.

Yes, I can understand the situation which requires the subjunctive, but still struggle with why Spanish has developed to use the subjunctive in this way. (I don't know if there is a Latin equivalent :thinking:)

I have just read this:

Saber que X había estado en aquella casa la víspera de su vista y no había ido a verlo hizo que se sintiera aún peor, si eso era posible.

Here is a good example of the way a Spanish subjunctive works (assuming the translation into Spanish is correct :thinking:). sintiera expresses a certainty, but era expresses a hypothetical case. In e.g. German, you would have the first verb as indicative and the second as subjunctive, and this makes sense to me. Spanish has them the other way round, following different rules.

Although I must come back to this forum later, it looks to me that you still don't feel the need to render hierarchically two verbs entwined in the same phrase, something that comes natural to native speakers and have deep connexion with imperfect aspect.

"hizo que se sintiera aún peor"

is a very natural structure.

The problem I've found is English speakers relying in some characterizations when they start to learn Spanish subjunctive, for instance, that it is related to probability, and later paying heavy tributes to that wrong way to understand it, so, about sentences with the structure:

"He remarked a remarkable action"

they often ask "why green is subjunctive?" that is, why a remarkable action is not a verb, being it remarkable and having it caught my attention. And the answer is always "orange is the acting verb, green is a thing".

"hizo que se sintiera aún peor"

This is hardly surprising, because that is how the subjunctive works in English, and to a large extent, other languages. Spanish seems out on a limb here. For example, something else I have just this minute read, relating to an improbable testimony from a witness in a trial:

No sé por qué iba a decir que estaban allí si no estaban

Which in English would be something like

I don't know why she would have said they were there if they weren't.

In English, a conditional and (I think) a subjunctive, but in Spanish, all indicative.

Please translate that phrase to English, and I'll try to help you.

That translates to:

I don't know I/he she was going to say (that) they were there, if they weren't

Does that help?

Conditional was once regarded as an independent mood but in Spanish is nowadays regarded as a part of the indicative mood.

It's interesting to analyze together imperfect aspect in indicative and subjunctive mood in the past.

Subjunctive means in the deepest symbolic level 'not doing', 'don't do' and 'not done', so it's a harbinger of "no action at the time of speaking" including the time within a story.

In the sentence "no sé por qué iba a decir A si no era cierto" the imperfect aspect reaches the present and shows the action as not completed or not performed, so it's denying the action or some component of the action. This resembles how subjunctive works so it's easily accepted. You'll find examples where imperfect is used because it keeps the nuance in a perífrasis verbal and it's better than conditional to state the timing and the motivations behind an action.

Again, that "si eso era posible" marks the boundaries of uncharted territories, but here indicative means 'doing', 'do' or 'done'. Look at it as a 'do' or 'does' before a verb to give it emphasis. Here imperfect livens up an unlikeliness which was symbolically meant by subjunctive.

Thanks, but I understand what is going on, even if the rule is (to me) not logical
Not really, because it can't mean that in context. It can only mean I don't know why she would say that they were there if they weren't.

This is destroying the concept of mood. I don't see how a conditional could be an indicative without completely redefining indicative. If this is specific only to Spanish, then it muddies the water for the student because as far as I know, this could not be said for other Indo-European languages.

OK, I think.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. "si eso era posible" is a conjecture, an impossible hypothesis: (if that were possible, but it isn't). I'm not saying you are wrong about how Spanish subjunctive works, only that if you explain it like that to a foreign students (e.g. me) I would be very surprised if it made sense to any of them. :)

It means that, roughly. "Por qué iba a decir eso" additionally calls for some kind of additional information, clarification, explanation or recantation, not necessarily from the person "que pudiera haber dicho eso".
I was as surprised as you when I knew, but somehow indicative and subjunctive are the only contenders, with the tiny island of imperative.
Let me think if I can rephrase it. :thinking:

not forgetting interrogative and optative, if applicable. :)

I forgot to say I was speaking strictly of Spanish.

I miss calling conditional "modo potencial". :(

Sorry I got away from this discussion (after starting it)... My past two weeks have been severely hectic. :( Anyway, now that I have taken the time to sit down and read most of the posts thoroughly, I realize that the discussion got a bit beyond my ability to understand/follow.... I'll have to revisit later, when I'm a little farther down the subjunctive road.... THANK YOU to all of you for your attempts to help me!