Dijera haberlo visto

Dijera haberlo visto
 

As far as I can tell, in this sentence "dijera" is best translated as "said" or "had said"; that is, as a pluperfect indicative in place of "dijo" or "había dicho".

In fact, the original meaning of the -ra form in Latin and in older Spanish was pluperfect indicative; over the last several centuries it has been losing ground as pluperfect indicative to "había dicho" and gaining ground as an alternate imperfect/past subjunctive alongside -se. Journalism is one of the few areas where the older pluperfect indicative usage still gets used regularly.

How informative!
I was wondering why it was subjunctive.
So, you would argue that, in this case, "dijera" is NOT past subjunctive even though it appears so?


Thank you!

:)

Personally, I always think of "dijera" as past subjunctive with occasional non-subjunctive uses.

I also do not recommend ever using it that way yourself, unless you happen to take work as a journalist writing in Spanish and you need to conform to the norms of the field. I think that using "dijera" as in your original sentence outside of journalistic writing would be perceived as a little odd, especially out the mouth or pen of a non-native speaker.

"Waterhouse fue acusado después de que un camarero dijera haberlo visto salir de un bar..." is equal to "dijo haberlo visto", but not; it's equal to "había dicho haberlo visto", but not; and it's equal to "hubo dicho que lo vio", but almost not.

"Dijera haberlo visto" is as subjunctive as "es seguro que lo vea mañana" as it is intended to convey information and nuances that exceeds the mere informative role of a Spanish indicative in its place.

To keep it short, that subjunctive means either (in some countries) the reader knows "un camarero dijo haberlo visto salir de un bar" because, for instance, it was informed in yesterday's edition of the newspaper, so subjunctive tells it's not new information. Or it means (in most countries) it's a cause but not the full cause, meaning "el testimonio del camarero" wasn't the cause of the indictment but just the thing that "nailed" Waterhouse. There was a lot of evidence and such testimonio was just the last link in a chain.

That use of imperfect subjunctive to avoid excessive hints of causation or linear relation is common in fine literature and written press and I consider it to be a simple yet exquisite use of language. Instances I remember having discussed in web forums:

"El recuerdo más personal proviene de don Blas Vanegas, el hijo de Antonio Vanegas Arroyo, quien fuera empleador de Posada durante muchos años." (Mexican author, meaning the father -Antonio- was the employer and not his interviewed son Blas)

"En esa casa que fuera el primer prostíbulo de la zona y donde su marido tiene ahora su estudio de abogado, Isabel Allende tiene su oficina." (Argentine author, meant to avoid any connection between the building's past and the people living there nowadays)

There's also another powerful reason for that instance of subjunctive: to highlight the indictment and avoid to put the spotlight on a facts of a lesser importance (el camarero viéndolo abandonar un bar).

Whatever it is, don't get misguided by people telling you that this "después de que lo viera" is just a mistake modelled on "antes de que lo viera", because they are simply blind to the features I mentioned above.

That is all quite interesting.

So, in the first example if you change fuera to era, does it become ambiguous as to who was employed by Posada?

And in the second example, if you change fuera to era, one might think that the current owners owned the brothel as well?

Thanks so much.

:)

If you change fuera to fue (with era it sounds confusing), the employer is Blas. In that text both phrases ("el hijo de Antonio Vanegas Arroyo" and "quien fue/fuera empleador de posada") are "adjectives". Well, imperfect subjunctive makes the second adjective subordinated to the subject of the first one.

By changing fuera to fue, the adjectival phrase "que fuera el primer prostíbulo de la zona" becomes very lively and -without losing its adjectival value- it jumps just under the spotlight, which was not probably the intention of the author who only seems to cite it as background information.